Supporting "Anarcho"-Capitalists as a Means to an End

[CaptainJackJohnson]

I think there's a case for pairing up with "anarcho"-capitalists for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist without the force of the state, and so "anarcho"-capitalism can only ever lead to a true anarchist society as property titles and other legal constructs become unenforceable.

The real enemy are minarchist capitalists, who want to destroy everything about the government except the institutions necessary to enforce the unnatural system that is capitalism.

Thoughts?

[Quail]

Okay, but how would anarchists work with "anarcho"-capitalists? The way in which anarchist communists organise probably wouldn't really appeal to "anarcho"-capitalists. For example, we organise solidarity networks and resist dodgy landlords, whereas an anarcho-capitalist would think the landlord is well within his or her right to charge extortionate rent; if you don't like it, live somewhere else. We organise in the workplace, but anarcho-capitalists think it is okay for bosses to exploit their workers; again, if you don't like it, work somewhere else. I just don't see anywhere we would feasibly be able to work with people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I fully agree that capitalism cannot survive without state intervention, and that right libertarians can make useful comrades when addressing civil liberties, however, if their system was implemented we would ultimately end up with a Mad Max dystopia, rather than a genuine voluntary society.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I see this as well as other forms of accelerationism as really bad ideas. The thing is that "anarcho"- capitalists are NOT opposed to the state in the sense of class rule or in the sense of the minority ruling the majority. In fact, they argue indirectly for exactly these things. I have yet to find a single individual from such ideologies who does not support private police, courts or jails. As such their opposition to the state stems from the fact that (due to concessions) it prevents them from exploiting the proletariat more fully. This is precisely why you see them complain about minimum wage laws, environmental protections, and taxes. While they as a group may be composed of petty-bourgeoisie individuals (or even some aspiring petite-bourgeoisie) they decidedly act in the interests of the ruling class.

[goalkeeper]

I don't really see how campaigning for toll roads is going to be very helpful. What do you say to people, "we don't actually agree with all the blather but its just all part of our master plan"?

Besides, supporting Anarcho-capitalists would essentially just mean pressing "like" on their youtube videos or sharing them on your Facebook, because the only place they ever seem to be.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

According to 9mm, I am a liberal under a black flag, but I would never work with right-libertarians, or any other rightists. They ideology is closer to nazism than to anarchism.

[Blake's Baby]

The argument is the same as for working with liberals or social democrats.

We don't just oppose aspects of the current system but its totality. Capitalism can't exist without the state. But then again, the state can't exist without capitalism. 'Anarcho-capitalists' don't oppose the state (because ultimately the state is an expression of a class system which is in itself an expression of the property system they uphold), they just oppose the bits of the state they don't like (ie, taxes). That's the only bit of the state that makes any sense at all from the point of view of the working class.

[Comrade #138672]

@Quail: From that perspective one can argue that Anarcho-Capitalism and Neoliberalism actually strive towards the same thing.

Sometimes the "means" to an end actually harm the end.

[bcbm]

why would it make sense to pair up with people even more irrelevant than we are?

[Raúl Duke]

why would it make sense to pair up with people even more irrelevant than we are?

This, exactly this.

This isn't the first time I heard "hey lets pair up with an-caps." It seems to be something somewhat common in the US among some who call themselves, sometimes questionably, anarchists.

There's nothing to be gain from joining with them, they're more irrelevant than the already weak and/or irrelevant left. They don't even have anything that can be called a "movement" or presence except in the internet. It's a dumb idea and one fraught with all sorts of problems and difficulties.

[Crixus]

I think there's a case for pairing up with "anarcho"-capitalists for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist without the force of the state, and so "anarcho"-capitalism can only ever lead to a true anarchist society as property titles and other legal constructs become unenforceable.

The real enemy are minarchist capitalists, who want to destroy everything about the government except the institutions necessary to enforce the unnatural system that is capitalism.

Thoughts?

Because socialists and capitalists are polar political/economic opposites no matter what the capitalists are calling themselves. Because their theories can only exist in their heads. Because their theories that are actually viable are used to attack labor/workers. Because Rothbard, Mises, Hayek etc have made careers out of attacking communism. Because their melding of the 'non aggression principle' and private property is absurd. Because we want to abolish capital/private property. Because if a revolution actually took place they would side with fascists as Hayek did. Because they're even more right wing than the robber barons. And I would ultimatly not have anything to do with them because they're ridiculous analysis of capitalism which is completely devoid of any sort of basis in reality, as in, capital can do no wrong, everything is the states fault.

Don't for one minute think their theories are in any way viable or legitimate. Capitalists know this which is why actual capitalists scoff at the idea of "anarcho" capitalism. It's illegitimate theory which cannot be the basis of legitimate practice. Why don't people of color support the KKK as a means to an end? Why does this thread exist is a better question :)

[homegrown terror]

the only interaction with an-caps we need in a state of revolution is to raid their homes for munitions, since most of them are gun nuts.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

This, exactly this.

This isn't the first time I heard "hey lets pair up with an-caps." It seems to be something somewhat common in the US among some who call themselves, sometimes questionably, anarchists.


From what I've seen, this tendency (on the web at least) seems mostly confined to a couple of fringe mutualists (most mutualists I've seen hate them too). Overall, of people I've seen on r/anarchism, most anti-authoritarians hate "an"-caps almost as much as I do.

[Raúl Duke]

From what I've seen, this tendency (on the web at least) seems mostly confined to a couple of fringe mutualists (most mutualists I've seen hate them too). Overall, of people I've seen on r/anarchism, most anti-authoritarians hate "an"-caps almost as much as I do.

A handful of people, not many, I've met from Occupy have the knack of calling themselves "anarchists" and than going buddy-buddy with libertarians and an-caps and talking about Anonymous and whatever.

These "anarchists" make me not want to call myself an anarchist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read/heard about anarchism suggests that it can't abide hierarchy. If that's the case, then, well, it's really fucking ironic how the liberals I know insist that "anarcho-communism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism without hierarchy is, by definition, impossible.

I know that's not really being disputed here. I just needed to get that off my chest. As for working with them, as far as organizing mass rallies etc., that's been ridiculed enough.

What about sharing their goal of letting the banks collapse rather than be bailed out?
If you think that somehow workers can organize effectively enough to forcibly remove that safeguard against the collapse of capitalism, then maybe there's something to that, or maybe not. I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that even if revolutionary leftists and "anarcho"-capitalists both oppose the bailout, the "anarcho"-capitalist opposition will be a happenstance sort of thing---little more than an obscure footnote in history in a popular response to crisis that has anything good come out of it.

