Are we already living in an anarcho-capitalist society?

[Loony Le Fist]

Have you ever considered that one could consider all the Western governments around the world merely monopoly corporations that provide a set of basic services for a fee under threat of imprisonment? Sort of like the mob.

[Creative Destruction]

well, no, because there are still public institutions that are, at least ostensibly, run at the consent of the governed. anarcho-capitalist actively does away with any idea of democracy, even in appearance.

[Loony Le Fist]

well, no, because there are still public institutions that are, at least ostensibly, run at the consent of the governed. anarcho-capitalist actively does away with any idea of democracy, even in appearance.

Well appearances are necessary to minimize the possibility of revolt to keep costs down, no?

[Creative Destruction]

Well appearances are necessary to minimize the possibility of revolt to keep costs down, no?

as far as i'm aware, anarcho-capitalism doesn't even address the idea of revolts because they think everything is going to be a perfect market wonderland. if you want to see why we're not living in an anarcho-capitalist society, it's best to look at the criticisms of the society by ancaps.

[Hit The North]

No. An anarcho-capitalist society cannot exist.

[BIXX]

as far as i'm aware, anarcho-capitalism doesn't even address the idea of revolts because they think everything is going to be a perfect market wonderland. if you want to see why we're not living in an anarcho-capitalist society, it's best to look at the criticisms of the society by ancaps.

Their criticisms are hilarious.

"This is corporatism, not capitalism!

[Subversive]

well, no, because there are still public institutions that are, at least ostensibly, run at the consent of the governed. anarcho-capitalist actively does away with any idea of democracy, even in appearance.


No. An anarcho-capitalist society cannot exist.
This just seems to be an argument that anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly exist outside of the mind. But what is the point in such an argument when the theory itself exists as a means of practice, dissolving the argument?
This would seem to be more of a misunderstanding of what is meant than an actual descriptor of the idea.

This is the same form of excuse that Capitalists' use to debunk the Left ideology. It is not an argument, but merely the lack thereof.

I think it is safer to say that the topic creator's point is very close. The problem lies in the fact that anarcho-capitalists do not accept modern society. Therefore, the society they imagine must therefore be different.
However, as people whom understand that Capitalism is Capitalism, no matter what form, it is apparent to us that these systems may be closer in reality than others might suggest.

In any case, turning back to the theories and analyzing their differences, I would argue the difference would be the State-rule as opposed to a Capitalist rule, which seems perfectly fitting to how it is often described. An anarcho-Capitalist society would be run by individual Capitalists as opposed to a central State. The state itself may be in the pockets of the Capitalists, but that does not necessarily mean that the State itself is entirely run by those Capitalists. There are still rules and ultimately the State diminishes some amount of oppression to keep the people contented on their oppression.
A Capitalist rule in anarcho-Capitalism would oppress its people to the point they live more in fear than in contentment. It would be necessarily so because any other Capitalist ruler could quickly snatch up other rulers' citizens if they do not live in fear. This would make them stronger and their competing rulers weaker.

The power in anarcho-Capitalism would appear more fractured because of increased and unchecked competition. Creating fear rather than obedience. In my perspective, that seems to be the main differences between them.

However, no matter how you argue the semantics they are still two peas of the same pod. So in the end, it really doesn't matter.

[The Idler]

We still pay taxes so government can bail out banks. so no - ancaps would not accept we live in an ancap society. It's worth pointing out most public sector services are being consistently gutted for decades though with no sign of this changing.

[Hit The North]

This just seems to be an argument that anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly exist outside of the mind. But what is the point in such an argument when the theory itself exists as a means of practice, dissolving the argument?


The point, dear Subversive, is that the theory does not make sense as either capitalism or anarchism. It is an ideological fantasy.

How does it exist as "a means of practice"? In other words, where is it practised?

[Subversive]

The point, dear Subversive, is that the theory does not make sense as either capitalism or anarchism. It is an ideological fantasy.

How does it exist as "a means of practice"? In other words, where is it practised?
They intend for it to be a theory that can be practiced. Theoretically, it could be practiced. There is nothing stopping it from being practiced and it was somewhat practiced in the early US after the revolution. There was still a State, but the State was basically useless and had very limited power.

My real point was that it is useless in speaking of something as an "ideological fantasy" when it is intended to be purposeful. Even if it is a fictitious system it can be adequately argued why it is fictitious and would not work in reality. To simply disregard something as being "ideological fantasy" with nothing to support this claim is a pointless endeavor. It is simpler to just not speak at all if you have nothing to say on the matter. Leave the argument to someone who will actually debunk the ideology to clear the minds of any who believe in it of their logical errors.

I'd also argue that it is most certainly still within the realms of Capitalism. What would make you say it's not?

Again, anarcho-Capitalism is extremely close to what we already have right now. The only difference would be if we dissolved the state and meanwhile kept Capitalism. And sadly, a lot of people want to do this.
The industries would become our new rulers. Our employers would become our leaders. We would sell our very lives rather than just our labor.
It is another level of exploitation - but certainly still Capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

The point, dear Subversive, is that the theory does not make sense as either capitalism or anarchism. It is an ideological fantasy.

How does it exist as "a means of practice"? In other words, where is it practised?
Within the global mind that is the internet, dear HtN. If you opened up to it you'd see.

