Anarchocapitalism and Property.

[flouPOWER]

I just read about anarcho-capitalism. What the actual f.? Is that even possible? They believe you can have no state but still PROPERTY?? I believe the only reason property still exists is the state (not an anarchist). Anarcho-capitalists' motto is: free the world, free the market.

Therefore,my question is:Can property survive without a state?

[Blake's Baby]

No,it can't.

The 'anarcho-capitalists' have particular interpretations of capitalism, the market and the state that say, more or less, that whatever someone makes belongs to them, except when labour is 'freely and fairly exchanged' for wages (so workers and bosses make a bargain), and anything which interferes with this 'free' bargaining is 'the state'.

The fact that it's nonsense is neither here nor there.

Basically what they want is the right to exploit anyone they can without any messy stuff like minimum wages or employment law or taxation.

[Redistribute the Rep]

From what I understand the usage of the word is mostly limited to the US, which is also known for its redefining of the words liberal, socialist, libertarian, and, for some reason, football.

[Palmares]

It's obviously a misnomer. I almost feel the usage of the prefix "anarcho-" is a deliberate attempt to provoke anti-capitalist anarchists - the real anarchists.

However, I thought people which such beliefs in the US would self-identify as "libertarians", again, questionable usage, given it's usage elsewhere such as in Italy.

If you want to check out the Wikipedia article about anarcho-capitalism, specifically the section on property, check it out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Property

:rolleyes:

[Comrade #138672]

No. Anarcho-capitalists are a disgrace for all real anarchists. These are generally people who want to be capitalists, but do not want to deal with all the implications of being capitalists. So, they are trying to change the logic, which is impossible.

Capitalism requires a state to guarantee private property rights. It simply cannot exist without it. To say otherwise is simply to argue against reality, which makes you look like a fool.

[RedKobra]

Having had dealings with a few the gist is this. The State, they say, is a monopoly on force. What they want is for "Force" to be something that can be purchased like anything else. So, your Anarcho-Capitalist sees their property being protected by another Anarcho-Capitalist who has made it their "Capital-Industry" to provide said Security/Force.etc Essentially in an Anarcho-Capitalist society there is still the force of the state its just that is now available for everyone to enjoy. (presiding you can afford to pay, failure to pay the said fee will result in all the bones in your body being broken and your children being taken as slaved as payment). Nothing bar contract ensures anyone's rights. No abuse is impermissible as long as long as someone desperate enough to be exploited in that way can be found and someone willing to pay for the privilege of that exploitation. Societal pressure would hang on whether the abuse was in some way publicized, whether the society would be sufficiently motivated to care that one of its number was being heinously abused and that they could see some way voting with their currency. If the said abuse was endemic then it would be pretty much tough titty anyway.

There's no secret behind any of this. Its an ideology of the modern petit-bourgeousie, an ideology that detests the proletariat and their impertinent desire to not be treated like cattle. It plays innocent and pleads that it just wants all of us to be emancipated but scratch the surface and you find they just want a world where the modern petit-bourgeousie can compete with the multi-nationals in the exploitation stakes. Under the state they feel hamstrung. Freedom to them is unleashed exploitation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The first thing that needs to be said is that "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't really exist. A bunch of kids grew up (mis)reading Gibson and fantasising about having their private police to beat up gays with, and now they're very loud and obnoxious on the Internet, but they really aren't a political movement. Unless you count people being very loud and obnoxious on the Internet as a movement, in which case RevLeft's own Sizpo Communism is a movement.

Now, obviously these people aren't part of any movement, let alone the anarchist one. That said, there really are figures on the margins of the anarchist movement whose distance from "anarcho-capitalists" is shorter than one might suppose; Proudhon, George, and others who proposed some form of regulated or rigged market.

But as I said, these are minor, marginal figures, of historic importance at best.

[G4b3n]

Please pay no attention to American political terminology. It is too far fucked. Fucked up beyond all repair.

