"Anarcho-capitalism"...?

[RedPanda55]

Okay, so...I'm still kind of learning a lot about left-wing ideologies so forgive me if I say something stupid at points or whatever. I think I just get nervous in general whenever I post stuff like this anywhere. But, recently, I was on Facebook and I came into contact with some dude who I learned is supposedly an anarchist. That and he's a major conspiracy theorist as well, so honestly, I'm not too sure why I'm still trying to figure him out. But I dug a little deeper and I also found out he identifies as an "anarcho-capitalist"...to cut to the chase: the term itself just really bugs me.
Anarchism is clearly a rejection of capitalism, I know that for sure. So, I guess what I'm asking is, what is anarcho-capitalism supposed to be? Why does it's adherents think anarchism and capitalism go hand in hand? Does anyone else think this doesn't really make much sense? I've tried to research and develop a conclusion but I'm still kinda confused. If anyone can help me out here, that'd be appreciated.

[RedKobra]

Okay, so...I'm still kind of learning a lot about left-wing ideologies so forgive me if I say something stupid at points or whatever. I think I just get nervous in general whenever I post stuff like this anywhere. But, recently, I was on Facebook and I came into contact with some dude who I learned is supposedly an anarchist. That and he's a major conspiracy theorist as well, so honestly, I'm not too sure why I'm still trying to figure him out. But I dug a little deeper and I also found out he identifies as an "anarcho-capitalist"...to cut to the chase: the term itself just really bugs me.
Anarchism is clearly a rejection of capitalism, I know that for sure. So, I guess what I'm asking is, what is anarcho-capitalism supposed to be? Why does it's adherents think anarchism and capitalism go hand in hand? Does anyone else think this doesn't really make much sense? I've tried to research and develop a conclusion but I'm still kinda confused. If anyone can help me out here, that'd be appreciated.

Its an individualist ideology (like Anarchism) that doesn't reject hierarchy (the opposite of Anarchism). They think that hierarchy should be premised on "voluntarism". In other words they think that the problem with exploitation is that when the state does it the state presumes consent. All you have to do to end exploitation is remove the state and make all interaction by consent and hey presto, no more exploitation. Obviously it is completely and utterly flawed for simply tons of reasons.

[Rudolf]

Its an individualist ideology (like Anarchism)

I have a gripe with this. While there has been some individualist strains within anarchism they've historically been so incredibly marginal within the anarchist movement that the vast bulk of anarchists today haven't read anything by individualists. We're more likely to read Marx. The rule is anarcho-communism/anarcho-syndicalism or go home.



Anyway, this 'anarcho-' capitalism is in reality a sort of private-state liberalism. They do not seek the abolition of state functions in society (and how can they? To seek such a thing necessitates the destruction of the very material conditions that give rise to class society) but merely think they can be better provided via market mechanisms.

[Collective Reasons]

Anyway, this 'anarcho-' capitalism is in reality a sort of private-state liberalism. They do not seek the abolition of state functions in society (and how can they? To seek such a thing necessitates the destruction of the very material conditions that give rise to class society) but merely think they can be better provided via market mechanisms.

It isn't clear that they can abolish state functions, but their economic thought largely consists of excuses for exploitation and inequality, so the dream is that their conception of "voluntary relations" can become sufficiently naturalized that it, and the exploitative relations it protects, can carry on with minimal intervention of force.

[tuwix]

So, I guess what I'm asking is, what is anarcho-capitalism supposed to be?

An oxymoron. A term contradictory within. And just impossible. An ideology based on false assumption that capitalism can work without state or its equivalent and on free market that is impossible according to its own definitions.

[Creative Destruction]

Okay, so...I'm still kind of learning a lot about left-wing ideologies so forgive me if I say something stupid at points or whatever. I think I just get nervous in general whenever I post stuff like this anywhere. But, recently, I was on Facebook and I came into contact with some dude who I learned is supposedly an anarchist. That and he's a major conspiracy theorist as well, so honestly, I'm not too sure why I'm still trying to figure him out. But I dug a little deeper and I also found out he identifies as an "anarcho-capitalist"...to cut to the chase: the term itself just really bugs me.
Anarchism is clearly a rejection of capitalism, I know that for sure. So, I guess what I'm asking is, what is anarcho-capitalism supposed to be? Why does it's adherents think anarchism and capitalism go hand in hand? Does anyone else think this doesn't really make much sense? I've tried to research and develop a conclusion but I'm still kinda confused. If anyone can help me out here, that'd be appreciated.