[Narodnik]

I don't think "anarcho"-capitalism would collapse, being that almost all stateless capitalists advocate replacing the state with private states. There's nothing good about there being no police if they are replaced by strikebreakers, IMO, it would even be worse.

[Crabbensmasher]

Have you ever seen a group of Anarcho-capitalists outside of the internet? I rest my case

[Narodnik]

There's a "Libertopia" festival..

[Crabbensmasher]

How do you know? Maybe it's a guise

[Narodnik]

Maybe :ninja:

[MP5]

The argument is the same as for working with liberals or social democrats.

We don't just oppose aspects of the current system but its totality. Capitalism can't exist without the state. But then again, the state can't exist without capitalism. 'Anarcho-capitalists' don't oppose the state (because ultimately the state is an expression of a class system which is in itself an expression of the property system they uphold), they just oppose the bits of the state they don't like (ie, taxes). That's the only bit of the state that makes any sense at all from the point of view of the working class.

Everytime i have a asked a so called Anarcho-Capitalist why they wanted to abolish the government they always say something like "I don't like my taxes going to welfare recipients and other bums" or "The government has no right taking any of my hard earned tax dollars on me" :rolleyes: but they never give the same reasons left wing aka real Anarchists give for wanting to abolish the state.

Anarcho-Capitalists first and foremost are Capitalists who believe in Laissez-faire Capitalism. They don't so much want to abolish the state as to abolish the parts of the state that try and control Capitalism atleast a little bit so that it won't become parasitic to the point where they essentially eat themselves and the whole thing collapses. They don't want pesky things like labor laws telling them how much they should pay their workers and what conditions the workers should have to do their job in. So they really are not Anarchists as they just want to destroy the parts of the state that keeps even the most minimal checks on Capitalists. Essentially Anarcho-Capitalists are just right wing Libertarians who tend to fit in with the likes of the GOP or the Conservative party of Canada rather well. Basically rich people=good people while poor people deserve to be poor as nature intended :sleep: and Communism=evil while Capitalism is not only a good thing but is the natural way of things :p .

Anarcho-Communists could not work with right wing Libertarians as we share none of the same goals at all really. Anarchist Communists want a classless and stateless society free of any hierarchy, private property or Capitalism that is based upon the principles of Communism. Anarcho-Capitalists on the other hand are basically just Capitalists who do not want any restrictions on their ways of doing business and are not Anarchists so much as they just want the state to stay out of the way of Capitalism and also to help enforce Capitalism and crush any challenge to it.

They unlike real Anarchists and also Socialists seem to believe in a natural social hierarchy where some people get fat while others starve. They also seem to be big believers in letting the worse off starve as they don't believe that any sort of charity should be handed out to these people. This is sort of funny as the only Anarcho-Capitalists i have ever had the misfortune of knowing are all trust fund babies who don't need to work or anything as their parents pay for everything. That somehow does not surprise me :rolleyes: .

They would not only be of no help at all in a Communist revolution but indeed they would be counterrevolutionary if anything. I think that if Capitalism was seriously challenged the Anarcho-Capitalists would have no qualms about enforcing a strong state to shore up Capitalism and to protect it from <insert scapegoat here>

Knowone takes these guys seriously at all and much like say 3rd world Maoism it's just a internet ideology for the most part.

[Comrade Nasser]

Kind of like keeping you're friends close and you're enemies closer huh? Well I don't agree with this.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

[Blake's Baby]

Kind of like keeping you're friends close and you're enemies closer huh? Well I don't agree with this...

That's not what's being suggested at all.

The idea being put forwrd is that working with 'An-Caps' will be useful both because we both critique the state (but they don't) and because it will show up the limitations of their ideology. Nothing to do with keeping an eye on them.


...The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

Not necessarily your friend. Often you enemy's enemy is your friend. The working class is the enemy of the bourgeoisie. So every worker is 'your friend' (or at least ally). For example.

[Deliverous]

This would not at all necessarily develop into any anarchist existence. What would probably happen is those with established power use their power to redevelop the state in order to ensure their power. You would be playing with peoples lives. Many would suffer from mass support for anarcho-capitalism and for no reasonable expectation than anything close to emancipation would come from it. There is no reason to fight for anarcho-capitalism as a means to an end than to fight for socialism.

[chase63]

I've read some an-cap articles on the c4ss website. On one hand they claimed there would be no state, and on the other hand said there would still be economic inequality. They also seemed to think the two ideas are compatible, officially demonstrating their total departure from reality. Being that we cannot agree on this fundamental principle with an-caps tells me we cannot work with them.

[Comrade Nasser]

That's not what's being suggested at all.

The idea being put forwrd is that working with 'An-Caps' will be useful both because we both critique the state (but they don't) and because it will show up the limitations of their ideology. Nothing to do with keeping an eye on them.



Not necessarily your friend. Often you enemy's enemy is your friend. The working class is the enemy of the bourgeoisie. So every worker is 'your friend' (or at least ally). For example.

You're right comrade. We can't just push them aside, we do have to keep one eye on them at all times.

[Agathor]

What Anarcho Capitalists would we support? Which organizations? It's just a bunch of kids on the internet. Who cares.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, this assumes that an-caps have a lot of strength and clout, which they don't. It's one of the few political strands that we actually outnumber :laugh:

[Slippers]

It would such a mistake to think we could work well with these people, or to think that it'd be beneficial to us to do so.

"Anarcho-Capitalists" (in my experience) tend to advocate for "private states" anyway.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

From my experience, An-Caps are only useful in pulling abstract nonsense detached from reality to support a exploitative society. Oh, and strawmanning and lying to the best of their ability, as their apostle Rothbard does here: http://mises.org/daily/2197

[Blake's Baby]

I'm arguing with one at the moment about whether or not he 'owns' his body. Ridiculous - it's the rankest dualism. I'm asking him to dispossess 'himself' of 'his body', though I suppose I could claim 'his body' owns 'him'.

Rather reminds me of 'I want you to call me Loretta' from Life of Brian.

"Suppose we agree that he can't actually dispossess himself of his body, not having an immortal soul, which is nobody's fault, not even the capitalists', but he does have the right to dispossess himself of his body?'

Cut to: "Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like."

[Kirillov]

Calling Anarcho-Capitalists a bunch of kids on the internet is somewhat of an understatement and from my point of view quite counter productive too. One has to examine what they're saying and doing because the question of cooperation is not unimportant I think. Just take Ron Paul. He's got quite a following and got far closer to actual power than any candidate who could be considered "left" by any sane standards. So there's actually a Minarchist to Ancap current in the population one could affiliate with on some grounds. And I think this happens a lot. There are quite a few Anarchists who believe this to be an option.

