Should we Work with Anarcho-Capitalists?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Would abolition to the state automatically see the destruction of capitalism along with it? Can we truly work with this political tendency to see the creation of our own hypothetical society?

EDIT: My original question was not so much whether anarcho-capitalism was a contradiction-in-terms or whether we have similar interests (as they are vastly different). My question was whether the state is necessary to enforce capitalism. Thus by working with anarcho-capitalists (though I have since come to realise they have little involvement outside the realms of the internet), perhaps it is possible to abolish state and result in our society. I have since come to realise with the example of Somalia however that this is not the case. Privatised firms would result in mafia-esque organisations which would enforce capitalism.

Thus to conclude my post, though not necessarily the thread it is now my opinion that there is no way a true anarchist can ever work with any form of right-winger whatsoever.

[Adil3tr]

No, but I think we can bring them over to our side. Also, isn't it central to them that people shouldn't be guaranteed anything? While it is the most central to us?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Also, isn't it central to them that people shouldn't be guaranteed anything? While it is the most central to us?

My point was that if we worked with them to destroy the state would it necessarily result in our society rather than their's. Thus people would be guaranteed with provisions (provided they work).

[Obs]

No.

[Pretty Flaco]

I don't think that with the fall of states, capitalism would necessarily fall with it.
In fact: it could be a capitalist wet dream. Any sort of regulatory opposition would be gone.

[Unkut]

I don't think they do any actual work towards their aims anyway

[PoliticalNightmare]

In fact: it could be a capitalist wet dream. Any sort of regulatory opposition would be gone.

Perhaps, but some (including those amongst the right wing) would argue that the state is necessary perhaps to enforce property rights of capitalists for example.

[Pretty Flaco]

Perhaps, but some (including those amongst the right wing) would argue that the state is necessary perhaps to enforce property rights of capitalists for example.
They'd probably be propelled to using mercenaries for protection as a police force of sorts. I imagine a mafia-esque approach being used by capitalists in this situation. But I can't say any way for sure that it would turn out that way.

[Crux]

Would abolition to the state automatically see the destruction of capitalism along with it? Can we truly work with this political tendency to see the creation of our own hypothetical society?
Who's we?
And no, they are meaningless at best, direct enemies at worst, if they were ever to gain any influence.

[Magón]

LOL "Anarcho-Capitalists" LOL The Right-Wing will do whatever's necessary to try and bring Anarchism to their side of things. LMFAO Seriously, Anarcho-Capitalism is a sick, twisted, and retarded Capitalist system that tries to do something, but isn't got at it at all. They're a joke, nothing more.

Real Anarchists, could never work with someone claiming to be Anarcho-Capitalists, the two ideologies are so far on the Left and Right, it's impossibly to span and bring them together under any reasonable way.

[HEAD ICE]

As already mentioned, anarcho-capitalists are restricted totally to the internet. What are we gonna do bring a computer monitor to an anti-war march?

Second, almost anything that is barely in common between us and them is only apple skin deep. Anarcho-capitalists have no understanding of what imperialism is beyond Risk (which they play online, never the board game), so we have no common ground in opposition to war. Ancaps oppose the state because it obstructs their abilities of creating their own states. The closest I've seen an ancap having a class analysis is them saying that society is divided between "those who produce and those who leech" which is pretty obvious what context they mean that in.

We have no common ground with them, their politics are openly reactionary, though none of this matters because anarcho-capitalism is nothing but an internet fad that is peaking.

[Antifa94]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

but we can convert them.

[Widerstand]

Should we work with Objectivists and the Tea Party?

[Tatarin]

They would most likely convert themselves in the future. It's as crazy idea as that of primitivism, or okay - a philosophical debate at best - but reality is just quite different. The first order of problems is probably the easiest: in such a society, who would set laws? Who will have the authority to enforce them?

[Crux]

They would most likely convert themselves in the future.

...back to regular conservatism or "libertarianism".

[Adil3tr]

My point was that if we worked with them to destroy the state would it necessarily result in our society rather than their's. Thus people would be guaranteed with provisions (provided they work).

This is a really bad idea.

