"anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism... [Archive]

Prinskaj

13th February 2012, 22:33

According to Wikipedia I am. *shrugs* Either way, I believe what I believe and what you call it doesn't really matter. So fine, I'm not a true Scotsman even though I was born in Scotland and wear a kilt. Whatever you say... :rolleyes:
According to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Founder of anarchism), who said: "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." then you are not an anarchist.
It does matter if you are or not, when you post in a thread about anarchism..

NewLeft

13th February 2012, 23:10

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

What? No Rothbard? For an anarcho-cappie, I am disappointed.

Night Ripper

14th February 2012, 14:24

According to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Founder of anarchism), who said: "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." then you are not an anarchist.

I'm against masters. Everything should be voluntary. I'm an anarchist.

Prinskaj

14th February 2012, 14:48

I'm against masters. Everything should be voluntary. I'm an anarchist.
To live you need certain things, such as food and water. In a capitalist system, you will have to acquire these things though money. This money is needed for your very survival, and to obtain it you must work. During to the fact that pretty much all workplaces have a "employer-employee"-relationship, then you have to summit to a master (employer) to live.
"He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?" - Simon-Nicholas Henri Linguet

Night Ripper

14th February 2012, 19:22

To live you need certain things, such as food and water. In a capitalist system, you will have to acquire these things though money. This money is needed for your very survival, and to obtain it you must work. During to the fact that pretty much all workplaces have a "employer-employee"-relationship, then you have to summit to a master (employer) to live.

Do you think you will be allowed to be a dirty hippie free not to work under socialism or communism or whatever brand of idiology [sic] you subscribe to? Fat chance. You'll still have a master forcing you to do their bidding or be arrested, for example, like in Cuba.

You'll have a government master and it will be a powerful one because there are fewer governments than there are people. Power is diminished when it is divided. A single person that controls all the food can make you do almost anything. A hundred people controlling the food can't do much because you can always get a better deal from someone else.

Keep dreaming if you think you'll ever get a free ride without someone telling you what to do if you want to eat. The only way out of that is to be an independent farmer, growing just enough to live off. You'll have that option under the free market, not under any form of collectivism.

Tim Cornelis

14th February 2012, 19:56

Do you think you will be allowed to be a dirty hippie free not to work under socialism or communism or whatever brand of idiology [sic] you subscribe to? Fat chance. You'll still have a master forcing you to do their bidding or be arrested, for example, like in Cuba.

You'll have a government master and it will be a powerful one because there are fewer governments than there are people. Power is diminished when it is divided. A single person that controls all the food can make you do almost anything. A hundred people controlling the food can't do much because you can always get a better deal from someone else.

lol, this is why you need to read about a theory before formulating an opinion on it as this prevents making yourself look like a fool.

I haven't heard 'Cuba' being used as evidence against anarchism before!

There is actually one phrase which refutes all of your nonsense: workers' self-management.

Keep dreaming if you think you'll ever get a free ride without someone telling you what to do if you want to eat. The only way out of that is to be an independent farmer, growing just enough to live off. You'll have that option under the free market, not under any form of collectivism.

Oh really?

Those who are already small proprietors will keep their plots of land and continue to cultivate it with the help of their families. The others, and they are by far the most numerous, who rented the land from the big landowners or were simply agricultural wage laborers employed by the owners, will take collective possession of the vast tracts of land and work them in common.

Ideas on Social Organization (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/James_Guillaume__Ideas_on_Social_Organization.html )

Common ownership of land allows for independent farming.

Azraella

14th February 2012, 19:57

Right because socialists are dirty hipples that don't have jobs and really aren't concerned with getting fucked over capitalists on a daily basis. Thanks for making that totally clear, bro. :rolleyes:

Night Ripper

14th February 2012, 21:12

Those who are already small proprietors will keep their plots of land and continue to cultivate it with the help of their families. The others, and they are by far the most numerous, who rented the land from the big landowners or were simply agricultural wage laborers employed by the owners, will take collective possession of the vast tracts of land and work them in common.