But as a matter of fact this isn't a question of state over no state. I think there a basically two smaller questions at hand here. The first being whether to actively participate in putting a capitalist Libertarian in power or not. Someone who would destroy basically everything the working class had fought for over decades and in fact hundreds of years, when there's no way someone like that could abolish the state nor do something remotely like that. So that shouldn't be an option already because of that. On the other hand one should not dismiss them outside the context of government politics and such. They could be and in fact are a strong ally in the fight for say freedom of speech and topics like that, which are especially important to enemies of the state and capitalism.

Also I don't even believe one should out right dismiss their theoretical works. Those people are usually far more dedicated to reason than your ordinary liberal or republican. You usually won't find a serious discussion of marxism, socialism and so on in the works of proponents of the latter. You usually won't even find people willing to engage in a serious debate over those things. With Anarcho-Capitalists and especially their prominent proponents it's different. You can actually read say Hayek and learn something, improve your argument and so on. You can't read Reaganites or even Neoconservatives like Kirkpatrick or Kristol (people who actually have a marxist background) and learn something about socialism. It's just populist rubbish.

[Agathor]

Calling Anarcho-Capitalists a bunch of kids on the internet is somewhat of an understatement and from my point of view quite counter productive too. One has to examine what they're saying and doing because the question of cooperation is not unimportant I think. Just take Ron Paul. He's got quite a following and got far closer to actual power than any candidate who could be considered "left" by any sane standards. So there's actually a Minarchist to Ancap current in the population one could affiliate with on some grounds. And I think this happens a lot. There are quite a few Anarchists who believe this to be an option.


http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/09/09/without-ron-paul-american-libertarianism-is-likely-to-die/. Article I wrote for Liberal Conspiracy last year. Paul's base was a very wide church in which libertarians and minarchists were almost certainly a minority. Most of the people voting for him were probably naive liberals who had no idea what his domestic policies were. And anarcho-capitalism is a small strand within that small strand, which exists only in the United States, where it has never achieved anything of note beyond the most stubborn presidential campaign in history.



But as a matter of fact this isn't a question of state over no state. I think there a basically two smaller questions at hand here. The first being whether to actively participate in putting a capitalist Libertarian in power or not. Someone who would destroy basically everything the working class had fought for over decades and in fact hundreds of years, when there's no way someone like that could abolish the state nor do something remotely like that. So that shouldn't be an option already because of that. On the other hand one should not dismiss them outside the context of government politics and such. They could be and in fact are a strong ally in the fight for say freedom of speech and topics like that, which are especially important to enemies of the state and capitalism.

Op was talking about supporting anarcho-capitalists, not participating in an anti Patriot Act demonstration with them.



Also I don't even believe one should out right dismiss their theoretical works. Those people are usually far more dedicated to reason than your ordinary liberal or republican. You usually won't find a serious discussion of marxism, socialism and so on in the works of proponents of the latter. You usually won't even find people willing to engage in a serious debate over those things. With Anarcho-Capitalists and especially their prominent proponents it's different. You can actually read say Hayek and learn something, improve your argument and so on. You can't read Reaganites or even Neoconservatives like Kirkpatrick or Kristol (people who actually have a marxist background) and learn something about socialism. It's just populist rubbish.

The "theoretical works" are just pretentious trash. And anyway, if volume of theory produced by a political sect had some relation to their power then Marxists would rule the universe.

If you think any sort of right wing libertarian organization has any influence in society then I think you need to spend less time on the internet.

[MP5]

They are morons and not arguing with. I have yet to meet one who can explain to me why Anarcho-Communism would fail while Anarcho-Capitalism would work. Beyond of course the age old arguments that Anarchism and Communism are oxymorons :laugh: and that humans are inherently greedy creatures so Capitalism is natural while Communism is not. That is the biggest load of shit ever!

So yeah don't even bother.

[Kirillov]

1) Sure, Anarcho-Capitalists are a very, very small group. There's no point in denying this. Fortunately for me I didn't. Minarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists being almost certainly a minority in the ranks of Ron Paul supporters however is not a strong argument for them being of no relevance at all.

2) I know what OP was talking about, which is why wrote some sentences regarding that subject.

3) Where did I write something even remotely close to: "the volume of theory is somehow related to power"? Also: You do see a difference between Böhm von Bawerk's, Mises' and Hayek's discussion of marxism and works regarding that subject from prominent conservatives? They're both wrong. But reading the former you're at least presented arguments. Like you can read the road to serfdom and examine and validate Hayek's totalitarianism-theory. (And you should be able to.) You can't do this with William Kristol's works on that subject (who, considering his history, really should know better), because it's just fear-mongering, paranoid fiction.

4) Why are you even mad though?

[canto-faire]

Having been an Anarcho-Capitalist, slowly converted to a Communist, there are a few arguments for supporting them and/or considering them "allies" I'd like to suggest.

1. The vast majority of Anarcho-Capitalists view Capitalism solely in terms of theoretical models proposed by Austrian Economists, the vast majority of them don't consider any facet of modern economics to be "Capitalist." I think this is a very common "talking past each other" issue - an Anarcho-Capitalist arguing for Capitalism is generally not going to support the actual existence Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs, but the standard Leftist reaction is to assume that's the case. This means there's a lot more both camps oppose than just the curtailment of civil liberties - as far as I can tell, the lists for both are about the same.

2. Not all Anarcho-Capitalists are actual Anarchists, no; I'd venture to say that the strong majority of AnCaps are not Anarchists. But there are some; sure, their understanding of hierarchy is different than a leftist, but they'll claim to be against hierarchy, which is all Anarchism is about. Between this and the nearly total convergence on what the two camps oppose, means that at least some can be an important part of a united radical front.

3. It's a goddamn gold mine for converts. The whole Libertarian movement (at least the younger, post-Paul parts of it) is. They're radically opposed to the State, looking for creative ways to re-write all of society, tend to be very philosophically minded, and more than happy to be on the fringe. The key is knowing which parts of their philosophy to challenge - for me, it was the idea that property can only work in one way. It took a long time to accept it, but when the idea that property can work in more than just a Capitalist sense set me on a left turn I find myself farther down every day.

Don't discount them so quickly; sure, on the internet, they come across as absolutely ridiculous, and in real life their political involvement is incredibly insular (their primary purpose is to try and get other libertarians to agree with them). But they're the radical facet of the Libertarian movement, and that can be very important in both building a radical front and in turning the US Libertarian movement in a more leftist direction.

[cyu]

I suppose the Soviet Union should make a deal with the Nazis as a means to an end.