:marx:
(Not Happy)

[Jazzhands]

If you want to know what an ancap society looks like, look at Somalia. The minute there's a food shortage, the entire society breaks down because everyone is trying to hoard it to avoid skyrocketing prices for less service.

they say that the evils of corporations are created by the state and not the people in charge of the damn company. needless to say, this is bullshit. But if this were true,what is their plan for un-creating these evils once the state is gone? they won't give up what they already have. Their private security force that replaces cops and firemen obviously will give way to a mafia-like protection racket. Firemen for instance. There are laws in the US that prevent me from taking out an insurance policy on your house, because I would have a vested interest in your house burning down. Firemen would presumably paid according to an insurance-like plan by being paid a periodic fee, or they are just paid to put out fires on an individual rate. In the first case the rates would go up if your house burns down, giving the fire protection industry an incentive to not do its job. The second is where it becomes a protection racket. A few corrupt employees-probably in the high ranks of the company since that's where the majority of potential profits would go-would start fires specifically so they can cash in. You haven't had a fire yet? Don't worry. You will.

And that is an offer you can't refuse.:cool:

[Crux]

Anarcho-capitalists will never destroy the state in alliance with anyone or otherwise. It's just a largely american internet phenomenon.

[Sir Comradical]

Anarcho-Capitalists belongs in labour-camps, not our ideological-camps.

[noble brown]

one of the fundamental ideals of the anarchist or communist is economic and social egalitarianism. capitalism is intrinsically oppposed to this ideal. under these definitions anarcho-capitalism is really a oxymoron. there is no guaruntee to life in the capitalist framework. ancap is not relugated strictly to the internet as some have implied. the roots can be traced atleast back to the neoclassical Austrian skool of economics w Ludwig von Mises. murray rothbard the ancaps most oft cited proponent favored turning everything over to the private corperations. this is free market illusions taken to the extreme. no state regulatory body. but also no state to protect the property rights which is fundamental to the reason the state was implemented in the first place. which brings me to the point previously brought up. abolition of the state would most likely result in the abolition of capitalism since it requires that property rights be protected and upheld.
still dont think we can collude w/ them though because their means and ends are fundamentally opposed to ours. they are more in line with fascism even though its not readily apparent. just follow it logically through and you'll see where it ends up.

[Adil3tr]

Anarcho-Capitalists belongs in our labor-camps, not our ideological-camps.

Okay, what the hell. You need to stop.

[Sir Comradical]

Okay, what the hell. You need to stop.

Relax. I'm just kidding.

[Tablo]

Relax. I'm just kidding.
It was funny. :laugh:

But seriously, fuck ancaps. They are a bunch of utopian capitalists(lol) lacking in a basic understanding of capitalist economics. Throw a copy of das kapital at them and if they are smart enough to read it they will be screaming fuck capitalism.

[Sir Comradical]

It was funny. :laugh:

But seriously, fuck ancaps. They are a bunch of utopian capitalists(lol) lacking in a basic understanding of capitalist economics. Throw a copy of das kapital at them and if they are smart enough to read it they will be screaming fuck capitalism.

You'll be amazed how all the people at university who deride Marx have never actually read anything by him. This one idiot thought Capital was all about socialism even though the title clearly says 'Capital'.

I discussed the ancap issue with mr1001nights (anarchist on youtube who makes docos) and we came to the conclusion that socialism is about freedom from tyranny, whilst the ancaps are in favour of freedom for tyranny - that's the difference.

[Tablo]

You'll be amazed how all the people at university who deride Marx have never actually read anything by him. This one idiot thought Capital was all about socialism even though the title clearly says 'Capital'. I discussed this with mr1001nights (anarchist on youtube who makes docos) and we came to the conclusion that socialism is about freedom from tyranny, whilst the ancaps are in favour of freedom for tyranny - that's the difference.
Yeah, pretty much. I love mr1001nights. He has some pretty good videos. :thumbup1:

[bcbm]

they don't seem like such bad guys to me

[Palingenisis]

No.

[Palingenisis]

they don't seem like such bad guys to me

Have you met any in real life?

They seem to be an internet thing...And they wreck your head by saying when you point out the horrors of early laise faire 19 th century capitalism that that wasnt actually a free market and that if the market was totally free everybody would be happy as a smurf on cocaine...

[Nihilist_Pig]

Anarcho-capitalism is a meme, designed to attract teenagers who have some revolutionary tendencies to the right wing. It completely inverts anarchist thought, steals the terms "market anarchism" and "individualism" to use them in a sense which has nothing to do with ANY real ideology and all to do with a juvenile and completely subjective aynrandesque way of thinking and, last but not least, utilizes idiotic examples to present its views as objective truth in the realm of economics.