[JazzRemington]

The first thing that needs to be said is that "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't really exist. A bunch of kids grew up (mis)reading Gibson and fantasising about having their private police to beat up gays with, and now they're very loud and obnoxious on the Internet, but they really aren't a political movement. Unless you count people being very loud and obnoxious on the Internet as a movement, in which case RevLeft's own Sizpo Communism is a movement.

I think this is accurate. I've only ever seen them on the Internet and I've never seen any formal organization anywhere.

[The Disillusionist]

The first thing that needs to be said is that "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't really exist. A bunch of kids grew up (mis)reading Gibson and fantasising about having their private police to beat up gays with, and now they're very loud and obnoxious on the Internet, but they really aren't a political movement. Unless you count people being very loud and obnoxious on the Internet as a movement, in which case RevLeft's own Sizpo Communism is a movement.

Now, obviously these people aren't part of any movement, let alone the anarchist one. That said, there really are figures on the margins of the anarchist movement whose distance from "anarcho-capitalists" is shorter than one might suppose; Proudhon, George, and others who proposed some form of regulated or rigged market.

But as I said, these are minor, marginal figures, of historic importance at best.

I disagree. I would say that a substantial part of the US Tea Party movement is very anarcho-capitalist in its leanings, and has a significant following. American Libertarianism as a whole is essentially "Anarcho-capitalism-lite."

[motion denied]

I think this is accurate. I've only ever seen them on the Internet and I've never seen any formal organization anywhere.


But that's what we do here basically: discuss internet tendencies. From PUA to anarcho-capitalism.

[Comrade #138672]

I disagree. I would say that a substantial part of the US Tea Party movement is very anarcho-capitalist in its leanings, and has a significant following. American Libertarianism as a whole is essentially "Anarcho-capitalism-lite."That is called right-wing libertarianism, which is just a combination of liberalism and fascism, which is, in its turn, a form of degenerated liberalism.

[The Disillusionist]

That is called right-wing libertarianism, which is just a combination of liberalism and fascism, which is, in its turn, a form of degenerated liberalism.

I love how Marxists somehow associate prettty much every other political movement with fascism... That's the same logic that the right-wingers use to associate Communism/Socialism with authoritarianism and dictatorship.

I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but I don't think it's that simple. I think that there is a reason Right-wing Libertarianism is called Right-wing Libertarianism, rather than simply being called fascism. However, Libertarianism and Liberalism are virtually synonymous in most aspects, so I'll give you that one.

[Comrade #138672]

I love how Marxists somehow associate prettty much every other political movement with fascism... That's the same logic that the right-wingers use to associate Communism/Socialism with authoritarianism and dictatorship.

I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but I don't think it's that simple. I think that there is a reason Right-wing Libertarianism is called Right-wing Libertarianism, rather than simply being called fascism. However, Libertarianism and Liberalism are virtually synonymous in most aspects, so I'll give you that one.You tell me that it is "not so simple". Indeed, this is why I am talking about a combination of the two, and, at the same time, relating fascism to liberalism. The Tea Party movement seems at least proto-fascist to me.

It is, of course, ridiculous to call every other political movement fascist, but, as far as I am aware, I am not doing that, nor are other Marxists.

[The Disillusionist]

You tell me that it is "not so simple". Indeed, this is why I am talking about a combination of the two, and, at the same time, relating fascism to liberalism. The Tea Party movement seems at least proto-fascist to me.

It is, of course, ridiculous to call every other political movement fascist, but, as far as I am aware, I am not doing that, nor are other Marxists.

I wouldn't even call it a combination of the two. Fascists by definition support the existence of an authoritarian state, anarcho-capitalists, by definition, don't believe in any kind of state. Of course, anarcho-capitalists are naive, because their system would lead to authoritarianism and possibly fascism, but anarcho-capitalism is only related to fascism in a very indirect way, and it's counterproductive, I think, to muddle the conversation by throwing in loaded words like "fascism" when they aren't really relevant.

