Ancaps, coercion, violence and force.

[n0ro]

Hi all! I am most interested in getting the perspectives of tendencies that (1.) argue that the state is necessary in transition or (2.) that the state ought to continue to exist post-transition.

How would you respond to the following "anarcho"-capitalist claims:

1.) The state necessarily maintains its existence through the threat of violent force, and is therefore evil.

2.) Communism and socialism reject "self-ownership," and therefore advocate slavery, as it is the only alternative.

3.) Communism, socialism, and collectivist organization in general cannot exist without coercion, as individuals are forced into such arrangements.

4.) All activity in an "anarcho"-capitalist scenario would be voluntary, so individuals would maximize their liberty.

5.) Property is a fundamentally natural right and freedom cannot exist without it. Therefore, redistribution or collective ownership is necessarily violent and tyrannical, as it forces property owners to forfeit their assets and their liberty.

6.) All prices and values are inherently subjective; there is no "empirical value."

7.) Collective ownership is monopolistic, and therefore grossly inefficient.

8.) Collective ownership necessarily destroys incentives and hinders creativity.

9.) Suggesting services such as universal access to health care or food are "human rights" is akin to slavery, as it "forces" doctors, farmers, etc. to provide service even if they do not want to.

10.) Communism and socialism rely on coercion, violence, and force and are therefore evil.

Again, I am quite familiar with anarchist responses to "anarcho"-capitalists. I am most interested in hearing from tendencies that give either time-limited legitimacy to the state, or indefinite legitimacy to the state.

Thanks for your responses!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hi all! I am most interested in getting the perspectives of tendencies that (1.) argue that the state is necessary in transition or (2.) that the state ought to continue to exist post-transition.

How would you respond to the following "anarcho"-capitalist claims:

I don't think there are any people who think that the state "ought to continue to exist post-transition" - if there are, they should probably be restricted to the notorious OI.

I find that the most effective response to "anarcho-capitalists" is uncontrollable vomiting. Unfortunately, this is difficult to pull off at will, and depending on where you live, it might violate sanitary codes. Responding to their "arguments" is another option, but in my experience this simply encourages them. Nonetheless, for the purpose of finger exercise...


1.) The state necessarily maintains its existence through the threat of violent force, and is therefore evil.

The response, as with many of these "arguments", is "who cares". I mean, seriously, we're socialists, not altar boys. If fighting for the interests of the working class is evil, we're evil, and proudly so.


2.) Communism and socialism reject "self-ownership," and therefore advocate slavery, as it is the only alternative.

No, the only alternative to gibberish is to take a moment to make sense. And "self-ownership" is gibberish. People are their bodies, their bodies are not some kind of external object they can own.


3.) Communism, socialism, and collectivist organization in general cannot exist without coercion, as individuals are forced into such arrangements.

Yes, in fact reality is such that it forces us to have some kind of social organisation. Which is a shame, but it beats starving in the cold (not that starving in the cold doesn't happen in some kinds of social organisation, including capitalism, but I digress). Until the "an"-caps master the lost secret Agarthan art of living off the air and sunlight, they too are forced to live in society.

Now, with that being the case, socialism in fact requires the minimum amount of coercion, as the socialisation of the means of production means that the full social product is available to anyone - no one is forced to work or to do anything in exchange for the money they need to survive.


4.) All activity in an "anarcho"-capitalist scenario would be voluntary, so individuals would maximize their liberty.

The best response to this is to read what "actual" (I mean, they're an internet-only movement, so "actual" is maybe too strong a word) "an"-caps have to say about their ideal society, including the violent racism and homophobia of many of these people.


5.) Property is a fundamentally natural right and freedom cannot exist without it. Therefore, redistribution or collective ownership is necessarily violent and tyrannical, as it forces property owners to forfeit their assets and their liberty.

"Cry harder."

And of course it doesn't make any sense to talk about a social relation being "natural" and preceding society. This entire language of "natural rights" is laughable.


6.) All prices and values are inherently subjective; there is no "empirical value."

This is simply bullshit. If it were true prices would fluctuate wildly, and a bottle of water would cost more than a diamond depending on the preferences of the buyer. That's not how capitalism works.


7.) Collective ownership is monopolistic, and therefore grossly inefficient.