[Vogel]

The reason anarcho-capitalism can't exist, first and foremost, is that the government prints the money, and a lot of power that comes from.

[TheBigREDOne]

Their criticisms are hilarious.

"This is corporatism, not capitalism!

More commonly they(and liberals) say "It's Crony Capitalism".

[VivalaCuarta]

You all don't understand. Feudalism is the greatest, freest social order possible. But what people call "feudalism" in the middle ages wasn't really feudalism, because the Pope was an impostor who wasn't really the infallible representative of God on Earth. So the whole system was just a corrupt caricature of feudalism, not TRUE feudalism.

[ChangeAndChance]

From what I understand, a large proportion of ancaps believe that the only time in history "anarcho-capitalism" existed was the expansion of the United States across the North American continent according to the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". There was practically no government intervention into how much land you owned nor the ability to collect taxes effectively. They claim this embodies the Rothbardian principle of "homesteading". What they prefer not to mention, of course, is the genocide of the aboriginal peoples by the pioneers via disease and warfare. To justify their bullshit position, they claim that because the First Nations peoples did not live in a system of the acknowledgement of private property, it gave white settlers the right to claim the "unclaimed" land as theirs.

"Oh you don't recognize private property? Well, too fucking bad!"

I think that should speak for itself.

[Blake's Baby]

You all don't understand. Feudalism is the greatest, freest social order possible. But what people call "feudalism" in the middle ages wasn't really feudalism, because the Pope was an impostor who wasn't really the infallible representative of God on Earth. So the whole system was just a corrupt caricature of feudalism, not TRUE feudalism.

You do know they take they piss out of us for saying 'no, but, what happened in the Soviet Union wasn't really communism, because...', don't you?


From what I understand, a large proportion of ancaps believe that the only time in history "anarcho-capitalism" existed was the expansion of the United States across the North American continent according to the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny"...

Pah. You've forgotten 11th century Iceland. How very dare you?


... To justify their bullshit position, they claim that because the First Nations peoples did not live in a system of the acknowledgement of private property, it gave white settlers the right to claim the "unclaimed" land as theirs...

No, but, the settlement of America doesn't violate the NAP because handwavium beads mumble mumble the Indians were happy.

[Hit The North]

They intend for it to be a theory that can be practiced. Theoretically, it could be practiced.


Firstly, it is absurd to state that something can be practised theoretically. Things can only be practised practically.


There is nothing stopping it from being practiced and it was somewhat practiced in the early US after the revolution. There was still a State, but the State was basically useless and had very limited power.
Really? You will need to provide evidence that post-revolutionary USA was a form of stateless, market-organised, voluntary society. This will be news to the millions of slaves and indentured labourers who were conscripted to work, not to mention the millions of native Americans who, I assume you think, were volunteering to give up their ancient lands and enter into the degraded conditions of the reservations. Tell them that the American state was useless and had limited power :rolleyes:.


My real point was that it is useless in speaking of something as an "ideological fantasy" when it is intended to be purposeful. Even if it is a fictitious system it can be adequately argued why it is fictitious and would not work in reality. To simply disregard something as being "ideological fantasy" with nothing to support this claim is a pointless endeavor. It is simpler to just not speak at all if you have nothing to say on the matter. Leave the argument to someone who will actually debunk the ideology to clear the minds of any who believe in it of their logical errors.I was taking a short-cut to the conclusion of any basic Marxist analysis of this bogus ideological chimera. (Btw, I don't see you taking the time to debunk this ideological fantasy or to argue why it is a valid blueprint for a future society but I await your enlightened view on the subject.)

In brief, the reason I dismiss anarcho-capitalism as an ideological fantasy is because (a) it proposes an ideological, as opposed to realistic, view of how capitalism works and (b) it has nothing to do with anarchy, except in the vulgar definition of anarchy as a condition of chaos or disorder.

The first ideological misrepresentation of capitalism which is reflected in ancap theory is that capitalism embodies voluntary relations of production. In other words, that labour and capital come together in mutual reciprocity. This would assume that either the proletariat agree to their exploitation or that no exploitation takes place.

Another ideological misrepresentation is that capitalist markets are self-regulating and capable of producing a harmonious and integrated society. But, of course, Marx debunked this long ago and if you have any doubts I refer you to his theory of crisis in the Manifesto, Capital and elsewhere.

A third ideological misrepresentation is that the political state is an alien presence within capitalist society. However, a cursory analysis of the genesis of capitalism will show that the state, rather than being an unnecessary and parasitical outgrowth, is an indispensable aspect of capitalist development. Everywhere that the capitalist mode of production prevails we see a centralisation of state power which comes to increase its hold over society. This is because the bourgeoisie cannot simply rule economically but must rule politically as well.

Given that capitalism, in reality, demands enforced labour, protection of private property and the regulation of markets (both of labour and capital), the state is indispensable to it. Only someone who believes in the fairy-story that capitalist relations are the spontaneous outgrowth of human nature could think otherwise.


I'd also argue that it is most certainly still within the realms of Capitalism. What would make you say it's not?
See above. Capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production and exchange. A voluntary, stateless society could not achieve this.


Again, anarcho-Capitalism is extremely close to what we already have right now.Nonsense! But I look forward to your proof that modern capitalism is characterised by a tendency towards greater voluntary and spontaneous economic association and a corresponding decline in state power and regulation.