It's a utopian capitalist ideology predicated on the destruction of the state with all things being privatized. For them, there'd still be classes of people -- capitalists and workers, where capitalists basically have free reign over everything. Of course, it's complete nonsense, since the state is an instrument of class oppression and is one of the primary reasons capitalism can exist (for example, without the state, how do you define property rights? They're not natural, so you can't, if you're going to have a functioning society based on property.)

Anarcho-capitalism would just devolve into warlordism. They think that you can have some bullshit about "non-aggression axioms" and keep that from happening, but it's just complete crap.

[Mr. Piccolo]

It's a utopian capitalist ideology predicated on the destruction of the state with all things being privatized. For them, there'd still be classes of people -- capitalists and workers, where capitalists basically have free reign over everything. Of course, it's complete nonsense, since the state is an instrument of class oppression and is one of the primary reasons capitalism can exist (for example, without the state, how do you define property rights? They're not natural, so you can't, if you're going to have a functioning society based on property.)

Anarcho-capitalism would just devolve into warlordism. They think that you can have some bullshit about "non-aggression axioms" and keep that from happening, but it's just complete crap.

And they say we are unrealistic! I always thought that the mafia would be the best example of a anarcho-capitalist system. Theoretically, the American Mafia had all sorts of rules that were designed to prevent unwarranted violence, but the reality is that it never worked and they fought and killed each other anyway.

[Blake's Baby]

I have a gripe with this. While there has been some individualist strains within anarchism they've historically been so incredibly marginal within the anarchist movement that the vast bulk of anarchists today haven't read anything by individualists. We're more likely to read Marx. The rule is anarcho-communism/anarcho-syndicalism or go home.



Anyway, this 'anarcho-' capitalism is in reality a sort of private-state liberalism. They do not seek the abolition of state functions in society (and how can they? To seek such a thing necessitates the destruction of the very material conditions that give rise to class society) but merely think they can be better provided via market mechanisms.

This precisely.

I'm much less tolerant of the stupider parts of the 'anarchist' movement than I was when I identified as an Anarchist. Then (while I was firmly an Anarchist-Communist) I was quite tolerant of other people's definitions of 'Anarchism' even if they didn't fit my own. Big tent, of which I occupied a small corner.

These days, though I consider Anarchist-Communists comrades (who are, however, 'wrong' about some things) I think all of the various micro-philosophies of 'anarcho-propertarianism' and whatnot can go run off a cliff. If Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy then property is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism, because it is property that creates hierarchy. So any system of 'Anarcho-whatever' that wants to retain property is, by definition I think, not Anarchism, no matter what Proudhon may have thought 170 years ago.



It's a utopian capitalist ideology predicated on the destruction of the state with all things being privatized. For them, there'd still be classes of people -- capitalists and workers, where capitalists basically have free reign over everything. Of course, it's complete nonsense, since the state is an instrument of class oppression and is one of the primary reasons capitalism can exist (for example, without the state, how do you define property rights? They're not natural, so you can't, if you're going to have a functioning society based on property.)

Anarcho-capitalism would just devolve into warlordism. They think that you can have some bullshit about "non-aggression axioms" and keep that from happening, but it's just complete crap.

They argue property rights are 'natural'. 1 - the products of labour belong to the labourer, therefore it's up to the user of something to decide how the product is distributed; 2 - contracts are mutually beneficial and voluntary, therefore if the worker agrees to give up his product for wages, that's a fair swap.

They really do believe workers 'exploit' capitalists in the same way we believe capitalists exploit workers. The capitalist's 'need' for labour is the source of the workers' power over the capitalist. It's the capitalist who 'takes the risk' that the product that he 'buys' for 2 dollars from the worker is going to be worth $10 in the market. The worker takes no 'risk' - why should the worker get the $8 reward? Profit comes from gambling on success long term in the market, which the worker voluntarily chooses not to do.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The ideology of anarcho- capitalism is essentially the belief that capitalism has never truly existed yet is responsible for everything good an pure in this godforsaken world. The invisible hand works in mysterious ways.

What that creed has to do with anarchism (beside the name) is perhaps not for mere mortals to understand. Perhaps really-existing anarcapitalism exists already in Somalia and other parts of Africa. Whether dismantling the state to have warlords take over it's functions is desirable is a matter of personal taste I guess.

[Rudolf]

This precisely.