Here's a quote from George Bernard Shaw...

But Weary Willie may say that he hates work, and is quite willing to take less, and be poor and dirty and ragged or even naked for the sake of getting off with less work. But that, as we have seen, cannot be allowed: voluntary poverty is just as mischievous socially as involuntary poverty: decent nations must insist on their citizens leading decent lives, doing their full share of the nation's work, and taking their full share of its income...Poverty and social irresponsibility will be forbidden luxuries.

Compulsory social service is so unanswerably right that the very first duty of a government is to see that everyone works enough to pay her way and leave something over for the profit of the country and the improvement of the world.

Enjoy slavery.

Prinskaj

15th February 2012, 00:31

Do you think you will be allowed to be a dirty hippie free not to work under socialism or communism or whatever brand of idiology [sic] you subscribe to? Fat chance. You'll still have a master forcing you to do their bidding or be arrested, for example, like in Cuba.
A) Thank you for the character assassination..
B) Wait.. Since when did Cuba turn to anarchy?

You'll have a government master and it will be a powerful one because there are fewer governments than there are people. Power is diminished when it is divided. A single person that controls all the food can make you do almost anything. A hundred people controlling the food can't do much because you can always get a better deal from someone else.
Psst.. I am still an anarchist.. You know, the real kind of anarchist, the kind who believes in workers-self management and participatory democracy.. Decentralising power anymore than that is going to be pretty hard.

Keep dreaming if you think you'll ever get a free ride without someone telling you what to do if you want to eat. The only way out of that is to be an independent farmer, growing just enough to live off. You'll have that option under the free market, not under any form of collectivism.
I don't want a "free-ride", but the "Work or stave"-mentality seem repulsive to me.

Night Ripper

15th February 2012, 04:35

Psst.. I am still an anarchist.. You know, the real kind of anarchist, the kind who believes in workers-self management and participatory democracy..

Democracy is not anarchy. Mob rule is still rule.

Prinskaj

15th February 2012, 09:03

Democracy is not anarchy. Mob rule is still rule.
That depends largely on the structure of organisation that is decided upon. But I would rather have "mob-rule" then any of the private tyranny that you so fondly advocate.

RGacky3

15th February 2012, 09:35

Democracy is not anarchy. Mob rule is still rule.

Social issues require social decision making OR authoritarian decision making, if you don't support democracy in those issues there is only one option more.

Democracy =/= Mob rule, it means people involved in an issue take part in deciding the issue.

Captialism DOES however = Plutocracy, literally, rule by wealth.

Tim Cornelis

15th February 2012, 10:02

Here's a quote from George Bernard Shaw...

Enjoy slavery.

You're a dumb ass. You're an absolute dumb ass. That quote, in no way, refutes anarchism in the slightest. You have absolutely no idea what anarchism is. There is an entire thread filled with advice for anarchist literature and books that will educate you on the subject. I'm sure this thread is not hard to find, oh wait you're posting in it. Now take up some of that advice and read. It is blatantly obvious you have never in your entire life read anarchist (by which I do not mean "nonarchism"/"stateless capitalism") books or literature. You are making an ass out of yourself. You are utterly misrepresenting anarchism. Did I say you were a dumb ass?

Stop posting or you'll embarrass yourself further.

Night Ripper

15th February 2012, 14:37

You're a dumb ass. You're an absolute dumb ass.

I stopped reading there. Grow up and we'll talk.

Tim Cornelis

15th February 2012, 16:00

I stopped reading there. Grow up and we'll talk.

Oh, the sweet irony.

Revolution starts with U

15th February 2012, 19:38

I like when he responds like that. It shows just how weak kneed and illogical he is.

I'm willing to put money that says when rightists are insulting leftists he doesn't say "come in now, be civil." Goose and gander and all that.

EDIT: oh wait... I forgot in this very thread he called someone a "dirty hippie." Real mature...