Oh, and I don't remember who it was or what thread it was, but I saw another poster somehow make the convoluted argument on this site a few days ago that somehow Marxism was some kind of bastion of anti-fascism in a sea of fascist puppet-ideologies. That's what I had in made when I made my earlier post.

[Comrade #138672]

I wouldn't even call it a combination of the two. Fascists by definition support the existence of an authoritarian state, anarcho-capitalists, by definition, don't believe in any kind of state. Of course, anarcho-capitalists are naive, because their system would lead to authoritarianism and possibly fascism, but anarcho-capitalism is only related to fascism in a very indirect way, and it's counterproductive, I think, to muddle the conversation by throwing in loaded words like "fascism" when they aren't really relevant.If they are not relevant, then why are you admitting all this?

Anarcho-capitalists claim that they do not want a state. We do not take their word for it.

[The Disillusionist]

If they are not relevant, then why are you admitting all this?

Anarcho-capitalists claim that they do not want a state. We do not take their word for it.

Marxists claim that they want a Communist society too. I suppose they're just lying and they're all secretly fascists?

The absence of state is a core tenant of anarcho-capitalism. They have a misguided way of achieving that absence that will never work, but they aren't lying about not wanting it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I disagree. I would say that a substantial part of the US Tea Party movement is very anarcho-capitalist in its leanings, and has a significant following. American Libertarianism as a whole is essentially "Anarcho-capitalism-lite."

The Tea "Party" is pretty insignificant in itself; its main use is to scare gullible leftists into supporting the more "mainstream" candidates because at least they're not like those teabaggers (they just have the same policies give or take some annoying ultra-liberal rhetoric). But it's not "anarcho-capitalist"; no one in the Tea "Party" thinks the state should be overthrown. The movement, such as it is, is good old American racist liberalism. Calling it "anarcho-capitalism-lite" is the same as calling social-democracy "socialism lite".

[The Feral Underclass]

They believe you can have no state but still PROPERTY??

It would surprise me if you'd read something about anarcho-capitalists that claimed this, since actually "anarcho"-capitalists don't really believe you can have no state.

Right-libertarians, as they can also be known, advocate the continuation of a judicial system and police force specifically to protect property rights. In effect they believe in a massively reduced state -- one that is essentially there to provide emergency services and protect and arbitrate property rights -- rather than a full abolition of a state. They might claim that these services would be done through private business, but I think that's just a convenient way to justify their views.

[Comrade #138672]

Marxists claim that they want a Communist society too. I suppose they're just lying and they're all secretly fascists?Are you really pretending that they are alike?


The absence of state is a core tenant of anarcho-capitalism. They have a misguided way of achieving that absence that will never work, but they aren't lying about not wanting it.They probably believe that it is true, but that does not make it less incoherent.

[The Disillusionist]

The Tea "Party" is pretty insignificant in itself; its main use is to scare gullible leftists into supporting the more "mainstream" candidates because at least they're not like those teabaggers (they just have the same policies give or take some annoying ultra-liberal rhetoric). But it's not "anarcho-capitalist"; no one in the Tea "Party" thinks the state should be overthrown. The movement, such as it is, is good old American racist liberalism. Calling it "anarcho-capitalism-lite" is the same as calling social-democracy "socialism lite".

I wish... The Teaparty had some serious success in this last election. The Teaparty has gotten significant enough that they are threatening to rip apart and/or possibly collapse the Republican party, which would be awesome... And there is a significant Right-wing Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist vein in the Teaparty.

From what I've seen, and I live in Idaho, the reddest state in the US, so I've seen quite a bit, the Libertarian party and the Tea Party in the US were, about 4-8 years ago, pretty seperate. Libertarians were pushing up against anarcho-capitalism. They appealed primarily to disillusioned conservatives, but they also appealed to a lot of disillusioned democrats because they supported the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. The Tea Party, on the other hand, took a much more conservative approach, though they supported limited government. They focused more on an abolishment of government spending (of course focusing on social programs rather than our massive military expenditure, because they're idiots).