This demonstrates that "an"-caps have no idea what socialism is. Social control of the means of production is not "monopolistic" because in socialism there is no commodity exchange, no buying or selling.

As for efficiency, to the capitalist, it means simply his ability to extract surplus value from the worker. In this regard, socialism isn't even inefficient - the concept simply doesn't apply here as there is no more surplus value etc.


8.) Collective ownership necessarily destroys incentives and hinders creativity.

There are no incentives in socialism, because people don't have to be coerced into working. As for creativity, guess what, humans were creative long before capitalism and they will be creative long after capitalism is gone, along with all the ridiculous restraints on human creativity (patent law, anti-science campaigns by the bourgeois state etc.).


9.) Suggesting services such as universal access to health care or food are "human rights" is akin to slavery, as it "forces" doctors, farmers, etc. to provide service even if they do not want to.

In socialism, no one is forced to work. I imagine, though, that people might be forced to provide the same quality of service to anyone. Oh the horror.

Now, in the transitional period, of course, some people will be forced to work, including the oh-so-delicate spetsy. So what? First, as I said, it's in our interests. Second, without society, these people would literally be feral beasts eating scraps in caves, so it's a bit rich for them to pretend to be some kind of unique snowflake enslaved by the evil gubbmint.


10.) Communism and socialism rely on coercion, violence, and force and are therefore evil.

"Cry Hard 3: The Harder Crying".

Again, though, why would you want to respond to "an"-caps? They're a bunch of kids who read too much Gibson, treating them like an actual political movement is precisely what they want.

[Tim Cornelis]

Many of those questions presuppose a certain deontological freedom-based ethos, which Marxists reject. So a Marxist response would generally be a shrug: it's irrelevant whether by some abstract reasoning coercion may be considered evil. Marxists look at historical justification, and perhaps as socialist we'd look at the consequences pragmatically and not whether it does or does not qualify as good or bad based on some abstract philosophy detached from the real world.

1) It does, but that isn't the most relevant issue by far. And indeed to liberate yourself you may need to exert considerable force.

2) Who cares? Self-ownership is an abstract philosophical concept. If we use abstract arguments to determine that some abstract concept is accurate but the practical implications it would have are decidedly negative, should we still pursue it? Bourgeois individualists say yes even though they try their very best to prove that it would have positive effects because they are consequentialists deep down. Ironically "self-ownership" logically leads to justification for debt bondages and other forms of 'voluntary' slavery.

3) Simply not true. Look at primitive communism or cooperatives.

4) Decisions that are ostensibly 'voluntary' aren't made in a social vacuum. Inequality of bargaining power may disproportionally favour one party, as in the case of debt bondage. Freedom can be constraint by more than naked physical coercion.

5) Natural rights is another example of 'who cares?'.

6) That's a strawman. Marginalists don't say prices are subjective. In any case, Böhm-Bahwerk didn't seem to understand what he was criticising.

7) Too broad to answer specifically. If we're talking about, say, Mongolian grasslands then common ownership is more efficient than private and state property in that order. Also, social ownership means all of society owns productive resources. A bit odd way to call that a monopoly.

8) Simply not true: http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/A_Marxist_FAQ#What_about_innovation_in_communism.3 F

9) Not really. If a business says to the doctors 'treat all patients, including black people' and a doctor refuses to aid a black person then he'd be fired. The business forces him but right-libertarians have no problem with that. Similarly, if society gives the doctors such a mandate they are forced to do it but it's hardly slavery. I also think right-libertarians mean more indirectly that it requires taxation to provide healthcare as a right, as opposed to directly forcing doctors. In which case it doesn't apply to communism.

10) Meh.

[Collective Reasons]

I'm an anarchist, so maybe you've heard all this before, but it never seems to sink in, so...


2.) Communism and socialism reject "self-ownership," and therefore advocate slavery, as it is the only alternative.