It has never been a movement, and it never will, because it is artificially created in order to pacify and make into complete idiots any people that might get drawn to communism or anarchism and present a real threat to the state-capitalist status quo. Instead, they end up making YouTube videos about the virtue of selfishness and "evil socialist policies like free healthcare which want to steal our property and enslave us, I mean look at Soviet Russia you wouldn't want to be in Soviet Russia, huh, you FUCKING COMMIE SCUM GO GET A JOB AND A GIRLFRIEND".

[Unkut]

Has there ever been an 'anarcho-capitalist' rally or anything? There's not even a movement for individualist capitalism that I've seen, I've looked for it

[Tablo]

Has there ever been an 'anarcho-capitalist' rally or anything? There's not even a movement for individualist capitalism that I've seen, I've looked for it
Lol, rallies aren't individualist enough for them so they must stay alone in a dark room online.

[Jazzhands]

Lol, rallies aren't individualist enough for them so they must stay alone in a dark room online.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:OH GOD YES.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Okay, what the hell. You need to stop.


Screw that, hi ho hi ho its to the work camp they go.

[Weezer]

Sure, I'll talk to them during their next protest.

Whenever that happens.

[Adil3tr]

Has there ever been an 'anarcho-capitalist' rally or anything? There's not even a movement for individualist capitalism that I've seen, I've looked for it

Yup, nothings more individualistic than dictatorship. You would hold back the right of a man to control thousands of other men and women, Would You?:(

[Red Commissar]

Beyond some nutty objectivist gatherings here and there, I'm not aware of anything that could pass off as an organized "anarcho-capitalist" movement.

Frankly it's more of a hobby with bored people thinking along awfully simplistic and idiotic "anarchism is individuality... Capitalism embodies individualism!"

[Revolution starts with U]

They seem to generally care about freedom, that is about it. Try asking one what we are supposed to do about the last6000 years of statist oppression, murder, and theft. They have no clue, they just don't want the state (or anyone frankly) telling them that people are not commodities and deserve x.
To them noone deserves anything but what they gain through the hard work of recieving their daddy's inheritance.

[CommunityBeliever]

How about a united leftist movement? Sometimes it seems to be that Leftists fight one another as much as they do the capitalists lol

As long as leftists are divided we will continue to be picked off and killed by the capitalists and the fascists.


Should we work with Anarcho-CapitalistsYes, we should work with these people to find a new name for their ideology, perhaps the term "oxymoron" will do?

[Widerstand]

How about a united leftist movement?

Most leftists sects could likely unite if they stopped having holy texts, person cults, dress ups and were willing to drop their stupid name tags.

But...

[Agnapostate]

Aside from the fact that "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists, as has been elaborated on countless times, a less noted point is that they are not capitalists, but mainly nerdy students and eccentric and obscure academics. While some capitalists will obviously promote the elimination of consumer and employee security regulations (I had a confrontation and argument with this mutual fund manager (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/pf/funds/best_fundmanager.moneymag/index.htm) who extolled the virtues of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics because their limited application could help him out considerably), it would be suicidal for them to push the complete elimination of the state. As one of the more progressive of their number summarized, the stereotype is that the ideology is "a uselessly abstract ahistorical ideology for socially retarded adolescent white guys," and in this case, it's correct.

My thoughts on the practical issues of "working with them" are contingent on a question, actually: Did you intentionally refer to pseudo-anarchists or did you mean pseudo-libertarians more generally? If pseudo-anarchists specifically, I'll reiterate the point that others have made that they have no organized real-world presence, and will generally be involved in activist work in their capacities as individuals or in their capacities as members of groups that are not focused on their ideology. Pseudo-anarchist Murray Rothbard attempted to work with the progressive movement in the 1960's, but it was him and his people assimilating into leftist currents, certainly not the other way around, or even a balanced synthesis. If you meant pseudo-libertarians, they do have more real-world influence these days than they used to simply because the general public is grasping for a heterodox alternative, and there can be collaboration in limited contexts such as anti-war rallies and other issues where they're on the same sides as progressives, but that obviously cannot develop into a generally parallel social agenda.


I don't think that with the fall of states, capitalism would necessarily fall with it.
In fact: it could be a capitalist wet dream. Any sort of regulatory opposition would be gone.

The abolition of the state would be disastrous for capitalism, and would ensure its quick collapse. I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=847649&show=abstract) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:


This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organize, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies.