However, over time, thanks in part to Ron Paul's spineless flipflopping and Rand Paul's conservative pandering, the Libertarian party has lost most of the ideals that separated it from the Tea Party because the more "controversial" positions on the legalization of gay marriage and drugs got dropped. As a result, the Tea Party has slowly appropriated the Libertarian label into itself, and so you have two veins of that in that horrid amalgamation, you've got the Right-wing libertarians with the anarcho-capitalist tendencies, and you've got the Right-wing conservative Tea Partiers with the more traditional liberal/conservative focus.

Basically, if you know much about US talking heads, it's the difference between Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly.

[JazzRemington]

But that's what we do here basically: discuss internet tendencies. From PUA to anarcho-capitalism.

I mean, I've never heard of formal anarcho-capitalist organizations.

But actually, I take that back. I think Center for a Stateless Society (http://c4ss.org/) and the Molinari Institute (http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm) are perhaps the closest I've seen. The Molinari Institute suggests "Market Anarchists" and "Anarcho-Capitalists" are compatible). I don't think Center for a Stateless Society is capitalist.

[BIXX]

C4SS isn't anarcho-capitalists, but I don't think they're leftists either.

[BIXX]

Oh shit I take that back I have no idea what the fuck C4SS is on about.

[Bala Perdida]

C4SS is capitalist. Not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, but based on that page it seems to be capitalist. They seem like a weird mix of Liberal and anarchist. Sort of like anarcho-democrats or some shit.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The tea party is not fascist or Anarcho capitalist, just right wing populism that arose as a reaction to an ostensibly progressive black man winning the presidential election, I'd say alone its pretty insignificant but does show the broader trend of Americas shift to the right

[consuming negativity]

The tea party is not fascist or Anarcho capitalist, just right wing populism that arose as a reaction to an ostensibly progressive black man winning the presidential election, I'd say alone its pretty insignificant but does show the broader trend of Americas shift to the right

fascism, at least in my understanding of it (which could be wrong), is not even an ideology so much as a pragmatic appeal to reactionary populism (i hate the term populism but you used it so i have to) to get in office and then kill off or silence dissent from the intelligent parts of society

i mean, consider what the tea party supports (large military, government involved in reproductive rights, racism, etc.) and consider what the actual policies of fascist states were. there's really not much difference except in time period, scale, and influence.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The tea party is not fascist or Anarcho capitalist, just right wing populism
Its base is a mix of anarcho-capitalists (or what are usually called libertarians in the US), right-wing populists, social conservatives, etc.


that arose as a reaction to an ostensibly progressive black man winning the presidential election
I think that added fuel to it, but its roots lie a year earlier with the early stages of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. It says a lot about US politics that a center-right politician like Obama can be framed as a progressive by both conservatives and liberals.

[RedKobra]

I don't think Fascism has anything in common with Anarcho-Capitalism. Fascism is built on an enormous state infrastructure. Its a protectionist, nationalist form of Crony-Corporatism. Its anti free-market, its anti-globalisation, its anti free-trade.etc No one gets access to the levers of production under Fascism without having friends in the right places (government). Its heavily, heavily bureaucratic.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a belief in a global free-market without a state apparatus that the working class can appeal to for legislation or a legal system that would form the back bone of a set of rights for workers. A free-market without the workers being able to vote for higher taxes, more protections, higher wages.etc Essentially a system where every worker must negotiate alone against the employer with all the disempowerment that entails.

Fascism is nothing like Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think Fascism has anything in common with Anarcho-Capitalism. Fascism is built on an enormous state infrastructure. Its a protectionist, nationalist form of Crony-Corporatism.

I hate to break it to you, but using that term makes you sound like an American right-"libertarian".

[RedKobra]

Are you inferring I am an American Right-Libertarian?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Are you inferring I am an American Right-Libertarian?

I'm saying you're using terms ("crony capitalism") that these people use. I have no idea what your position is, but that shows some confusion on your part. Talking about "crony capitalism" implies that there is a "good" capitalism that isn't closely connected to the bourgeois state, which is at best an anti-materialist claim.