Night Ripper

15th February 2012, 23:19

I forgot in this very thread he called someone a "dirty hippie." Real mature...

Stop twisting the truth. I didn't call anyone that. I asked if someone thought they would be allowed to be that. There's a big difference. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right. If I have insulted anyone then I apologize. That's what mature adults do. They don't try to justify their behavior by saying "he started it!"

Night Ripper

15th February 2012, 23:56

What kind of bullshit title is this? Trying to put words in my mouth? How about changing it to something that isn't intellectually fraudulent?

Sasha

16th February 2012, 00:09

Bite me... I should have infracted you for your o.p. in a oi-learning thread...

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 01:05

Bite me... I should have infracted you for your o.p. in a oi-learning thread...

Please close this thread as it is a lie.

Azraella

16th February 2012, 01:12

Please close this thread as it is a lie.
It's true. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist at all. Anarcho-capitalism was created by a charlatan that apparently took too many shrooms and smoked too much pot in college

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 01:44

Anarcho-capitalism was created by a charlatan that apparently took too many shrooms and smoked too much pot in college

What am I supposed to say to such childish bullshit? You reject ideas based on who came up with them. That's rational...

#FF0000

16th February 2012, 04:50

According to Wikipedia I am. *shrugs* Either way, I believe what I believe and what you call it doesn't really matter

It's not "No True Scotsman" though. it's just logically inconsistent. Anarchists are not just against the state but against the hierarchical structure of society itself. Capitalism (which needs a state to exist in the first place, but whatever) is by definition, a hierarchical, class-based society.

So, yeah.

Plus this bit:

So fine, I'm not a true Scotsman even though I was born in Scotland and wear a kilt. Whatever you say... :rolleyes:

makes no sense because anarchism from its inception was an anti-capitalist ideology.

RGacky3

16th February 2012, 09:49

First of all, arguments about definitions are stupid, you can call youself an anarchist if you want, but its meaningless and almost every single other anarchist would disagree.

But its definately not a "no true scotsman" a "no true scotsman" is when an arugment is presented with a defeater, and instead of dealing iwth it, we just redefine it away.

But we arn't redefining anarchism to say Anarchism is not capitalism. We are explaining how anarchism origionally defined, is incompatible with capitalism as origionally defined.

Prinskaj

16th February 2012, 11:43

What am I supposed to say to such childish bullshit? You reject ideas based on who came up with them. That's rational...
Yes, and calling me a "dirty hippie" was an act of pure maturity. :rolleyes:

Os Cangaceiros

16th February 2012, 12:10

I'm actually more inclined to expand the "anarchist tent" to include more eccentric people than some anarchists are, but the argument for including an-caps in the broad anarchist tradition isn't very strong at all. For one, anarchism is a body of thought concerning political economy that's been developed over centuries, not just a philosophy. This body of thought is explicitely anti-capitalist and always has been. Even the people who called themselves anarchists and weren't communists considered themselves to be partisans against the social order (aka capitalism)...some who the "anarcho" capitalists look back to as the predecessors of their body of thought, such as Benjamin Tucker, actually refered to themselves during their lives as socialists. I can't think of a single person with an-cap esque ideas pre-Rothbard who refered to themselves as an "anarchist", with that word, not whatever the hell you think anarchism is. de Molinari certainly didn't and I can't think of any earlier proto-ancap.

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 19:12

Yes, and calling me a "dirty hippie" was an act of pure maturity. :rolleyes:

I called you no such thing.

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 19:15

It's not "No True Scotsman" though. it's just logically inconsistent. Anarchists are not just against the state but against the hierarchical structure of society itself. Capitalism (which needs a state to exist in the first place, but whatever) is by definition, a hierarchical, class-based society.

So, yeah.

Plus this bit:

makes no sense because anarchism from its inception was an anti-capitalist ideology.

