Co-operation with Anarcho-Capitalists & Right Libertarians

[LeftLibertarian]

So my question would be in your opinion is would it ever be possible for those of us on the Left to co-operate with Anarcho-Capitalists, considering the overlap in rejection of authority.

I guess my personal belief is that in theory it should work, who cares what they do, those wishing to engage in capitalism under an anarchic society can go off and be capitalists and we can go our own way and form our own society based on communism.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure it would ever practically work. For a start I don't even understand how anarcho-capitalism can seriously work considering it is based upon private ownership of property which surely would need some form of moderator, and what on earth would you call a moderator of disputes between private property if not a government?

Anyway, thoughts? (Sorry, If this seems disjointed, my brain just randomly goes on tangents sometimes, I enjoy them :) )

[RedSonRising]

Capitalism isn't something you can "go off and do", it's a world system based on coercive property-based relations and the exploitation of the working classes.

They may reject authority in theory, but they fail to understand the fundamental tenants of power in society, which boils down to who controls the means by which we produce and access the things we need.

[Let's Get Free]

I seriously doubt it. The rift between these two movements is too big, which prevents both of them from working together to change the system, since they would be simply pulling in opposite directions, countering each other.

The "anarcho-capitalists" support the right to Private Property, accumulation and usury, and even support for domination and hierarchy as long as its "voluntary."

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd say that for specific and limited aims, I would not be opposed - in theory because this has never come up - with being in a coalition, as long as theirs was not the dominant view. I mean that's what a broad coalition is anyway, so it would be like working with other liberals - in theory. They are against an imperialist war and are part of an anti-war coalition - then I guess it wouldn't be a deal-breaker like being in an anti-war coalition that accepted neo-nazi's who might be opposed to a specific war for racist reasons (like Iraq which some neo-nazis denounced as "a war for the jews"). Hell there could have been these types of people involved in the Occupy I was involved in and I didn't know it. There were some libertarians though and they isolated themselves pretty quickly and left after people began collectively ignoring them.

However, Anarcho-capitalists and other similar variants, probably have a certain degree of mistrust and fear of "the mob" - and this has historical precedents with market-socialists and non-working class focused libertarians condemning collective working class actions and strikes and such.

So I don't think it would be much of an issue. They are also relatively marginal outside of armchair-theorist circles (i.e. in actual struggles) as far as I can tell. So there are tons of soft-liberal/progressive and union folks who are more open to questioning the whole system including the economic base that it would be more useful productive to work with and hopefully convince of our politics and tactics.

[thriller]

No. I will never work with anarcho-caps and right libertarians. Maybe it is because I am a communist, but my immediate enemy is not the state, but the ruling class which owns the state. As the users above have mentioned, many anarcho-caps and right libertarians believe in private property, which is one of my biggest issues (the abolishing of private property that is) with capitalism and our current condition.

[Ravachol]

'Anarcho'-Capitalists don't reject the state, let alone authority. The state is a particular social relationship that whips a fragmented society into a particular class constellation. The 'anarcho'-capitalists (and libertarians in general) merely wish to see its functions fragmented over a myriad of profit-oriented enterprises instead of centralized in a unified public body, something that would most certainly not benefit the capitalist mode of production in terms of an efficient reproductive sphere.

[thriller]

'Anarcho'-Capitalists don't reject the state, let alone authority. The state is a particular social relationship that whips a fragmented society into a particular class constellation. The 'anarcho'-capitalists (and libertarians in general) merely wish to see its functions fragmented over a myriad of profit-oriented enterprises instead of centralized in a unified public body, something that would most certainly not benefit the capitalist mode of production in terms of an efficient reproductive sphere.

Maybe I have an alternate view of anarcho-caps than you. I always viewed them as followers of the pure "liberal trade capitalism" that would eventually lead to the break down of the state because trade would replace most politics. The idea, I think, is from the Doux Commerces thesis that all trade would "civilize" society and require everyone to be peaceful and civil to each other because everyone is a potential buyer or seller. Therefore no laws, and therefore no state, would be required. Not that it makes any sense to me, but I have heard this from some self-described anarcho-capitalists.

[Ravachol]

Maybe I have an alternate view of anarcho-caps than you. I always viewed them as followers of the pure "liberal trade capitalism" that would eventually lead to the break down of the state because trade would replace most politics. The idea, I think, is from the Doux Commerces thesis that all trade would "civilize" society and require everyone to be peaceful and civil to each other because everyone is a potential buyer or seller. Therefore no laws, and therefore no state, would be required. Not that it makes any sense to me, but I have heard this from some self-described anarcho-capitalists.

If there are no laws, there is no private property and there can be no capital. Even in a situation where everybody abides to the bullshit ahistorical 'non-agression principle', this just would mean society is fully pacified, not that there's no state.