[RedKobra]

I'm saying you're using terms ("crony capitalism") that these people use. I have no idea what your position is, but that shows some confusion on your part. Talking about "crony capitalism" implies that there is a "good" capitalism that isn't closely connected to the bourgeois state, which is at best an anti-materialist claim.

I'm drawing out the distinction between the highly bureaucratized Capitalism of Fascism, Fascism, if you like, in one country as opposed to the imagined nationless Capitalism of AnCaps. A Fascist believes explicitly in the authority of the state, a nation state, an authoritarian state where as the AnCap believes explicitly, in my opinion quite mistakenly, in a Capitalism free from nationhood & central authority.

We must be clear that there is a difference between what someone is arguing for and what in reality would happen as a result of the movements failure/degeneration. I'm sure, like me, you think that an Anarchistic approach to socialist revolution would end in capitulation to the forces of Capital. That doesn't mean that the Anarchists want or believe that to be the case.

[Blake's Baby]

There are three questions here really:

1 - does fascism have anything to do 'anarcho-capitalism'?
2 - does the Tea Party have anything to do with fascism?
3 - does the Tea Party have anything to do with 'anarcho-capitalism'?

And the answers are 1-no not really, 2-yes, 3-yes.

Fascism is characterised by a nationalist (sometimes ethnic but not necessarily, it can be cultural) appeal to renewal, through a strong state. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is (in theory at least) 'race-neutral', though the majority I've ever encountered also seem to be racists with a strong fondness for the 'pioneer' period in American history.

The Tea Party I think doesn't have a coherent ideology and can quite happily accomodate both neo-Nazi supporters and Paulite 'Libertarians' in the same organisation (when these aren't actually the same people because to be honest, if the Tea Party is somewhat incoherent, so are many of the individuals who support it).


... I'm sure, like me, you think that an Anarchistic approach to socialist revolution would end in capitulation to the forces of Capital. That doesn't mean that the Anarchists want or believe that to be the case.

Are you talking about 'an-caps' here or Anarchist-Anarchists? 'Social Anarchists' etc?

[RedKobra]

Are you talking about 'an-caps' here or Anarchist-Anarchists? 'Social Anarchists' etc?

To be clear in this last example I am talking about anarcho-Socialists, true Anarchists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fascism is characterised by a nationalist (sometimes ethnic but not necessarily, it can be cultural) appeal to renewal, through a strong state.

I have to be brief because, real life, eh, but I don't think this is a good way of analysing fascism. Actual fascist ideology is all over the place - obviously the Lokot Republic or Tiszo's Slovakia didn't appeal to any kind of renewal, and there was no "strong state" in fascist Italy, particularly not in economic matters.

Fascism is the form of bourgeois Bonapartism that bases itself on a mass political movement of the petite bourgeoisie and similar strata, against a class-conscious proletariat. The Tea Party isn't really fascist in any sense.

(And a lot of "anarcho-capitalists" are explicitly racists, and they aren't really inconsistent on that account - after all, who's going to tell them to treat black workers the same as white workers, the gummint?)

[RedKobra]

I have to be brief because, real life, eh, but I don't think this is a good way of analysing fascism. Actual fascist ideology is all over the place - obviously the Lokot Republic or Tiszo's Slovakia didn't appeal to any kind of renewal, and there was no "strong state" in fascist Italy, particularly not in economic matters.

Fascism is the form of bourgeois Bonapartism that bases itself on a mass political movement of the petite bourgeoisie and similar strata, against a class-conscious proletariat. The Tea Party isn't really fascist in any sense.

(And a lot of "anarcho-capitalists" are explicitly racists, and they aren't really inconsistent on that account - after all, who's going to tell them to treat black workers the same as white workers, the gummint?)