Actually, the capitalist notion of "self-ownership" is generally a hopeless muddle. The traditional notion is that since individuals "have property in their person," individual property can and should also extend to those external things which become closely identified with the person or necessary to its survival. When this is taken seriously, as in Locke, we find that exclusive, individual appropriation is only clearly legitimate in cases where the resources to be appropriate[d] are non-rivalrous. But capitalist property is generally considered to be necessarily rivalrous and justified by that character. In order to make "self-ownership" fit with that conception of property, it is necessary to make "property" something other than a characteristic of the self and posit a split between the individual and their body, theorized as a kind of original capital with which the abstract individual is mixed, but there are all sorts of conceptual problems which make it obvious that socialists are probably better champions of a coherent self-ownership that capitalists.


3.) Communism, socialism, and collectivist organization in general cannot exist without coercion, as individuals are forced into such arrangements.The question here is pretty obviously begged. Do we have any evidence that all association is forced? If we look at existing examples of this "collectivism," will they display more or less evidence of coercion than the capitalist society?


4.) All activity in an "anarcho"-capitalist scenario would be voluntary, so individuals would maximize their liberty. The capitalist definition of "voluntary" comes down to "there is no gun in the room." Now, that has a couple of consequences. First, it presumably means that "collectivist" organization can only be brought about by the overt threat of force. If this is not true, and other sorts of means are allowed as possible to bring about involuntary association, then the capitalist must be able to show that none of those less overt means of coercion are used in organizing their preferred society.


5.) Property is a fundamentally natural right and freedom cannot exist without it. Therefore, redistribution or collective ownership is necessarily violent and tyrannical, as it forces property owners to forfeit their assets and their liberty. There are almost certainly senses in which "property" of some sort is, or ought to be, fundamental to the establishment of free societies. But the capitalist view of "property" starts from an incoherent notion of self-ownership, has a dubious account of voluntarity, and then has to make strong claims about the "right" of capitalists to individually appropriate the lion's share of collectively-produced wealth. All the talk about "redistribution" assumes that their theory made some sense in the first place, which is far from clear.


6.) All prices and values are inherently subjective; there is no "empirical value." Grant the point: what are the consequences? Shouldn't we also say that all costs are subjective? Does the pure subjectivity of prices actually suggest that the results of market exchange are just, particularly if the mass of workers feel subjectively that they are not getting their due?

The problems with the rest of the questions are similar, so I'll spare you point by point elaboration.

[n0ro]

Thank you all for your feedback! I appreciate each of your input(s?). In my city, there is a pretty well-known "anarcho"-capitalist group. They are loud and obnoxious, and like Xhar-Xhar Binks mentioned, they troll the internet hard.

I am only friendly with one of their ideologues, and honestly, arguments with him are futile. His "colleagues" are even worse if their YouTube videos of street harassment (i.e. "advocacy") are any indication.

Either way, they are obsessed with philosophic deductive pontificating, and like each of you have indicated, reality and empirics contradict their illusions.

Thanks, comrades!

[Creative Destruction]

Hi all! I am most interested in getting the perspectives of tendencies that (1.) argue that the state is necessary in transition or (2.) that the state ought to continue to exist post-transition.

How would you respond to the following "anarcho"-capitalist claims:

1.) The state necessarily maintains its existence through the threat of violent force, and is therefore evil.

I don't care about moralising what is and isn't evil. The state does necessarily maintain its existence through violence, but it does this because it is necessary for capitalism to have a class system. The state is ultimately an instrument of class oppression, currently used to reinforce capitalism.


2.) Communism and socialism reject "self-ownership," and therefore advocate slavery, as it is the only alternative.

"Self-ownership" is nebulous and never defined by these people. It's not a self-evident term, as there are many kinds of "self-ownership" (or "self-management") including worker's self-management. There's nothing under a socialist "plan," though that would rob people of the ability to do whatever they want; in fact, it's imperative in socialism for people to be able to choose their own paths and destiny.


3.) Communism, socialism, and collectivist organization in general cannot exist without coercion, as individuals are forced into such arrangements.

If someone doesn't want to be apart of a commune, and wants to go live in a backwoods homestead, I don't think there'd be anything stopping anyone from doing so. It might be easier, actually.


4.) All activity in an "anarcho"-capitalist scenario would be voluntary, so individuals would maximize their liberty.

That's patently nonsense, based on an odd definition of "voluntary." I wouldn't it consider voluntary to have to sell your labor in order to pay rent, have housing and food on your table. That seems like coercion to me.