[Blake's Baby]

Bazinga!

Not everyone thought that was a good idea though, if I remember correctly.

[MarxArchist]

I'd rather drink boiling water.

[Zukunftsmusik]

"First anarcho-capitalism, then us!"

Sounds familiar...

[Aleksandr Karelin]

I have way more in common with libertarians than I do leninists or liberals. Anarchism does not have the ability to enforce an economic framework on an autonomous community. In a communist society, or Anarchist, as I would call it, people would be free to choose how their economy and community is ran. For absolute sure some people would choose a market system and others would collectivize.

I am against the state propping up the artificial market and monopoly capitalism, or what we call imperialism, which can only occur with state regulation and control.

I am not against free people entering in a local system of trade, if they wish. What matters is the choice, you can choose to live in a market economy, or choose to live in a communal society based on mutual aid.

Anything else is not freedom. In my view.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

The problem is though that capitalism is not just a "market economy," it is predicated on the use of state violence to enforce the property claims of the bourgeoisie (as well as other aspects such as alienated labor, etc.).

If a group chose to start a capitalist "commune," I would not (at first) see any problem with that. Either it would remain irrelevant, much as any attempt at feudalism would be now, or it would (through the use of state power, even if they don't call it a state) rapidly expand and threaten the freedom of nearby groups. In such a case, it would be quite necessary to extend mutual aid to the newly created class of wage-slaves (who would doubtless be in horrible conditions and unable to escape) and overthrow the capitalists.

Further, how can it be freedom if we are forced to abide by the property claims of others? If I wish to go out on my own and settle on land that happens to be owned by capitalists and they attempt to force me out or reduce me to wage slavery (in order to pay for "their" land), then the relation is hardly voluntary, is it?

[Aleksandr Karelin]

The problem is though that capitalism is not just a "market economy," it is predicated on the use of state violence to enforce the property claims of the bourgeoisie (as well as other aspects such as alienated labor, etc.).

If a group chose to start a capitalist "commune," I would not (at first) see any problem with that. Either it would remain irrelevant, much as any attempt at feudalism would be now, or it would (through the use of state power, even if they don't call it a state) rapidly expand and threaten the freedom of nearby groups. In such a case, it would be quite necessary to extend mutual aid to the newly created class of wage-slaves (who would doubtless be in horrible conditions and unable to escape) and overthrow the capitalists.

Further, how can it be freedom if we are forced to abide by the property claims of others? If I wish to go out on my own and settle on land that happens to be owned by capitalists and they attempt to force me out or reduce me to wage slavery (in order to pay for "their" land), then the relation is hardly voluntary, is it?

I dont agree at all. You are just stating things but have no actual evidence for or against your arguement. We have never seen the situation you talk about so lets not pretend we know what would happen.

Also if everyone had access to guns and lived in a communal society that they saw as worth fighting for, how the fuck would a capitalist local economic faction enforce anyone to do anything.

I am interested in discussing this though actually. For example, don't you find your willingness to force people to live how you feel is right an authoritarian and anti democratic stance?

[MarxArchist]

I dont agree at all. You are just stating things but have no actual evidence for or against your arguement. We have never seen the situation you talk about so lets not pretend we know what would happen.

Also if everyone had access to guns and lived in a communal society that they saw as worth fighting for, how the fuck would a capitalist local economic faction enforce anyone to do anything.

I am interested in discussing this though actually. For example, don't you find your willingness to force people to live how you feel is right an authoritarian and anti democratic stance?

You don't understand the market system. It can't just function in small little pockets with people trading, buying and selling things. Maybe some pre-industrial farm community but in order for industry to exist in the market system, you know, cars being built, gadgets, modern homes, paved roads etc, a working class must exist to be hired by capitalists to build it. The only way this class can be created is by taking away millions of peoples ability to survive outside of market property relations. Furthermore, in order for the property based market system to last it must constantly seek to 'open up new markets'- it must constantly spread out, grow, take in more resources, take up more land, dispossess more people to force into wage labor. Get the picture? Capitalism is like a plague spreading across earth. Evidence is actual history. These aren't just idealist opinions these are material facts. The only idealists are "anarcho" capitalists who think their ideas are somehow viable when the material reality of the property based market system tells us otherwise.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I dont agree at all. You are just stating things but have no actual evidence for or against your arguement. We have never seen the situation you talk about so lets not pretend we know what would happen.

Also if everyone had access to guns and lived in a communal society that they saw as worth fighting for, how the fuck would a capitalist local economic faction enforce anyone to do anything.

I am interested in discussing this though actually. For example, don't you find your willingness to force people to live how you feel is right an authoritarian and anti democratic stance?

1. Quite the contrary, we have seen similar events occur with the rise of state societies in the neolithic era where primitive communist or "barbarian" societies were eventually forcibly overrun by expanding slave states that instituted forced labor. Similarly, the rise of the modern bourgeoisie states paralleled and were a necessary precondition to the development of mercantile economies and later more fully developed capitalist ones. Both cases were examples of more "advanced" economies subsuming the previous modes of production, so they do not completely apply economically. However, they show quite clearly the impact that the development of new state power can have on unprepared societies.

2. But you just said that we have market economies in our hypothetical society? As you said that you feel close to "libertarians" (I will assume that you mean to use the American definition of the term here) I also assume that you mean capitalist economies and not mutualist ones (whether mutualist societies could exist long-term is another question entirely). Let me say it again, capitalism requires a state, whether in the sense of an institution enforcing dominant property relations or in the sense of a minority ruling a minority. This is because capitalism requires that the the bourgeoisie's property claims are respected and that there exists a dispossessed and sufficiently impoverished working class. Have you read the sections of the @faq on capitalism/"libertarians"/"an"caps? It is quite helpful here.

Now that I have established that such capitalist economies require a state, I return to point 1, that stateless societies are inherently endangered by the very presence of a state, which of necessity includes special bodies of armed men, etc. Thus, it will be necessary for free societies to defend themselves against emerging capitalist states and prevent them from forming in the first place, regardless of the views of the ruling classes of our capitalist communities. Indeed, the views of the new capitalist class should not be taken into consideration at all when considering if such a community is voluntary. After all, the present system also seems quite voluntary to many capitalists.

3. When did I say I would be willing to force people to live in accordance with my wishes? You seem to view my refusing to respect capitalist property rights as something "anti-democratic" on my part. This is not so, capitalism is inherently anti-democratic. By the very act of claiming the land capitalists have engaged in a declaration of force against all those who would have otherwise used it freely and without restraint. Furthermore, I take a class perspective on the "authoritarian" v "libertarian" dichotomy. I am not concerned in the least with the "freedom" of the oppressing capitalist class to subjugate others to their will and force them to work for them by virtue of their property rights. What I am concerned with is the final liberation of the working classes and other oppressed groups.