This section is also extremely on-point:


[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organization, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrializing economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

However, it is a scalar issue. At the highest levels of government involvement in the social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia, economic efficiency is also at its highest, with the positive association holding as the two factors simultaneously decline in the Rhine capitalism of other parts of Europe to the liberal democratic capitalism of Britain to the liberal democratic capitalism of the U.S. to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism prevalent under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, which rejected Keynesian dominance in macroeconomics to accept the prescriptions of neoclassicals, with Thatcher in particular being the right-winger and an enthusiastic Hayek fan.

There would be an economic meltdown if there was a state elimination or extreme reduction, but things would change very quickly, with the degree of response varying according to the degree of crisis. The Bush administration escaped condemnation as a "socialist" from the right even when their outgoing economic policies essentially constituted partial nationalization decrees. And in the United States, frankly, the sort of economic intervention that would be the reaction to an extreme statelessness-induced crisis would most likely not be socialist in nature, but would range from authoritarian populist to outright fascist, since there are significant ethnic minorities that can be scapegoated for economic failure.

[BeerShaman]

They are as lame as capitalists and stateists. Their rejecting communal life and their following individualistic ideas make their ideal system sucha failure. Even if it ever succeeded, there would still be the great discrimination and inequality that exists in capiltalist states.

[Unkut]

Has there ever been an 'anarcho-capitalist' rally or anything? There's not even a movement for individualist capitalism that I've seen, I've looked for it

Whoops I meant to write individualist anarchism here, not capitalism.

[robbo203]

The market system and the state are the urgly twin sisters of modern capitalism. One without the other is inconcievable, Just as the leftist advocates of state intervention in the market logically thereby accept the necessity of the market and embrace it so the miscalled anarcho-capitalists through their celebration of the market and everything its stands for therebycall for the existence of a state to keep this thing they call the market in existence. For it is not possible to maintain a system of property rights upon which a market is based without organised coercion. They can call it a privatised police force of whatever but that makes no difference to the reality. It would constitute a state because the consequences of its actions would be all too public. In fact the state, which is called the "public power of coercion" is in any case the privatised tool of a ruling class in the sense that it is monopolised and controlled by this class. This has always been the case and always will be . So what then would be the difference between the coercivie body used to maintain law and order (and abover all property rights) in a so called anarcho-capitalist society and what is called a state? None whatsoever

[Kiev Communard]

The market system and the state are the urgly twin sisters of modern capitalism. One without the other is inconcievable, Just as the leftist advocates of state intervention in the market logically thereby accept the necessity of the market and embrace it so the miscalled anarcho-capitalists through their celebration of the market and everything its stands for therebycall for the existence of a state to keep this thing they call the market in existence. For it is not possible to maintain a system of property rights upon which a market is based without organised coercion. They can call it a privatised police force of whatever but that makes no difference to the reality. It would constitute a state because the consequences of its actions would be all too public. In fact the state, which is called the "public power of coercion" is in any case the privatised tool of a ruling class in the sense that it is monopolised and controlled by this class. This has always been the case and always will be . So what then would be the difference between the coercivie body used to maintain law and order (and abover all property rights) in a so called anarcho-capitalist society and what is called a state? None whatsoever

This. Also note how the feudal states of High Medieval Europe with their private armies for every landlord closely resemble the Anarcho-Capitalist (anti)-utopia.

[nuisance]

Throw a copy of das kapital at them and if they are smart enough to read it they will be screaming fuck capitalism.
Erm, I very much doubt that.

[Revolution starts with U]

This. Also note how the feudal states of High Medieval Europe with their private armies for every landlord closely resemble the Anarcho-Capitalist (anti)-utopia.

Sadly, they will actually admit that too. Not big fans of democracy, are they. One of their quizes/polls actually asks if you believe "were we able to check the abuse of power, do you believe a propertarian monarchy is the most just system of governance."

An-caps are bat shit nuts philosophers who have never been able to pull themselves out of the medieval ages.

[DaComm]

Allying with "Anarcho-Caps", who are the greatest supporters of the Capitalist system, can only be described as the greatest example of revisionism thus far. Besides, it's not like they hold and quantitave advantage that we could utilize.

[Agnapostate]

Allying with "Anarcho-Caps", who are the greatest supporters of the Capitalist system

Not at all. That would imply both promotion of sound economic principles that would sustain capitalism and political relevance, both of which they lack.

[DaComm]

Not at all. That would imply both promotion of sound economic principles that would sustain capitalism and political relevance, both of which they lack.