I'm much less tolerant of the stupider parts of the 'anarchist' movement than I was when I identified as an Anarchist. Then (while I was firmly an Anarchist-Communist) I was quite tolerant of other people's definitions of 'Anarchism' even if they didn't fit my own. Big tent, of which I occupied a small corner.

These days, though I consider Anarchist-Communists comrades (who are, however, 'wrong' about some things) I think all of the various micro-philosophies of 'anarcho-propertarianism' and whatnot can go run off a cliff. If Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy then property is fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism, because it is property that creates hierarchy. So any system of 'Anarcho-whatever' that wants to retain property is, by definition I think, not Anarchism, no matter what Proudhon may have thought 170 years ago.


I think it's interesting that you were more forgiving in the past when you identified as an anarchist as opposed to now. I would have expected the reverse tbh. I lack the patience.

I think Proudhon's an interesting one though. I like What is Property? but i don't have time for alot of his nonsense. He's just not relevant. He was stuck in the conditions of France at the time.

[n0ro]

Anarcho-capitalism is interesting. In my city, there is a little group of an-caps that regurgitate convenient voluntarist talking points: "taxation is theft...communism cannot exist without force...the market will self-correct itself."

They preach the non-aggression principle as if the maintaining of private property isn't itself a form of force and aggression, characteristics they attribute to leftist forms of political-economic organization.

How can private property even exist without the state to legitimize it? How can a wage system, which capitalism presumes, function if not by force, i.e. by putting the masses in a position in which they must sell their labor-power to the propertied?

The discussion of what is "force" and "coercion" is the most alluring to me.

[Collective Reasons]

I think Proudhon's an interesting one though. I like What is Property? but i don't have time for alot of his nonsense. He's just not relevant. He was stuck in the conditions of France at the time.

That's an interesting critique, but one that I find a little puzzling. What, in particular, beyond practical proposals like the People's Bank, do you think of as specific to the time?

[Rudolf]

That's an interesting critique, but one that I find a little puzzling. What, in particular, beyond practical proposals like the People's Bank, do you think of as specific to the time?


I think critique might be a bit too strong a word as i'd say that requires more depth and detail than i've gone into. It's been a while since i read any Proudhon but from the top of my head him being unable to break from the commodity form is an obvious one as well as any talk of individual remuneration as it harks back to craftsmen and artisans. Property is liberty to the pre-proletarianised but for the prole anything short of social production, social control, social consumption lacks relevance to their emancipation. Proudhon never treated these as a fully integrated trinity.

[Collective Reasons]

I think critique might be a bit too strong a word as i'd say that requires more depth and detail than i've gone into. It's been a while since i read any Proudhon but from the top of my head him being unable to break from the commodity form is an obvious one as well as any talk of individual remuneration as it harks back to craftsmen and artisans. Property is liberty to the pre-proletarianised but for the prole anything short of social production, social control, social consumption lacks relevance to their emancipation. Proudhon never treated these as a fully integrated trinity.

Well, he certainly never came to a communist conclusion about them, but the divide between individual and social was never as stark for him as it tends to be for communists, so, for example, property is "liberty" only when both stripped of the capitalist droit d'aubaine and given a deeply social character. It's too bad, really, that Proudhon died when he did, just as he was exploring common ground with the Paris workers. That might finally have been the impetus to pull together his economic writings from the 1850s, which are much more focused on the social and collective side of things than most of his published writings.

[tuwix]

^^

Proudhon has made a clear distinction between a property that can be accepted and unacceptable. A property that come purely from work without any exploitation was accepted by him. Other wasn't. It was developed then by Marx into distinction between personal property and private property. And personal property fits exactly into what Proudhon accepted as property. Proudhon wasn't scientist in formal way. Marx was. So this is why Proudhon couldn't state it so clearly as Marx did.

And Marx wasn't collectivist very much. He accepted existence of peasants and their mode of reduction which was quite individual in terms of family as entity. The idea to collectives everything was actually Stalin's idea...

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Oh yes...AnCap. I went through an AnCap phase for a short while, but I've talked about that so many times I'm afraid it now borders on annoying.

But yes, AnCap truly is illogical, utopian bullshit. The idea that a free, stateless society can exist when private property is the only law of the land is completely and utterly stupid. Property simply cannot exist without a state to enforce it. Such a world will only lead to the rise of a new feudalism, in which the individuals and groups with the most property will rule. The new feudal lords will become the new State.

And that bullshit about the 'non-aggression principle' is far, FAR more idealistic and utopian than any of the criticisms they could levy against socialists. As its based on the idealistic concept of 'natural' rights, it's obviously nonsense on stilts. Obviously, I believe in rights and liberties, but they don't just come down from the sky.