I'll take your point in Para:1 & 2. Para: 3 though isn't my experience at least not in the sense where they are outwardly racist. They freely admit that the price of freedom is the freedom to be unpleasant, exclusionary, discriminatory but they tend to counter that by saying the state is no longer around to privilege men, whites, straights.etc Now whether I buy that or not, and I don't, they at least don't seem to outwardly hold said prejudices.

To be fair most of my experiences with AnCaps has been with British people who were quite civil, the American ones (who I obviously only encounter on the net) I tend to avoid as they're so completely and unashamedly unpleasant, so maybe the difference lays in that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fascism is the form of bourgeois Bonapartism that bases itself on a mass political movement of the petite bourgeoisie and similar strata, against a class-conscious proletariat. The Tea Party isn't really fascist in any sense.
My feeling is the Tea Party could very possibly be that if there was ever a class-conscious proletariat in the US that presented a threat.

[RedKobra]

My feeling is the Tea Party could very possibly be that if there was ever a class-conscious proletariat in the US that presented a threat.

The problem would be that in order for a Fascist state to coalesce in must offer incentives to the proles. Traditionally fascist states have offered their people the things only The State could offer, ambitious infrastructure projects, full employment, generous pensions.etc I can't see how the puppermasters behind the Tea-Party could come up with that sort of package, it goes against everything they stand for. The Kochs don't seem like the sort of guys who would be willing to bankroll spending on that scale. They want the welfare state to shrivel not expand.

[Blake's Baby]

I have to be brief because, real life, eh, but I don't think this is a good way of analysing fascism. Actual fascist ideology is all over the place - obviously the Lokot Republic or Tiszo's Slovakia didn't appeal to any kind of renewal, and there was no "strong state" in fascist Italy, particularly not in economic matters...

I disagree, apart from the fact that there were two different factions in Tiso's party (not that I know loads about it) that had fairly different conceptions, once clericist and one more closely 'national-socialist', I think the strong appeal to Slovak nationalism counts. I don't know anything about the Lokot Republic though (according to wiki it only lasted 13 months, possibly not long enough for many lessons to be drawn).

Italy... yes, I'd argue that the Fascist state was a 'strong state'. How does one measure the 'strength' of a state? Political repression, military aggrandisement... economically the Fascists were all over the place, introducing policies to appease both their peasant/petit-bourgeois populist and industrial capitalist constituents.


... Fascism is the form of bourgeois Bonapartism that bases itself on a mass political movement of the petite bourgeoisie and similar strata, against a class-conscious proletariat. The Tea Party isn't really fascist in any sense...

I disagree with the point about the 'class conscious proletariat'. In Italy maybe (maybe) you could argue that, even though Gramsci was doing everything he could to disarm the workers politically, but in Germany? The workers' movement had been massacred. Certainly, fascist(-type) movements tend to base themselves on the petite-bourgeoisie, and I think this is exactly the stratum that the Tea Party is based on.


... (And a lot of "anarcho-capitalists" are explicitly racists, and they aren't really inconsistent on that account - after all, who's going to tell them to treat black workers the same as white workers, the gummint?)

I don't know whether you think you're agreeing or disagreeing here - you phrase it as if you're disagreeing, but it's almost exactly what I said. There is no inconsistency between racist and being 'an-cap'. Likewise, there is no inconsistency in being anti-racist or non-racist and being 'an-cap'. 'an-cap' philosophy says nothing about race at all. One could believe in a rainbow coalition of small property-owners, a New Azania of small property-owners, a white supremacist community of small property-owners... it doesn't matter. Having any kind of theory of 'race' is not inconsistant with 'anarcho-capitalism' - and therefore, lots of 'an-caps' are racist. But one doesn't have to be I don't think. There's no racial heirarchy inherent in 'anarcho-capitalism'.

[Comrade #138672]

[...]

I disagree with the point about the 'class conscious proletariat'. In Italy maybe (maybe) you could argue that, even though Gramsci was doing everything he could to disarm the workers politically, but in Germany? The workers' movement had been massacred. Certainly, fascist(-type) movements tend to base themselves on the petite-bourgeoisie, and I think this is exactly the stratum that the Tea Party is based on.(Emphasis added by me.)