Perhaps I over-exagerated a wee bit, however, have you ever tried arguing with one of them? Dogmatic and Ignorant as hell they are; they defend Capitalist Exploitation like a Republican defends religion. They're certainly among the most stubborn supporters of Capitalists, weather their methods are actually workable is however, highly subjective (no pun intended).

[RotStern]

LOLWUT? XD
No, Communists should never work with capitalists, of any sort.

[Forward Union]

Interestingly. The ones I've met in person understand a lot more about Anarchism than they did about capitalism. Completely oblivious to the inherant coercion in someone owning what I need to survive and making me work for bits of it or else I starve.

[Die Rote Fahne]

:laugh: at this thread.

[Thirsty Crow]

They are as lame as capitalists and stateists. Their rejecting communal life and their following individualistic ideas make their ideal system sucha failure. Even if it ever succeeded, there would still be the great discrimination and inequality that exists in capiltalist states.

They do not follow individualist ideas, but rather egoist ones.
In fact, the question of which ideas these people follow is irrelevant to the fact I'd like to emphasize: individualism vs. socialism/Marxism/whatever is a false dichotomy.
And as far as anarcho-cappies are concerned, how would you "work" with someone who is not capable of grasping our immediate reality and history?

[PoliticalNightmare]

My original question was not so much whether anarcho-capitalism was a contradiction-in-terms or whether we have similar interests (as they are vastly different). My question was whether the state is necessary to enforce capitalism. Thus by working with anarcho-capitalists (though I have since come to realise they have little involvement outside the realms of the internet), perhaps it is possible to abolish state and result in our society. I have since come to realise with the example of Somalia however that this is not the case. Privatised firms would result in mafia-esque organisations which would enforce capitalism.

Thus to conclude my post, it is now my opinion that there is no way a true anarchist can ever work with any form of right-winger whatsoever.


:laugh: at this thread.

Don't be so synnical.

[Obs]

Shit, this got long. Didn't I kind of end this thread on page 1?

[Revolution starts with U]

apparently not :laugh:

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Anarcho-capitalists are whatever singularity!

http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=JohnShawFlag_lu0xsktc8hcy5ssw2472. jpg

[Thirsty Crow]

My question was whether the state is necessary to enforce capitalism.

Capitalism cannot exist without states.
Just look at the war economy underlying the welfare state (which itself collapsed with the advent of neoliberalism).
If capitalism were to exist without any state whatsoever, that would practically mean a regression in social relations to that of the feudal age (with an accompanying globalization of economic relations between those in power).

And pardon me if I'm being cynical or anything, but this whole thread is based on a false assumption: that revolutionaries can work with anarcho-cappies.

[PoliticalNightmare]

And pardon me if I'm being cynical or anything, but this whole thread is based on a false assumption: that revolutionaries can work with anarcho-cappies.

Not an assumption; a question (this is the learning forum after all, gimme a break). I was saying that if capitalism can't exist without the state that maybe we could work with someone else (or trick them) to destroy the state and thus (against their desire) destroy capitalism with it.

This said however the following quote answers my question (which as it happened I previously thought this may be the case but I could not be too sure);


If capitalism were to exist without any state whatsoever, that would practically mean a regression in social relations to that of the feudal age (with an accompanying globalization of economic relations between those in power).

The thread title was stupid, it should have been something like "will capitalism automatically be abolished with the state". Despite this, and to my annoyance, a lot of the posts on this thread have kind of missed the point, really.

[Dimentio]

Would abolition to the state automatically see the destruction of capitalism along with it? Can we truly work with this political tendency to see the creation of our own hypothetical society?

EDIT: My original question was not so much whether anarcho-capitalism was a contradiction-in-terms or whether we have similar interests (as they are vastly different). My question was whether the state is necessary to enforce capitalism. Thus by working with anarcho-capitalists (though I have since come to realise they have little involvement outside the realms of the internet), perhaps it is possible to abolish state and result in our society. I have since come to realise with the example of Somalia however that this is not the case. Privatised firms would result in mafia-esque organisations which would enforce capitalism.

Thus to conclude my post, though not necessarily the thread it is now my opinion that there is no way a true anarchist can ever work with any form of right-winger whatsoever.

The Swedish Pirate Party is basically a fusion between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists of different brands.

[Kibbutznik]

Depends on the person. Some of them can be saved from that drivel. Others are hopeless.