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

NYAnarchist222

16th February 2012, 19:16

Anarchism is Anarchism.. trying to attach capitalism to it is water and oil.. you can't. anarcho-this anarcho-that... How about just Anarchism.

GoddessCleoLover

16th February 2012, 19:21

"Anarcho capitalism" is an oxymoron and is entirely ahistorical. Anarchism was always a movement that reject capitalism. This recent attempt to "marry" anarchism and capitalism merely demonstrates an ignorance of history. I don't think I will go into great depth because anyone on the Left ought to be aware of these facts and my sense of it is that this thread is one of several that are more about trolling RevLeft than engaging in serious discussion.

Renegade Saint

16th February 2012, 19:21

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 19:28

Night Ripper, respectfully, without a state to enforce and regulate private property how can capitalism exist? How can private property exist at all (unless you're just talking about the 'property' of a warlord)?

Geographically overlapping competing private legal jurisdictions.

How can you have socialism without a state?

Renegade Saint

16th February 2012, 19:33

Geographically overlapping competing private legal jurisdictions.

How can you have socialism without a state?
Private legal jurisdictions? Sounds like warlordism to me.
I'm not an anarchist, so I don't think you can have socialism without a state. Communism is different than socialism.

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 19:38

Private legal jurisdictions? Sounds like warlordism to me.

Sounds like dogmatism to me. Go ahead and reject it without any further thought. It's easier to hold on to your faith that way.

Sasha

16th February 2012, 19:42

Anarcho-capitalism is as anarchist as national-socialism is socialist

Prinskaj

16th February 2012, 19:57

Geographically overlapping competing private legal jurisdictions.
Could you elaborate..

CommunityBeliever

16th February 2012, 20:12

How can you have socialism without a state?It can't. In fact, socialist societies have much larger states then we do now. On the other hand, communist societies don't have classes so states are unnecessary.

Geographically overlapping competing private legal jurisdictions.That might still have something we would call a state, but ignoring that why do you want to eliminate most state institutions? States play an invaluable role in capitalism, states are the only reason corporations sue one another rather then go to war with another, and states are the only reason that corporations don't outright lie to all their consumers, consider the long effort to get cigarette companies to admit that their products are unhealthy.

Besides all this without state institutions most of the technologies we have today would not exist as they do, in fact I am not sure we could even be talking right now if it wasn't for ARPANET, which is one of the many projects created by DARPA that is vital to the world today. Things would be much worse off without states in capitalism.

hatzel

16th February 2012, 20:20

Could you elaborate..

Believe it or not I can do it for him. Pretty much gangs buy badges and call themselves 'police' or 'super chill law enforcement agency' or whatever and then you pay them to randomly lock people in the basement for doing stuff you don't want them to do but it's okay because the gang turfs overlap so you can freely pick who to call based on who has the best basement so everything's gravy. Sounds good to me praise the lord!

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 21:21

On the other hand, communist societies don't have classes so states are unnecessary.

Oh really? How will you have police? Roads? Who's going to decide what to produce and how much? It's all just magic?

That might still have something we would call a state, but ignoring that why do you want to eliminate most state institutions?

States are coercive and therefore immoral.

Night Ripper

16th February 2012, 21:24

Pretty much gangs buy badges and call themselves 'police' or 'super chill law enforcement agency' or whatever and then you pay them to randomly lock people in the basement for doing stuff you don't want them to do but it's okay because the gang turfs overlap so you can freely pick who to call based on who has the best basement so everything's gravy.

I'm presupposing that the average consumer wants no part in basement beatings and that most people will only do business with respectable firms.

danyboy27

16th February 2012, 21:26

Oh really? How will you have police? Roads? Who's going to decide what to produce and how much? It's all just magic?

The absence of a state does not mean the absence of the governement has an organisational institution.

Sometimes i think its beccause my answers are too simple that you put me in your ignore list.

P.S: anyone who want to use my posts to point out to ripper the obvious are welcome to do so.

danyboy27

16th February 2012, 21:29

I'm presupposing that the average consumer wants no part in basement beatings and that most people will only do business with respectable firms.