Could you elaborate on that? How did Gramsci disarm the workers politically?

[Blake's Baby]

Bolshevisation of the CPd'I.

Bordiga criticised Gramsci's 'syndicalism', by which he meant the emphasis on factory occupations. According to Bordiga (and parts of the subsequent Communist Left) because of this tactic the working class ended up 'imprisoned' in the factories instead of breaking out and launching a revolutionary assault on the capitalist state.

While I'm pretty in favour of factory occupations myself, and against some of Bordiga's formulations, I think it's important to examine what the state of class struggle was in Italy at this point. From a high-point of struggle in the early years after WWI (1919 for example) the Gramscian 'centrist' current gained ground against the Left; at this time, the Party failed to provide political leadership to the working class. By 1924 Gramsci was in control and the Bolshevissation of the party (to bring it in line with ComIntern directives) began.

Bear in mind that at this point Stalin was also regarded as a 'centrist'. Incidently, there are some pretty lively discussions going on among some ultra-lefts as to whether Gramsci actually 'invented' Stalinism.

OK - Bordiga should have fought harder against this maybe, but he was constrained by the idea (as Rosa and the left of the SPD had been in Germany before and during the war) of organisational loyalty. Having fought for the integrity of the ComIntern and the subordiantion of the sections to the centre, he wasn't best-placed to fight the degeneration of the centre as it became a tool of Russian foreign policy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I disagree, apart from the fact that there were two different factions in Tiso's party (not that I know loads about it) that had fairly different conceptions, once clericist and one more closely 'national-socialist', I think the strong appeal to Slovak nationalism counts.

I think the narrative of two factions in the Slovak People's Party, one around Tiso (who I inexplicably Magyarised in my earlier post) and the other arount Tuka, is a bit too simplified, and in the context of Slovak politics it's unfortunately often used to excuse Tiso. That's neither here nor there, though; my point was that the SLS can't have appealed to renewal, as there was nothing to renew. There was no prior Slovak state, apart from the ephemeral Slovak Soviet Republic, which Tiso had no intention of emulating, and in Austria-Hungary, Slovaks were second-class citizens.


I don't know anything about the Lokot Republic though (according to wiki it only lasted 13 months, possibly not long enough for many lessons to be drawn).

The Lokot Republic was one of those semi-states that sometimes form in the wake of military occupation, like the Independent State of Montenegro and so on. Obviously there was nothing to appeal to re: national regeneration.


Italy... yes, I'd argue that the Fascist state was a 'strong state'. How does one measure the 'strength' of a state? Political repression, military aggrandisement... economically the Fascists were all over the place, introducing policies to appease both their peasant/petit-bourgeois populist and industrial capitalist constituents.

Of course, but the sum total of these policies was a state that was much less "hands-on" when it came to saving capitalists from their own stupidity than e.g. Giolitti's government was. As for a "strong state", all of the things you mention were in place under the previous royal governments; in fact if we exclude conquests that Italy had no realistic chance of holding onto, the Italian Empire expanded more under non-fascist governments than under fascist ones.


I disagree with the point about the 'class conscious proletariat'. In Italy maybe (maybe) you could argue that, even though Gramsci was doing everything he could to disarm the workers politically, but in Germany? The workers' movement had been massacred. Certainly, fascist(-type) movements tend to base themselves on the petite-bourgeoisie, and I think this is exactly the stratum that the Tea Party is based on.

That's the thing; I think the proletariat can be class-conscious and yet be disarmed, lack leadership, waste its energies pursuing failed strategies and so on. In fact I would say this was a good description of the proletariat from the mid-twenties of the last century, to perhaps the fifties at the latest.