Nevertheless, there are some common causes that any honest "anarcho-capitalist" would have to support in common with socialists, like free speech or gay rights for example.

So if you find an an-cap, and he's an alright guy in spite of his ideology, invite him along to next rally, just for him to see "how the other half lives". Who knows, he might like the camaraderie, and he might rethink his misanthropic political opinions.

[Amphictyonis]

Have you ever conversed/debated any of these people? Of course not or you wouldn't be asking this silly question. Good grief. NO! NO! NO! And
NO!

[PoliticalNightmare]

Have you ever conversed/debated any of these people?

Actually, yes, and have generally found I have been able to put our political differences aside to have a meaningful debate.

[Amphictyonis]

Actually, yes, and have generally found I have been able to put our political differences aside to have a meaningful debate.

The very act of debate is focusing on your political differences. There's no meaningful debate with delusional people. Capitalism can'y even exist without a state. The only half way rational ones are mutualists but even they bother me. I've done my time on the Mises forums. I'd like that time back ;)

[Agnapostate]

Well, the more indoctrinated among that number will not hide their rejection of empirical evidence, so it becomes a spectacle akin to a "debate" between creationism and evolution. One side looks to empirical research for their conclusions; the other adheres to their preconceived dogmatic mythology.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The very act of debate is focusing on your political differences. There's no meaningful debate with delusional people.

Now you're just being pedantic; what I meant was that we were able to focus on meaningful debate rather than get caught up in an "us against them" mindset caused by our political differences. Yes obviously political differences were discussed :rolleyes:


Capitalism can'y even exist without a state.

Serious question; did you actually read my first post?

If it is the case that capitalism can't exist without a state then we can work with anarcho-capitalists (who are anti-state) to destroy the state, and automatically bring down capitalism with it (thus we would be tricking them in to co-operation that was not helpful for them).

However I am not of the belief that this would happen. I wanted meaningful discussion of what would be brought about by the destruction of state though this obviously hasn't happened.

[Amphictyonis]

Now you're just being pedantic; what I meant was that we were able to focus on meaningful debate rather than get caught up in an "us against them" mindset caused by our political differences. Yes obviously political differences were discussed :rolleyes:



Serious question; did you actually read my first post?

If it is the case that capitalism can't exist without a state then we can work with anarcho-capitalists (who are anti-state) to destroy the state, and automatically bring down capitalism with it (thus we would be tricking them in to co-operation that was not helpful for them).

However I am not of the belief that this would happen. I wanted meaningful discussion of what would be brought about by the destruction of state though this obviously hasn't happened.

No we can't work with "anarcho" capitalists. They are the most reactionary people one can find. Their ideal society, if it were possible, would be the exact opposite of what we want. It would be total tyranny. When it comes down to it they do support a state, it's just a private state only capitalists can access. Private security, private for profit armies, private union busting groups like the pinkertons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency


These people are not my allies. They are reactionary to the core.

[Jazzhands]

No we can't work with "anarcho" capitalists. They are the most reactionary people one can find. Their ideal society, if it were possible, would be the exact opposite of what we want. It would be total tyranny. When it comes down to it they do support a state, it's just a private state only capitalists can access. Private security, private for profit armies, private union busting groups like the pinkertons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency


These people are not my allies. They are reactionary to the core.

This. Also, it's a question of whether that would even be sound tactics EVEN if it were possible to work with them against the state, which it is not. They would sabotage us at every turn, give a bad name to us by association with their Mafia-police nightmare, and generally try to turn the revolution into a conflict between petty criminals, more petty criminals, and the state. We get fucked in between.

[Agnapostate]

Who cares at all, since you'll likely never meet one unless you're wondering into the back corner of a World of Warcraft convention?

[Kiev Communard]

Who cares at all, since you'll likely never meet one unless you're wondering into the back corner of a World of Warcraft convention?

Yes, actually the Anarcho-Capitalists are incredibly scarce even in the U.S, never mind the other regions. In Ukraine, for instance, they have a "party" consisting of about 30 people, if I am not mistaken :D.

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't taint WoW with an-cap :mad:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Wanted Man]

This discussion doesn't seem to be about "working" with them at all, since none of us will ever be presented with the opportunity to do so, normally. The only way to get into that situation would be to actively seek it out, rather than doing useful stuff, so why on earth would you do that?

This thread seems to be about whether you should talk to them if you ever have the misfortune to meet one, which, I suppose, depends on whether you can be bothered.