[MarxArchist]

Having been an Anarcho-Capitalist, slowly converted to a Communist, there are a few arguments for supporting them and/or considering them "allies" I'd like to suggest.

1. The vast majority of Anarcho-Capitalists view Capitalism solely in terms of theoretical models proposed by Austrian Economists, the vast majority of them don't consider any facet of modern economics to be "Capitalist." I think this is a very common "talking past each other" issue - an Anarcho-Capitalist arguing for Capitalism is generally not going to support the actual existence Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs, but the standard Leftist reaction is to assume that's the case. This means there's a lot more both camps oppose than just the curtailment of civil liberties - as far as I can tell, the lists for both are about the same.

The advocate the total rule of capital. I could care less if they call the current system "corporatism" or "crony capitalism". They advocate the complete subjugation of labor. We advocate the complete liberation of labor. There is no common ground. None. Nothing. Zero.









2. Not all Anarcho-Capitalists are actual Anarchists, no; I'd venture to say that the strong majority of AnCaps are not Anarchists. But there are some; sure, their understanding of hierarchy is different than a leftist, but they'll claim to be against hierarchy, which is all Anarchism is about. Between this and the nearly total convergence on what the two camps oppose, means that at least some can be an important part of a united radical front.

You don't understand how a work force is created in order to set the foundations for market property relations. You also don't understand the labor theory of value. You also don't understand how the market must function, as in, eat up everything in it's path. No "anarcho" capitalist is an anarchist. Not one.



3. It's a goddamn gold mine for converts. The whole Libertarian movement (at least the younger, post-Paul parts of it) is. They're radically opposed to the State, looking for creative ways to re-write all of society, tend to be very philosophically minded, and more than happy to be on the fringe. The key is knowing which parts of their philosophy to challenge - for me, it was the idea that property can only work in one way. It took a long time to accept it, but when the idea that property can work in more than just a Capitalist sense set me on a left turn I find myself farther down every day.

No. Market property relations and an industrial market economy can only work one way. Voluntarism is a joke. If you advocate some sort of market voluntarism we need to have a more in depth discussion.


Don't discount them so quickly; sure, on the internet, they come across as absolutely ridiculous, and in real life their political involvement is incredibly insular (their primary purpose is to try and get other libertarians to agree with them). But they're the radical facet of the Libertarian movement, and that can be very important in both building a radical front and in turning the US Libertarian movement in a more leftist direction.

Impossible. Unless of course they come to realize that their idealist ideology is 100% garbage. I've had debates in person and online with these people for 15 years. It's ugh...brought me close to an aneurysm on more than one occasion. Maybe some young 15-23 year old confused kid but the actual long term advocates of the ideology are 100% idealists who will never understand or accept how market property relations MUST work in order for a market system to exist. They all need a reality check based in historical materialism. Sounds like you're in need as well?

[Blake's Baby]

If a community decides it wants to trade, but other communities do not, they want to exist in free-access communism, how does it work if one needs the others' resources? Do people from the 'free' communities just take the 'property' of the 'propertarian' communities (making them 'pay' is against their freedom) and the 'propertarians' have to pay for the 'free' communities' goods (because they think that paying = ownership)?

Do the 'propertarian' communities have the 'right' to declare exclusive ownership of goods? If so, why? Isn't 'the earth a common treasury'?

[Narodnik]

No "anarcho" capitalist is an anarchist. Not one.
David Ellerman. He's against instuting hierarchical relations (employment contracts), but is a capitalist (supports renting means of production, money and products).

[Aleksandr Karelin]

1. Quite the contrary, we have seen similar events occur with the rise of state societies in the neolithic era where primitive communist or "barbarian" societies were eventually forcibly overrun by expanding slave states that instituted forced labor. Similarly, the rise of the modern bourgeoisie states paralleled and were a necessary precondition to the development of mercantile economies and later more fully developed capitalist ones. Both cases were examples of more "advanced" economies subsuming the previous modes of production, so they do not completely apply economically. However, they show quite clearly the impact that the development of new state power can have on unprepared societies.

2. But you just said that we have market economies in our hypothetical society? As you said that you feel close to "libertarians" (I will assume that you mean to use the American definition of the term here) I also assume that you mean capitalist economies and not mutualist ones (whether mutualist societies could exist long-term is another question entirely). Let me say it again, capitalism requires a state, whether in the sense of an institution enforcing dominant property relations or in the sense of a minority ruling a minority. This is because capitalism requires that the the bourgeoisie's property claims are respected and that there exists a dispossessed and sufficiently impoverished working class. Have you read the sections of the @faq on capitalism/"libertarians"/"an"caps? It is quite helpful here.

Now that I have established that such capitalist economies require a state, I return to point 1, that stateless societies are inherently endangered by the very presence of a state, which of necessity includes special bodies of armed men, etc. Thus, it will be necessary for free societies to defend themselves against emerging capitalist states and prevent them from forming in the first place, regardless of the views of the ruling classes of our capitalist communities. Indeed, the views of the new capitalist class should not be taken into consideration at all when considering if such a community is voluntary. After all, the present system also seems quite voluntary to many capitalists.

3. When did I say I would be willing to force people to live in accordance with my wishes? You seem to view my refusing to respect capitalist property rights as something "anti-democratic" on my part. This is not so, capitalism is inherently anti-democratic. By the very act of claiming the land capitalists have engaged in a declaration of force against all those who would have otherwise used it freely and without restraint. Furthermore, I take a class perspective on the "authoritarian" v "libertarian" dichotomy. I am not concerned in the least with the "freedom" of the oppressing capitalist class to subjugate others to their will and force them to work for them by virtue of their property rights. What I am concerned with is the final liberation of the working classes and other oppressed groups.

capitalism requires a state because you say so. Ok cheers. good talk homie.


I am an Anarchist, I am also a communist and would not enter into a localised free market system, but an an anarchist I would not have the means, via state force, or want, to crush a capitalist economy.

Also large parts of somalia have no state and capitalism continues. Is it a good system? Not in my view no, Do I have the right to crush it because I disagree? No, because I am not an authoritarian and believe in personal freedom.

Comparing now to a time in the neolithic era is straight disingenuous, that's like holding the step people and the Khan to the same moral laws that we place on the US government today. We have progressed past that stage in human development.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

capitalism requires a state because you say so. Ok cheers. good talk homie.