I don't know whether you think you're agreeing or disagreeing here - you phrase it as if you're disagreeing, but it's almost exactly what I said. There is no inconsistency between racist and being 'an-cap'. Likewise, there is no inconsistency in being anti-racist or non-racist and being 'an-cap'. 'an-cap' philosophy says nothing about race at all. One could believe in a rainbow coalition of small property-owners, a New Azania of small property-owners, a white supremacist community of small property-owners... it doesn't matter. Having any kind of theory of 'race' is not inconsistant with 'anarcho-capitalism' - and therefore, lots of 'an-caps' are racist. But one doesn't have to be I don't think. There's no racial heirarchy inherent in 'anarcho-capitalism'.

Well, to be honest I don't think it's particularly useful to analyse ideologies by what the adherents say. I don't know if "anarcho-capitalism" is inherently racist (it sounds odd to me to say that any thought that upholds capitalism is not racist - in fact I would say that capitalism is inherently racist), but its adherents are racists for the most part, even above and beyond the usual Western liberal racism. Likewise when it comes to women, gay people etc.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the narrative of two factions in the Slovak People's Party, one around Tiso (who I inexplicably Magyarised in my earlier post) and the other arount Tuka, is a bit too simplified, and in the context of Slovak politics it's unfortunately often used to excuse Tiso. That's neither here nor there, though; my point was that the SLS can't have appealed to renewal, as there was nothing to renew. There was no prior Slovak state, apart from the ephemeral Slovak Soviet Republic, which Tiso had no intention of emulating, and in Austria-Hungary, Slovaks were second-class citizens...

National renewal doesn't have to refer to anything real. Bronze Age Welsh people from Denmark didn't really conquer Iran in 3000BC, didn't stop the Nazis from coming up with it as the official ideology of Aryan history.

The anti-Czech, anti-Jewish ideology sounds to me as if it fits pretty well with notions of a people historically suffering and then being liberated.


... The Lokot Republic was one of those semi-states that sometimes form in the wake of military occupation, like the Independent State of Montenegro and so on. Obviously there was nothing to appeal to re: national regeneration...

Dunno. They had an ideology that referred to the 'Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy', from what I've been able to tell, so they're at least plugging into a grand old Russian tradition - perhaps if they'd lasted more than 13 months, there would have been appeals to the memory of the Tsars or the 'spirit of Russian people' or whatever.


...
Of course, but the sum total of these policies was a state that was much less "hands-on" when it came to saving capitalists from their own stupidity than e.g. Giolitti's government was. As for a "strong state", all of the things you mention were in place under the previous royal governments; in fact if we exclude conquests that Italy had no realistic chance of holding onto, the Italian Empire expanded more under non-fascist governments than under fascist ones...

'...if we exclude the conquests Italy had no chance of holding onto...' - unless Germany had won the war, do you mean?

Again, it doesn't have to be anything real. Mussolini's military triumphs may have been self-agrandizing disasters, but the narrative of military success is usually important to fascist-type regimes, while increasing military expenditure is a good way to keep important allies happy.


...
That's the thing; I think the proletariat can be class-conscious and yet be disarmed, lack leadership, waste its energies pursuing failed strategies and so on. In fact I would say this was a good description of the proletariat from the mid-twenties of the last century, to perhaps the fifties at the latest...

Well, if it's not fighting in its own interests then I'd argue that it can't be that 'class conscious'.



..
Well, to be honest I don't think it's particularly useful to analyse ideologies by what the adherents say. I don't know if "anarcho-capitalism" is inherently racist (it sounds odd to me to say that any thought that upholds capitalism is not racist - in fact I would say that capitalism is inherently racist), but its adherents are racists for the most part, even above and beyond the usual Western liberal racism. Likewise when it comes to women, gay people etc.

Black people can also be capitalists. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that says that a particular race needs to be oppressed. If China had developed capitalism before Europe, things would probably be quite different now.

What I'm arguing is that there is nothing inherent in 'anarcho-capitalism' that says black people are inferior to white people. One can be black and quite easily believe that it's reasonable for the owners of the means of production to be able to exploit whoever they want; likewise one can be white and think it's OK to shoot black people who come onto 'your' property. Both are equally possible because 'anarcho-capitalism' says nothing about race.