(For the record, if you want to know an idea of what such a world would look like, read Greg Rucka's comic book series Lazarus. It's basically what an AnCap society will inevitably lead to)

[Collective Reasons]

Proudhon has made a clear distinction between a property that can be accepted and unacceptable. A property that come purely from work without any exploitation was accepted by him. Other wasn't. It was developed then by Marx into distinction between personal property and private property. And personal property fits exactly into what Proudhon accepted as property. Proudhon wasn't scientist in formal way. Marx was. So this is why Proudhon couldn't state it so clearly as Marx did.

Well, initially, Proudhon made his well-known distinction between "property" and "possession," but that was explicitly a distinction between matters of right and matters of fact. At that point, he accepted nothing he was willing to call "property." (Check, for example, What is Property? for the argument that labor was not a sufficient ground for property.) Then, later, he began to explore how "property" (which, even when stripped of the capitalist *droit d'aubaine* still seemed objectionable to him) might be neutralized by making it relatively equal and universal. That was the analysis that he pursued in late works like The Theory of Property. There was still no form of property that he found "acceptable" in itself, and he also became convinced that "possession" was also insufficient by itself for a just distribution of resources.

[tuwix]

^^

Proudhon in the "What is property?" chapter "LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY." writes:

"This is my proposition: The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced.(...)
The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it."

Then even in the chapter's title Proudhon expresses his mere acceptance of property that is labor. And what I cited it confirms. The only right of property belongs to worker. The rest is to abolish. And this is Proudhon's way to what Marx has divided on private property and personal property...

[Rudolf]

^^

Proudhon in the "What is property?" chapter "LABOR AS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY." writes:

"This is my proposition: The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced.(...)
The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it."

Then even in the chapter's title Proudhon expresses his mere acceptance of property that is labor. And what I cited it confirms. The only right of property belongs to worker. The rest is to abolish. And this is Proudhon's way to what Marx has divided on private property and personal property...

The title isn't a claim by Proudhon but merely to quickly detail the content of the chapter so for example the second chapter: "Property considered as a natural right". He's not saying it's a natural right, he's attacking that claim and in chapter 3 he attacks labour as the origin of property as a continuation of his attacks on occupancy being its origin. Hell, at the end of the chapter he goes onto say "That, from the Stand-point of Justice, Labor destroys Property." The only positive to property i recall from that chapter is the statement that "all capital, whether material or mental, being the result of collective labor, is, in consequence, collective property"

But then in Chapter 4 Proudhon moves on from criticising what economists were claiming and states the following:

1. Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.
2. Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more than it is worth.
3. Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is proportional to labor, not to property.
4. Property is impossible, because it is Homicide.
5. Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.
6. Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.
7. Property is impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it loses them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and in using them as Capital, it turns them against Production.
8. Property is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite, and is exercised only over finite quantities.
9. Property is impossible, because it is powerless against Property.
10. Property is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality.

[tuwix]

^^The chapter's title is certainly an answer to false argument for a maintenance of property that was supposed to be work and was actually exploitation. Nonetheless, what I cited shows Proudhon's acceptance to property that came from real work without exploitation.


I cite it again:


"This is my proposition: The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced.(...)
The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it."

[Collective Reasons]

it's important to work all the way through Proudhon's argument in 1840, and then to take account of the various clarifications he made in the remaining 25 years of his life. One of the first things that anyone who reads What is Property? ought to notice is that neither "property" nor "possession" are defined clearly and uniformly enough to allow us to lift isolated passages, without being very careful about the contexts.

When it is a question of "a clear distinction between a property that can be accepted and unacceptable," the bar is set pretty high. If we look at the early sections of the book, which is clear is that Proudhon believes that any form of society worthy of the name rests on equality, and the insistence on equality is the most powerful tool against property established by first occupancy. As he turns to the arguments for property based on labor, he claims that he will show that "This new basis of property is worse than the first..." Read down through the chapter headings and you can see the same sort of multi-part refutation with which he attacks other explanations for property. First, he shows that the defenders of property have been inconsistent, and that the labor-basis is at odds with the laws they claim arise from it. He goes on to show how little support there is for any right of appropriation with regard to natural resources. The argument leads him back to the principle of equality, and he considers whether universal consent could establish a right of appropriation, finding that it can give no lasting title. He then argues that prescription is no better source of right, and presents it as instead a useful legal fiction designed to preserve public order. Possession, he argues, cannot become property by any of these conventional means. Finally, then, he gets to the argument about labor, which he clearly outlines:



1. That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth.
2. That, if we admit that labor has this power, we are led directly to equality of property,—whatever the kind of labor, however scarce the product, or unequal the ability of the laborers.
3. That, in the order of justice, labor destroys property.And he follows his own outline, first arguing that labor is insufficient, and then arguing that even if we granted it sufficient power to appropriate, the ultimate effect would be to destroy property and return to the principle of equality.