I am an Anarchist, I am also a communist and would not enter into a localised free market system, but an an anarchist I would not have the means, via state force, or want, to crush a capitalist economy.

Also large parts of somalia have no state and capitalism continues. Is it a good system? Not in my view no, Do I have the right to crush it because I disagree? No, because I am not an authoritarian and believe in personal freedom.

Comparing now to a time in the neolithic era is straight disingenuous, that's like holding the step people and the Khan to the same moral laws that we place on the US government today. We have progressed past that stage in human development.

Have you ever read anything about the formation of capitalism? Any anthropological works? Archeological ones? Historical ones? Any analysis of the material conditions that led to capitalism in the first place? That capitalism requires a state is relatively non controversial opinion in most leftist circles, I am surprised to see a self professed "class-struggle anarchist" argue otherwise. Regardless, you seem not to understand what capitalism is either. I would be very interested to hear what it is that you think it consists of.

You also seem to be equating overthrowing states with a state, which I don't understand at all. I am glad to hear that you believe in personal freedom, as an anarchist, so do I. This is part of why I feel that capitalism should be overthrown. You also mentioned Somalia, yet it most definitely has a state, it has private warlords who enforce property claims and also act as a minority ruling class. A stateless society does not lack only "government," but rulers and classes.

I don't see it as being disingenuous at all, there are clear parallels between a state emerging in primitive communism and a state emerging in anarchist-communism. I also note that you did not address my point about the rise of bourgeoisie states and their interdependence with capitalist markets

I have no idea what you mean by "moral development" though it seems to be a very idealist point if it is one at all.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Have you ever read anything about the formation of capitalism? Any anthropological works? Archeological ones? Historical ones? Any analysis of the material conditions that led to capitalism in the first place? That capitalism requires a state is relatively non controversial opinion in most leftist circles, I am surprised to see a self professed "class-struggle anarchist" argue otherwise. Regardless, you seem not to understand what capitalism is either. I would be very interested to hear what it is that you think it consists of.

You also seem to be equating overthrowing states with a state, which I don't understand at all. I am glad to hear that you believe in personal freedom, as an anarchist, so do I. This is part of why I feel that capitalism should be overthrown. You also mentioned Somalia, yet it most definitely has a state, it has private warlords who enforce property claims and also act as a minority ruling class. A stateless society does not lack only "government," but rulers and classes.

I don't see it as being disingenuous at all, there are clear parallels between a state emerging in primitive communism and a state emerging in anarchist-communism. I also note that you did not address my point about the rise of bourgeoisie states and their interdependence with capitalist markets

I have no idea what you mean by "moral development" though it seems to be a very idealist point if it is one at all.

You misunderstand my point. What I am saying is people can start a market system in a localised democracy without a state. Do I think it will last without a state propping it up? No. I do think capitalism can run and sustain itself before the "anarchy of production" as Marx referred to it as, creates constant crises? maybe for a while at best. That if a true Anarchist opinion. Let them have their capitalist autonomous zone. It can not last, if it does, good they can live with it, if not, they will be forced to collectivist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You misunderstand my point. What I am saying is people can start a market system in a localised democracy without a state. Do I think it will last without a state propping it up? No. I do think capitalism can run and sustain itself before the "anarchy of production" as Marx referred to it as, creates constant crises? maybe for a while at best. That if a true Anarchist opinion. Let them have their capitalist autonomous zone. It can not last, if it does, good they can live with it, if not, they will be forced to collectivist.

How do you define a state? Anywhere with a ruler or hierarchy has a state of some sort, be it one of a village or one that extends from one ocean to another. The state and an upper-class will always exist together, as that is what the state does, it keeps an economic system in place. Anywhere where an economic system based on exploitation has been there has been a state, as that is what keeps the exploited from being free. It's a very different view of the state from the bourgeois view of the state, or what constitutes a state.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

How do you define a state? Anywhere with a ruler or hierarchy has a state of some sort, be it one of a village or one that extends from one ocean to another. The state and an upper-class will always exist together, as that is what the state does, it keeps an economic system in place. Anywhere where an economic system based on exploitation has been there has been a state, as that is what keeps the exploited from being free. It's a very different view of the state from the bourgeois view of the state, or what constitutes a state.

This is such a juvenile argument among leftists. I remember on another forum Maoists were saying This to counter debate about the Anarchists in catalonia. Shove your semantics up your ass. You know what definition of state I am using.

Also you are now on my blocked list. Congrats.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is such a juvenile argument among leftists. I remember on another forum Maoists were saying This to counter debate about the Anarchists in catalonia. Shove your semantics up your ass. You know what definition of state I am using.

Also you are now on my blocked list. Congrats.

Oh the horror! Not the blocked list! :laugh:

EDIT: btw, I was actually trying to be helpful when I asked how you define the state. But resorting to immature swearing just because I told you how I see most people (or at least Marxists) define the state is, well, quite petty.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

You misunderstand my point. What I am saying is people can start a market system in a localised democracy without a state. Do I think it will last without a state propping it up? No. I do think capitalism can run and sustain itself before the "anarchy of production" as Marx referred to it as, creates constant crises? maybe for a while at best. That if a true Anarchist opinion. Let them have their capitalist autonomous zone. It can not last, if it does, good they can live with it, if not, they will be forced to collectivist.

Then we only have a slight disagreement. As I mentioned earlier, Capitalism is not just a "free market" (else there would either be no significant difference between the early empires, Feudalism, and the present or you could claim that Capitalism has never have existed in the first place :D). Capitalism is also based on the individual ownership of private property and the extraction of surplus value through individual appropriations from the social production, etc. I would have no problem with, for example mutualists attempting to go off and have a "free-market" anti-capitalist society (lol, don't think it would work long term, but to each their own). What I would have a problem with is if those anarchists who embraced markets inadvertently created a state (or any such ruling institution by another name) and thus capitalism in order to protect their property from a new underclass of wage workers. Were capitalism and thus such a state to emerge, then of course I would advocate its overthrow and the liberation of said newly oppressed underclass.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Then we only have a slight disagreement. As I mentioned earlier, Capitalism is not just a "free market" (else there would either be no significant difference between the early empires, Feudalism, and the present or you could claim that Capitalism has never have existed in the first place :D). Capitalism is also based on the individual ownership of private property and the extraction of surplus value through individual appropriations from the social production, etc. I would have no problem with, for example mutualists attempting to go off and have a "free-market" anti-capitalist society (lol, don't think it would work long term, but to each their own). What I would have a problem with is if those anarchists who embraced markets inadvertently created a state (or any such ruling institution by another name) and thus capitalism in order to protect their property from a new underclass of wage workers. Were capitalism and thus such a state to emerge, then of course I would advocate its overthrow and the liberation of said newly oppressed underclass.