Its not has if 99% of the thing produced today are the result of slave labor or anything like that.

If you can hide the truth from the public anything in possible.

Azraella

16th February 2012, 21:31

The absence of a state does not mean the absence of the governement has an organisational institution.

Sometimes i think its beccause my answers are too simple that you put me in your ignore list.

P.S: anyone who want to use my posts to point out to ripper the obvious are welcome to do so.

Done.

Oh really? How will you have police? Roads? Who's going to decide what to produce and how much? It's all just magic?

The community can decide how the hell shit get's done. How is it is so fucking hard to understand that?

A religious community decides it wants to build a church and they do it. A farming community decides to grow peaches and they do it.

CommunityBeliever

16th February 2012, 21:32

Oh really? How will you have police? Roads? Who's going to decide what to produce and how much? It's all just magic?The scientific method, rather then magic, will be used here. The communist communities will scientifically organise themselves to satisfy the needs of the population.

States are coercive and therefore immoral. States have to be understood in the context of their ruling class. States will do immoral things, like go to war for oil, because their ruling class is obsessed with oil profits, or states will try to suppress the Internet because their ruling class doesn't like the idea of free information. The real thing here that is immoral is the capitalists, and if you saw that then perhaps you too would be a communist.

States are just a mechanism, they aren't inherently immoral. In fact state institutions like DARPA are responsible for many of the technologies that we hold dear to us today like the Internet and computers.

Veovis

16th February 2012, 21:38

States are coercive and therefore immoral.

Sounds dogmatic to me. Why is coercion always immoral? Is it immoral to coerce a murderer into going to jail?

artanis17

16th February 2012, 21:38

Fq-saCDHvCw

NewSocialist

16th February 2012, 21:48

http://www.vibrationdata.com/Resources/anteater1.jpg

Veovis

16th February 2012, 22:01

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/image.php?&aid=2619&bunny.jpg

#FF0000

16th February 2012, 22:33

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

Hey, I'm not saying anarchists today gotta be the same as anarchists then -- I made it very clear that anarcho-capitalism is a ridiculous idea because it advocates for a class society while claiming to be against hierarchy. Further, you could say that it also claims to be against the state when capitalism and property right require a state in the first place.

The thing I said that you think was a fallacy was something I said to point out that your analogy was stupid. You implied that anarchism wasn't always anti-capitalist as well as anti-state, which is simply incorrect. And if that isn't what you were implying, then I suggest you work on your communication skills and stop making shitty analogies and yelling 'fallacy' where there is none as if that's a suitable replacement for an actual argument.

Le Rouge

16th February 2012, 22:37

http://onlylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/crazy_monkeys_01.jpg

Le Rouge

16th February 2012, 22:40

This thread is a lie.

Saying that this thread is a lie, is a lie.

#FF0000

16th February 2012, 22:41

I'm presupposing that the average consumer wants no part in basement beatings and that most people will only do business with respectable firms.

Except that's patently bullshit because people still buy clothes and products made in sweatshops while buying something "fair-trade" is a once-in-awhile thing for people, since buying union-made or fair-trade (though produced through exploitation as they are) are more expensive.

And that's assuming people even have a choice. Once a company gets big enough and its products become all but ubiquitous, it's nigh impossible to avoid giving money to people who overtly brutalize their workers (though, i'd say all businesses do, i'll give some the benefit of the doubt here). You can't buy electronics nowadays without it being loaded with minerals paid for in blood and assembled by workers who'd rather pitch themselves off a roof than stand another shift. And even if you don't, the entire framework of our society relies on products like these that are produced at immense cost to workers.

I mean, shit, even way back when people still had the skills to make shit themselves, businesses that brutalized their workers still did well enough to develop to what we have today. No one then gave a shit about the Lowell factory girls, so why do you think they're going to give a shit today when they need clothes and don't have enough to drop a 20 on a union-made t-shirt?