Now, I think that sections 4 and 5 of this chapter are some of the more complicated bits in the book, in part because of Proudhon's failure to explain exactly how "property in product," which he is granting for the sake of argument, relates to "property in the means of production." It is the latter that he has been almost exclusively concerned with, and will be almost exclusively concerned with in his later writings. It is really only his refutation of Charles Comte and the Civil Code that leads him in this direction. And what he says is: "property in product, if we grant so much, does not carry with it property in the means of production..." and "To change possession into property, something is needed besides labor...." When you add in the discussion of equal remuneration in the next section, where the principle is that every worker has a "share of labor" that no other can deprive them of, he makes it clear that even in the case of "property in products" labor is insufficient, should it come into conflict with equality.

So we have a variety of problems in the early work. We have to distinguish clearly between "property in products" (which might be individual, but may also be compensated by an equivalent), "property in means of production" (which is always social" and the impossibility of establishing a right of appropriation to the raw materials from which these formers categories are made, which leaves these other varieties of "property" as what Proudhon called "true legal fictions." What is left is "possession," which is simply equality applied to the realm of distribution of resources. And if we go beyond this very first study, we find Proudhon distancing himself from that form of "possession," which he acknowledged later that he did not even adequately define, so that, in principle, there is really no specific form of "property" (broadly defined) in which he has any confidence, and he turns to the question of how the objectionable aspects of all these systems might be counterbalanced by other norms and institutions.

[Red Eagle]

OP
Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. Many people who adhere to that idealogy don't understand that capitalism develops in stages and they think the free market is perfect even though it's impossible to achieve. Capitalism did start out as relatively free of constraints economically. Obviously they didn't have the privilege of the aristocracy. Capitalism has developed and will always develope into large corporations and Imperialism. Like we have today, proof of this is many large companies like Ford and Microsoft had humble beginnings. To anarcho-capitalists they think that a crony capitalism and any sort of government regulation is socialist. So how do we achieve this perfect free market? It's obvious that if I wanted to start a computer company Microsoft could buy me out. They also think that everyone has equal opportunity to make their wealth, in reality that not true, if I'm born in rural Africa and have to walk 2 km for dirty drinking water I'm not equal in opportunity to a middle class teenager in the US who doesn't have to worry about war, disease and famine which is all caused by capitalism. The whole idealogy is irrational they don't see that capitalists run the government yet they think a large government equals socialism when in fact governments try to keep capitalism alive some historical examples would be the New Deal, taxes and tarriffs. The bottom line is anarcho capitalists don't see anything wrong with capitalism and instead will blame things on corporations, big gov't etc. If this guy is a conspiracy theorist he probably is irritational off the bat.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Anarcho-capitalism is a (mostly digital) paper tiger as far as I'm aware. They're very noisy online but you'd probably be hard pressed to find any evidence of 'anarcho-capitalists' action anywhere in real life (save for harassing public sector workers or so I am told.) Even if the core tenets of their ideology weren't total bunk it would be very hard to take them seriously at all.

[n0ro]

Can second the harassment charge. There is an an-cap in my city who sets up a video camera on my university campus with signs that read "ask me why government is immoral" or "ask me why voting is immoral" etc., etc. He then waits for poor-spoken liberal Democrat types, and even some "traditional conservatives" to try and debate him. It's a lost cause, however: he regurgitates shallow, convenient talking points to which his opponents fail to adequately counter, and he thus dismisses them as disillusioned statists. He then puts the mockery up on Youtube and generates all sorts of insular, self-gratifying comments from the brave voluntaryist-ancap ideologues who lurk in the anonymity of the internet.

[xyouthxattackx]

Anarcho-capitalism is supposed to be a system with progressive manufacturing and trade relations. I mean progressive because of anarchism, the absence of some master power above you, so there are no taxes and limits. And barter trading as the best option, although anarcho-capitalism allows for currency. But it's unreal in today's world where capitalism is the full brother of the political power.