Chomsky talkked aout this in his "the real adam smith" bit right? Where he says that perfect liberty will lead to perfect market equality?

[garrus]

Let's cooperate with an-caps, we desperately need that extra 0.00001% of the population on our side.

[MarxArchist]

If a community decides it wants to trade, but other communities do not, they want to exist in free-access communism, how does it work if one needs the others' resources? Do people from the 'free' communities just take the 'property' of the 'propertarian' communities (making them 'pay' is against their freedom) and the 'propertarians' have to pay for the 'free' communities' goods (because they think that paying = ownership)?

Do the 'propertarian' communities have the 'right' to declare exclusive ownership of goods? If so, why? Isn't 'the earth a common treasury'?

There's no such thing as a 'propertarian community'. There can't be. It's an impossibility. Only in a non industrial situation. Like a wild west town or feudal town with no feudal lord with artisans, merchants, farmers, ranchers etc trading goods with some wage laborer's being ranch hands/apprentices/bar keeps etc. It's a non industrial zero growth scenario but zero growth market property relations are impossible. It's not capitalism but would eventually lead to it via accumulation of property and wealth. In order to industrialize, in order to maintain industry, in order to maintain profits to keep cars, TV's, computers, nick knacks of all sorts selling and profitable the market must perpetually expand. Constantly devour new land, resources and sources of labor. You know this, yes? It's like the "free market" and "anarcho" capitalists simply theoretically wish away the realities of industrial market property relations and the actual purpose of the state. It's beyond confounding it's like dealing with Christians on the question concerning the existence of god. Both are idealists. "Anarcho" capitalists have 'faith' in their ideas which have no material basis. They have no concept of historical materialism/the rise of the state, primitive accumulation, what it took to create a labor force, what it took to industrialize etc and so on.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

There's no such thing as a 'propertarian' community'. There can't be. It's an impossibility. Only on a non industrial situation. Like a wild west town with artisans, merchants, farmers, ranchers etc trading goods with some wage laborer's being ranch hands/apprentices/bar keeps etc. It's a non industrial zero growth scenario. It's not capitalism. In order to industrialize, in order to maintain industry, in order to maintain profits to keep cars, TV's, computers, nick knacks of all sorts selling and profitable the market must perpetually expand. Constantly devour new land, resources and sources of labor. You know this, yes? It's like the "free market" and "anarcho" capitalists simply theoretically wish away the realities of industrial market property relations and the actual purpose of the state. It's beyond confounding it's like dealing with Christians on the question concerning the existence of god. Both are idealists. "Anarcho" capitalists have 'faith' in their ideas which have no material basis.

So if it is not possible it would fail, why keep going on about it?

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I would assume because in its failure, the attempt at stateless capitalism would either disappear (which is of course preferable and not a problem at all) or it would inevitably create a state, classes, etc. in order to self perpetuate. It is in this instance that such a society would need to be destroyed, to say nothing of the oppression a new state would cause, because it would also probably expand until it came into conflict with other communities. Such communities would be relatively ill-equipped to deal with armies, specialized police forces, and private mercenaries that would accompany the growth of state in a newly capitalist community, especially if we are talking quite a few generations into a post-capitalist economy.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

I would assume because in its failure, the attempt at stateless capitalism would either disappear (which is of course preferable and not a problem at all) or it would inevitably create a state, classes, etc. in order to self perpetuate. It is in this instance that such a society would need to be destroyed, to say nothing of the oppression a new state would cause, because it would also probably expand until it came into conflict with other communities. Such communities would be relatively ill-equipped to deal with armies, specialized police forces, and private mercenaries that would accompany the growth of state in a newly capitalist community, especially if we are talking quite a few generations into a post-capitalist economy.

Armed communal communities who have a democratic militia and shit loads of guns could not fight an armed professional force? Erm history has proven a state force as huge as America can not beat a guerrilla force, never mind a whole community as well armed and trained as the enemy, which democratic communities would be,w e would not burn all our weapons once the world is stateless.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Of course not, but there would be no incentive to maintain them at present levels or further their development (especially as doing so would be relatively wasteful), while to newly emerging capitalists, new and more devastating weapons technology would appear quite profitable. Similarly, even though the capitalists could in all probability be successfully resisted if they started a war, allowing it to get to the point where they attack (with the accompanying return to wage slavery for segments of the population) is hardly an optimal strategy, either militarily or economically.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

We plain disagree, if one group is trying to start a state and enforce ideology, how long will it take for the rest of the groups in a federation to puick up guns and start killing people? Not long at all.

[MarxArchist]

So if it is not possible it would fail, why keep going on about it?

Because in that scenario a capitalist state would manifest as it did in reality in order to force the system on the globe as it had to do to create a labor force and as it had to do to perpetuate itself as the system must constantly expand in order to maintain profits. They simply advocate a privatized state to 'protect' property 'rights'. They're not anarchists. Anyone who thinks such has a lot to learn. This means you.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Because in that scenario a capitalist state would manifest as it did in reality in order to force the system on the globe as it had to do to create a labor force and as it had to do to perpetuate itself as the system must constantly expand in order to maintain profits. They simply advocate a privatized state to 'protect' property 'rights'. They're not anarchists. Anyone who thinks such has a lot to learn. This means you.

My position on this is the exact same as chomskers. Let me guess, you are an actual Anarchist but I am not. :p

[MarxArchist]

Armed communal communities who have a democratic militia and shit loads of guns could not fight an armed professional force? Erm history has proven a state force as huge as America can not beat a guerrilla force, never mind a whole community as well armed and trained as the enemy, which democratic communities would be,w e would not burn all our weapons once the world is stateless.

What history? You mean the history where the Soviet Union was financially backing gorilla forces? Anyhow, communism isnt about a perpetual state of war with "anarcho" capitalism. No one wants to live in that world. Take your head out of your rear end.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

What history? You mean the history where the Soviet Union was financially backing gorilla forces? Anyhow, communism isnt about a perpetual state of war with "anarcho" capitalism. No one wants to live in that world. Take your head out of your rear end.

Yeah whereas enforcing an authoritarian system in the name of egalitarianism is about as Anarchist as you can get. Please tell me more about Anarchism is not about personal freedom of economy and society. Please tell me that I am not an Anarchist because I disagree with you.