Besides, anybody who believes that gentle, kind manners are result from generalized trade relations either have no practical experience with such matters or brush them under the carpet of ideology. Never mind the fact that anthropologically, trade arose only between those communities that considered eachother 'hostile'. Exchange is a manifestation of fragmented relations and the unification and regularization of such fragmented relations forms the basis for the functioning of the state, regardless of the form it takes.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Libertarians are worse than liberals and neoliberals. They are the trepid,semi-biotic cesspool of individualist privilege, patriotism, destruction of workers rights even within capitalism, rhetoric and elitism that fits all the categories needed to co-opt leftist motives or emotionals and use them for their own benefit.

If anything, it's these rightist madmen we should be engaging and discrediting the most, as they have a direct line of fire towards civil issues that the left has had answers for since the 19th century (not unlike fascism did, surprisingly).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that there's enough of them to make the question have real relevance...

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Wow. Talk about class-collaborationism...

[Yuppie Grinder]

The whole ideology is mindless and removed from reality. They do not understand the nature of the state. Capitalism without a state is absolutely impossible, no exceptions.

[Agathor]

They're mostly well-meaning. Some are genuine Randian sociopaths, but most aren't. Quite a few revlefters are former libertarians.

They're radicals in the sense that they have perceived extensive problems in society that need radical treatments - but because they're American and have no culture or history of left-wing radicalism they're picked up by right-wing kooks like Mises and Hayek - the only radicals allowed in American intellectual culture. Libertarianism is a very broad church so this demographic doesn't generalize completely, but it's pretty common. They almost always know nothing about socialism, so talk to them about it. They're quite receptive.

Sorry for interrupting the circlejerk. Recommence below me.

[Os Cangaceiros]

the only radicals allowed in American intellectual culture.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. There are numerous professors in American universities who hold varying degrees of left-wing thought...

[Ostrinski]

There are Marxist and even anarchist professors out there.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Of course you cooperate with em in the beginning. Who else are ya gonna purge?

[Rafiq]

The fact that you are asking this, OP, the fact that it is something of an option to you makes the class character of your ideology quite extremely apparent. On this position, the line will be drawn between genuine, revolutionary Anarchists and bourgeois-moralist ideologues who would collaborate with the bourgeois classes so long as their ideology is remained intact, so long as their perverse Utopian fantasies are upheld by the vulgarizers of anarchism, the "right libertarians".

[Rafiq]

They're mostly well-meaning. Some are genuine Randian sociopaths, but most aren't. Quite a few revlefters are former libertarians.

They're radicals in the sense that they have perceived extensive problems in society that need radical treatments - but because they're American and have no culture or history of left-wing radicalism they're picked up by right-wing kooks like Mises and Hayek - the only radicals allowed in American intellectual culture. Libertarianism is a very broad church so this demographic doesn't generalize completely, but it's pretty common. They almost always know nothing about socialism, so talk to them about it. They're quite receptive.

Sorry for interrupting the circlejerk. Recommence below me.

They're not radicals, they're (or it, being anarcho capitalism) champions of the interests of the petite bourgeoisie, not misguided folk who just haven't yet been exposed to your beloved kropotkin or what have you. Tell me, is the anti semitic conspiracy theorist a "radical" as well because he perceives "extensive problems" in society that are in need of 'radical' treatments? Or is this "extensive problem" to you merely authoritarianism? Then you are an anti communist and a bourgeois liberal.

[Volderbeek]

I'm always for forming coalitions when possible, but these types usually side with conservatives. Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are Republicans for example.

US Libertarians are the ones who created the "social" and "economic" issues divide used in tests like Political Compass, and it is central to their ideology that said division is valid and that they're weighted equally. That simply isn't true however. They almost always focus more on "economic" issues and how terrible socialism is. If they ever care about these "social" issues, it tends to be in a frame of the liberty of private tyrannies. And of course, sometimes they're just conservatives trying to look cool to the kids cause they love pot or some shit.

[Blake's Baby]

Fascists claim to be against capitalism. Shall we make common cause with them as well?

[Agathor]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. There are numerous professors in American universities who hold varying degrees of left-wing thought...

That's not what I meant by 'intellectual culture'. Think of it as the spectrum of people who are allowed to write op-eds for national papers, and who CNN and NBC go to for angles on stories. I don't live in the US but it's my understanding that the left has no access to these outlets, besides a few columns in Nation magazine.



They're not radicals, they're (or it, being anarcho capitalism) champions of the interests of the petite bourgeoisie, not misguided folk who just haven't yet been exposed to your beloved kropotkin or what have you. Tell me, is the anti semitic conspiracy theorist a "radical" as well because he perceives "extensive problems" in society that are in need of 'radical' treatments? Or is this "extensive problem" to you merely authoritarianism? Then you are an anti communist and a bourgeois liberal.

My opinion of Anarchism is not good and my opinion of Kropotkin is very low - I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm an anarcho-bourgeois-liberal-sentimentalist from. The anti-semetic conspiracy theory isn't a political movement so it doesn't apply.

And try to cut down on the hysterical Leninist jabbering Rafiq my eyes ache from all the rolling.

[hetz]

How can you cooperate with people who aren't even allowed to post on revleft? They either get banned or restricted. :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

After reading some of the other posts I've been convinced to go from a "I guess maybe if they didn't have much influence" to a more solid no.