5.) Property is a fundamentally natural right and freedom cannot exist without it. Therefore, redistribution or collective ownership is necessarily violent and tyrannical, as it forces property owners to forfeit their assets and their liberty.

This one you can't really argue with them on. It's like arguing against a religious person that God doesn't exist. There is no "natural right" to anything, and property the least of all. Rights exist as far as states and governments will extend them. This is part of the reason why "anarcho"-capitalism is nonsense. If there's no government to enforce property rights, then there are no property rights. It's stupid.


6.) All prices and values are inherently subjective; there is no "empirical value."

Same thing as 5. This crap is based on praxeology, which openly disregards the scientific method and relies on, pretty much, baseless assumptions with no evidence. You can make any shit up that you want and it'll pass for economics using praxeology, so long as it justifies the market.


7.) Collective ownership is monopolistic, and therefore grossly inefficient.

I really don't give a shit about inefficiency. This argument has no convincing weight for me one way or the other.


8.) Collective ownership necessarily destroys incentives and hinders creativity.

What they mean is that it destroys incentives for profit and hinders creativity that can be usurped by capitalists for profit. They don't actually mean it stunts "incentives" or natural "creativity." (I mean, they might mean this, but it's not the subtext.)


9.) Suggesting services such as universal access to health care or food are "human rights" is akin to slavery, as it "forces" doctors, farmers, etc. to provide service even if they do not want to.

Doctors, farmers, etc. are forced to sell their products, sometimes at a cut rate, in order to survive. These arguments revolving around "coercion" aren't very meaningful because they're not defined. They're assumed to be self-evident, but they're actually not.


10.) Communism and socialism rely on coercion, violence, and force and are therefore evil.

Capitalism does the same, as well. And, again, moralism is shit, where this conversation is concerned.


Again, I am quite familiar with anarchist responses to "anarcho"-capitalists. I am most interested in hearing from tendencies that give either time-limited legitimacy to the state, or indefinite legitimacy to the state.

Thanks for your responses!

Well, the state as many Marxists (left Marxists, anyway) see it is a fundamentally different organization than what we see today. Many people assume and transfer onto these ideas what they currently know. They don't bother looking at it (or Marxists don't bother explaining it) in a different manner.

[tuwix]

1.) The state necessarily maintains its existence through the threat of violent force, and is therefore evil.


I could agree with that. But so what?



2.) Communism and socialism reject "self-ownership," and therefore advocate slavery, as it is the only alternative.


No. Socialism and communism are against private property that isn't a personal property. And capitalism is actually a slavery because in fact one who has owns a one who doesn't have.



3.) Communism, socialism, and collectivist organization in general cannot exist without coercion, as individuals are forced into such arrangements.

No. Primitive communism exists without coercion and it's the most natural form of social organisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88gOuI3XJQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism




4.) All activity in an "anarcho"-capitalist scenario would be voluntary, so individuals would maximize their liberty.


No. Capitalism is actually a slavery because in fact one who has owns a one who doesn't have.



5.) Property is a fundamentally natural right and freedom cannot exist without it. Therefore, redistribution or collective ownership is necessarily violent and tyrannical, as it forces property owners to forfeit their assets and their liberty.


There is nothing natural in property. First people didn't know a concept of property as monkeys don't. And property serves for tyranny because one who has owns a one who doesn't have.



6.) All prices and values are inherently subjective; there is no "empirical value."


Actually every product has its production cost. Then prices and values can be
measured objectively.



7.) Collective ownership is monopolistic, and therefore grossly inefficient.


No. Let's imagine a thousand of co-operatives owned by workers collectively. Is thousand a monopoly in any way?



8.) Collective ownership necessarily destroys incentives and hinders creativity.


How so? I don't see why?



9.) Suggesting services such as universal access to health care or food are "human rights" is akin to slavery, as it "forces" doctors, farmers, etc. to provide service even if they do not want to.


No. Capitalism is actually a slavery because in fact one who has owns a one who doesn't have. Free services are freedom because are just free and available for all.



10.) Communism and socialism rely on coercion, violence, and force and are therefore evil.


No. Primitive communism exists without coercion and force and it's the most natural form of social organisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88gOuI3XJQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No. Let's imagine a thousand of co-operatives owned by workers collectively. Is thousand a monopoly in any way?

It's also not socialism.