Seriously, thank you. I am really great full. Your Anarchism is as nuanced as A roy chubby brown DVD.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Where did he say that you were not an anarchist? Anarchism is indeed about personal freedom, socially and economically. But you seem to have (at least partially) bought into the idea that contracts and the sale of wage labor are completely voluntary and occur without coercion. This is of course not the case and would not be the case in any so called "anarcho" capitalist society. The only motivation that people have for selling their labor (and thus giving up a portion of their labor power) is that capitalists control the means production (with the state enforcing their claim) and thus the means of subsistence.

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Where did he say that you were not an anarchist? Anarchism is indeed about personal freedom, socially and economically. But you seem to have (at least partially) bought into the idea that contracts and the sale of wage labor are completely voluntary and occur without coercion. This is of course not the case and would not be the case in any so called "anarcho" capitalist society. The only motivation that people have for selling their labor (and thus giving up a portion of their labor power) is that capitalists control the means production (with the state enforcing their claim) and thus the means of subsistence.

So no one can ever voluntry enter a capitalist community in an anarchist federation willingly? it is the lack of choice because of a state enforcing that economy why the capitalists actions of robbing the worker of surplus value by paying him a fraction of what he produces is actually worth, is a violent act in itself in society today

If you remove that and give people the choice to live in a communal or market society, you remove the violence from the social relation.

If someone kidnaps me and uses me as a sex slave, that is a horrific, violent act. If I am into BDSM and become a sub for someone, the acts performed are the same but the difference is day and night, one is voluntary and one if enforced.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Of course they can willingly enter a capitalist economy (no idea why they would rationally choose to do such a thing rather than a mutualist one if they did have a market fetish) in our hypothetical society, but whether they will be allowed to leave is another thing entirely. For example, if the land on the outskirts of an "anarcho" capitalist society was claimed, the owner could easily prevent people from leaving or crossing their land. One of the main tenets of "anarcho" capitalism is complete sovereignty over "justly" claimed or homesteaded land and thus the ability to hire private police, lawfirms, judges, or other "defense" agencies. Such groups, would constitute the basis of the new states based not on the borders between different countries, but on the borders between different property owners.

[Fionnagáin]

The problem with the idea of a capitalist enclave in a communist world is that, as soon as the communists need some resource found in the capitalist district, they're going to take it. Why wouldn't they? Property is theft, no masters, etc. And without property, without the organisation of resources and labour for the production of value rather than need need, what "capitalism" is there to speak of? All you'd be left with is a town full of weirdos who insist on passing about little tokens before doing what they could always have done to begin with.

[MarxArchist]

My position on this is the exact same as chomskers. Let me guess, you are an actual Anarchist but I am not. :p
Hey dingbat listen to his analysis on free market theory and market reality. I don't usually call people dingbats but you're either a dingbat or a troll. Are you an anarchist? No, if you think "anarcho" capitalism is a legitimate system then you're not an anarchist or at least an anarchist who understands materialism/historical materialism and hence what's actually possible in reality. Even so Chomsky isn't any sort of anarchist jesus who's word is the gold standard of anarchism. There's a long tradition of actual anarchists opposing and rejecting the "anarcho" capitalist perversion. I'm starting to suspect you may just be an anarcho capitalist coming onto a socialist forum to fool around. A lot of things you've been saying are off the wall.



Bvlot5VMLGI

Maybe read this, it won't take as long.



Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

[Comrade_Ramirez]

We should support the anarcho-capitalists and the libertarians, so that if they win, and their crazy ideologies get implemented and don't work, our ideologies of unification and equality can grow easier and more firmly in the mind of the common man.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

That's not necessarily true though, the creation of a "libertarian" or "anarcho"-capitalist society could just as easily result in the brutal suppression of leftists. As I mentioned, one of the main tenets of "an"capism is that property owners have absolute control over their property. This doctrine, accompanied by mass privatization would leave relatively little space remaining. Meanwhile, capitalists would consider it completely justified to expel leftists from their land or have private defense agencies arrest them and administer punishments (indeed, they view such activities as part of voluntary association). The @faq has a section on this as well.

[Fionnagáin]

We should support the anarcho-capitalists and the libertarians, so that if they win, and their crazy ideologies get implemented and don't work, our ideologies of unification and equality can grow easier and more firmly in the mind of the common man.
Is it a matter of ideology? "Ideologies of unification and equality" were widespread in much of Europe in 1914, but it didn't stop workers marching off to the trenches to slaughter and be slaughtered. Ideas have little weight beyond their real existence as social practice, and in historical workers' struggles a gut sense of justice often serves to articulate the class struggle as well as any overarching egalitarian philosophy.

[Blake's Baby]

We could just ship them out to Easter Island to live out their mad max/robinson Crusoe fantasies. Then in five years we could go back and bury the bodies.

[cyu]

We should support the anarcho-capitalists and the libertarians, so that if they win, and their crazy ideologies get implemented and don't work, our ideologies of unification and equality can grow easier and more firmly in the mind of the common man.


They should support the anarcho-communists and the socialists, so that if we win, and our "crazy" ideologies get implemented and don't work, their ideologies of selfishness and social darwinism can grow easier and more firmly in the mind of the common man. ;)

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy. The writings of Ayn Rand are inspiring and powerful. If the reader has not yet experienced her power, try her novelette Anthem for a taste. You will almost certainly come back for more.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

Satanism has far more in common with Objectivism than with any other religion or philosophy. The writings of Ayn Rand are inspiring and powerful. If the reader has not yet experienced her power, try her novelette Anthem for a taste. You will almost certainly come back for more.

Wow, actually hadn't heard of that illustrious endorsement :D. It wins the award for weirdest thing I've seen involving "an"-caps, the previous being posters advocating a free market of children on reddit,

[Prof. Oblivion]

So no one can ever voluntry enter a capitalist community in an anarchist federation willingly? it is the lack of choice because of a state enforcing that economy why the capitalists actions of robbing the worker of surplus value by paying him a fraction of what he produces is actually worth, is a violent act in itself in society today

If you remove that and give people the choice to live in a communal or market society, you remove the violence from the social relation.

If someone kidnaps me and uses me as a sex slave, that is a horrific, violent act. If I am into BDSM and become a sub for someone, the acts performed are the same but the difference is day and night, one is voluntary and one if enforced.

Capitalism is a self-universalizing system and necessitates authoritarianism. One cannot freely volunteer to enter into a capitalist system because for that system to exist in the first place coercion must exist and the system must be universalized.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism is a self-universalizing system and necessitates authoritarianism. One cannot freely volunteer to enter into a capitalist system because for that system to exist in the first place coercion must exist and the system must be universalized.

I argued the same against an 'AnCap' recently - why would someone under no economic compulsion voluntarily agree to work for someone else? But they never got back to me on that. I suspect they don't have an answer.