We maybe shouldn't treat them like we would explicit racists in a movement (i.e. chase them out - physically if necissary), but I think that they should have their ideas be more activly marginalized in movements rather than ignored.

I still don't think it's much of are real pressing issue though since these kinds of folks tend to be marginal, most likely wouldn't be interested in movements that we would want to see grow and radicalize, and not engage with anything other than theorizing on the internet anyway.

Outside of movements, soft-libertarians can maybe argued with and convinced of some things - they should be judged on a case-by-case basis because their attraction to libertarianism might be pretty shallow and mostly driven out of a disatisfaction with the mainstream parties. If they get all Adam-Smithy and capitalist-utopia though, then they are probably wankers who are not really connected with reality. If they are just like, "government is bad" and "we should do what we want" and "there shouldn't be wars", then maybe they are just confused.

[human strike]

I say we fully cooperate with them. I mean, I doubt their conception of capitalism could last much longer than the present neo-liberal capitalism? Anarcho-capitalism today, full communism tomorrow!

[Let's Get Free]

I say we fully cooperate with them. I mean, I doubt their conception of capitalism could last much longer than the present neo-liberal capitalism? Anarcho-capitalism today, full communism tomorrow!

Yeah, any society ran on libertarian capitalist principles would collapse in 2 seconds.

[agnixie]

So my question would be in your opinion is would it ever be possible for those of us on the Left to co-operate with Anarcho-Capitalists, considering the overlap in rejection of authority.

I guess my personal belief is that in theory it should work, who cares what they do, those wishing to engage in capitalism under an anarchic society can go off and be capitalists and we can go our own way and form our own society based on communism.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure it would ever practically work. For a start I don't even understand how anarcho-capitalism can seriously work considering it is based upon private ownership of property which surely would need some form of moderator, and what on earth would you call a moderator of disputes between private property if not a government?

Anyway, thoughts? (Sorry, If this seems disjointed, my brain just randomly goes on tangents sometimes, I enjoy them :) )

Why would we bother aligning with an ideology that is not only ridiculously reactionary and incoherent, but an ideology which has barely any adherents at all, especially outside the US...

[Rafiq]

The anti-semetic conspiracy theory isn't a political movement so it doesn't apply.

And try to cut down on the hysterical Leninist jabbering Rafiq my eyes ache from all the rolling.

Libertarianism really isn't significant because there are political movements calling themselves Libertarian, it exists on almost a personal level in accordance with the deterioration of capitalism, the same could be said about anti semitism. Why the fuck would you just dodge the question like that, "Hur well it isn't a 'political movement'" yeah, and it doesn't start with the letter "L" either, what of it? What of the rise in extreme nationalism in Europe, agathor? Why are Libertarians exceptions? Because they oppose 'authoritarianism'?

These are the same people who want the right to do as they please with their children, the repealing of "non consensual divorce", in other words, women as literal slaves who are forced, with the help of the police (whether they would exist as a private entity), to stay with their husbands. Among American ideological currents they are unrivaled as reactionaries. It is not simply a matter of what they would want to do with society in itself, we know this is impossible. It is the class nature of these Utopian fantasies which makes itself so apparent. The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class. Though apparently you're more sympathetic toward them, the scum of the Earth (maybe even worse than the Bourgeoisie itself, which is not a reactionary class and makes it's interests quite apparent) because they're against the big bad state infringing on their liberties. Let me tell you, this is not a matter of confused beliefs. These are definite and actual existing embodiments of objective class interests (The petite bourgeoisie).

[Agathor]

Libertarianism really isn't significant because there are political movements calling themselves Libertarian, it exists on almost a personal level in accordance with the deterioration of capitalism, the same could be said about anti semitism. Why the fuck would you just dodge the question like that, "Hur well it isn't a 'political movement'" yeah, and it doesn't start with the letter "L" either, what of it? What of the rise in extreme nationalism in Europe, agathor? Why are Libertarians exceptions? Because they oppose 'authoritarianism'?

These are the same people who want the right to do as they please with their children, the repealing of "non consensual divorce", in other words, women as literal slaves who are forced, with the help of the police (whether they would exist as a private entity), to stay with their husbands. Among American ideological currents they are unrivaled as reactionaries. It is not simply a matter of what they would want to do with society in itself, we know this is impossible. It is the class nature of these Utopian fantasies which makes itself so apparent. The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class. Though apparently you're more sympathetic toward them, the scum of the Earth (maybe even worse than the Bourgeoisie itself, which is not a reactionary class and makes it's interests quite apparent) because they're against the big bad state infringing on their liberties. Let me tell you, this is not a matter of confused beliefs. These are definite and actual existing embodiments of objective class interests (The petite bourgeoisie).

you've got a mouth on you son

[Rafiq]

you've got a mouth on you son

I really do wish there existed a mechanism of sorts, which would allow me to know in a very precise manner when responding to a post will result in being a waste of my time.

[Agathor]

I really do wish there existed a mechanism of sorts, which would allow me to know in a very precise manner when responding to a post will result in being a waste of my time.

I can confirm this.

Edit: :)