#FF0000

16th February 2012, 22:42

States are coercive and therefore immoral.

Property claims are coercive and therefore immoral.

Marvin the Marxian

16th February 2012, 22:50

The community can decide how the hell shit get's done. How is it is so fucking hard to understand that?

A religious community decides it wants to build a church and they do it. A farming community decides to grow peaches and they do it.

Do you think a religious community and a farming community could overlap? Just curious comrade.

Le Rouge

16th February 2012, 22:52

"Night Ripper has not made any friends yet"

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/5/58424/2123965-tumblr_lixw0pqaz31qg23wv.png

Azraella

16th February 2012, 22:56

Do you think a religious community and a farming community could overlap? Just curious comrade.

Oh absolutely.

I suspect that we'll see a whole host of communities that overlap with each other. Like my ideal society is secular with religious belief being private or semi-public but I can envision what the reality is going to be -- some communities are going to built around religious princples and other's aren't. Some might be industrial and others might be agrarian.

Le Rouge

16th February 2012, 22:58

It's true. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist at all. Anarcho-capitalism was created by a charlatan that apparently took too many shrooms and smoked too much pot in college

What's wrong with pot lady? :confused:

Veovis

16th February 2012, 23:20

What's wrong with pot lady? :confused:

Nothing, I'd imagine, except for the fact that if you're under its influence when hashing out political theories, you'll get something like anarcho-capitalism as a result. :p

Azraella

16th February 2012, 23:42

What's wrong with pot lady? :confused:

Oh nothing, as I'm a stoner m'self, but I know that my ideas while stoned are not always the best ones, and the person who came up with ancap ideology must be a hardcore stoner of somesort because it sounds like something that I would of came up with when I was a bigger pothead

Azraella

16th February 2012, 23:43

Nothing, I'd imagine, except for the fact that if you're under its influence when hashing out political theories, you'll get something like anarcho-capitalism as a result. :p

Great minds think alike. :)

Prinskaj

16th February 2012, 23:55

I'm presupposing that the average consumer wants no part in basement beatings and that most people will only do business with respectable firms.
What if they kept their "evil acts" a secret? Or they create a monopoly using force?

Marvin the Marxian

17th February 2012, 04:16

Oh absolutely.

I suspect that we'll see a whole host of communities that overlap with each other. Like my ideal society is secular with religious belief being private or semi-public but I can envision what the reality is going to be -- some communities are going to built around religious princples and other's aren't. Some might be industrial and others might be agrarian.

Thanks for your answer. :)

If these communities overlap with each other, it follows that a person could be a member of more than one. Do you agree?

Night Ripper

17th February 2012, 14:47

And the trolls have taken over the thread.

#FF0000

17th February 2012, 18:56

It isn't like it was a very good thread to start out with.

Registered User

17th February 2012, 19:24

What a joke anarcho-"capitalism".Oh sure,I'll accept that as true anarchism when I hear about a capital Marxist revolution but that ain't happening either:laugh:

Le Rouge

17th February 2012, 22:11

Nothing, I'd imagine, except for the fact that if you're under its influence when hashing out political theories, you'll get something like anarcho-capitalism as a result. :p

I lol'd

Azraella

17th February 2012, 22:29

Thanks for your answer. :)

If these communities overlap with each other, it follows that a person could be a member of more than one. Do you agree?

I guess. But I was thinking more along the lines that there could be an industrial secular community or an agrarian religious community existing post-capitalism.

Marvin the Marxian

17th February 2012, 22:45

I guess. But I was thinking more along the lines that there could be an industrial secular community or an agrarian religious community existing post-capitalism.

Oh I see. That would mean at some level the communities don't overlap. It sounds like you're saying industrial vs. agrarian and secular vs. religious are just features of separate communities, for example. I thought you were saying that industrial/agrarian communities would be independent from secular/religious communities, so it wouldn't matter how much they do or don't overlap. Either way, thanks comrade.