Could supporting Capitalist Libertarian partys help bring about Anarchism/Socalism?

[(A)]

One of the main road blocks that we face is a powerful authoritarian political system that is bought and paid for by corporations and the super wealthy. A system so strong and ingrained in out society seams almost indestructible.
Could the road to back to the left be hastened by supporting political movements that while stand in economic opposition to us would help weaken and even dissolve the very institution under whose boot-heel we live.
An example road map for clarification.

NeoLiberal Capitalism >> Capitalist Libertarianism >> Anarco-Capitalism >> Anarco-Syndicalism >> Anarchy.

I know there are many different sides to the left; but I think this may rest in between Reformation and Revolution because somewhere along this road there has to be revolution to end capitalism and bring in Socialism.
Just looking for some thoughts.

[Alet]

The main problem here is the assumption that libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, socialism, and whatever are merely "systems", full stop - that is, they are simply mere ideas which exist by themselves and that's it. This notion leads us to the conclusion that there is no ideology and we can just take people at their word, because it implies that their ideas are genuine and the only reason they are not realized is simply that most people don't agree with them and therefore don't even make an effort to put them into practice. If this were true, the bourgeois ideologues would be right: There is no "real" capitalism or "real" neoliberalism at the moment, and our (the Left's) opposition to it is just social-romantic populism etc. However, they miss the point because their qualifications for capitalism, etc. are unjustified in the first place. That is because this notion fails to recognize the worldly (i.e. practical) meaning of these ideas. They are not simply positive fancy features of a hypothetical society, they are not simply systems that exist in a vacuum, there are social "forces" which constitute the justification for speaking of them. In other words, they are not simply ideas by themselves, instead there are real, social controversies behind these ideas. One does not simply speak of expropriation of private property by the workers, full stop. One does so in congruence with their opposition to very concrete and very real historical/social conditions (i.e. capitalism).

To cut a long story short: Socialism is the real movement that seeks to abolish the present state of affairs, and nothing else. This movement finds its basis in the class that has nothing to lose. Socialism is not a matter of realizing positive ideas as such but one of accentuating already existing antagonisms. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is not even a real movement to begin with. It is an ideology with very real, practical meaning and implications but it remains an idea. For this reason anarcho-capitalism might be similar to utopian socialism, in a way. Or to make my point perfectly clear, let's take the rightists' dreams of mass deportations of immigrants as an example: These fantasies are constrained by real world limitations but at the same time they form an essential part of their fascistic ideology. The same holds true for anarcho-capitalism, etc. So no, there is no reason to support capitalist libertarian parties with the intention of "achieving" a specific "system". Our only task is to accentuate real antagonisms.

As to the purported "powerful authoritarian political system", it is not as hopeless as you think it is. Remember that the Russian Social Democrats were able to agitate and radicalize the working masses under way worse conditions. At the moment we are literally living in a heaven for radicals. This should not be taken for granted of course - it seems that these "heavenly" conditions will degenerate sooner or later.

[ckaihatsu]

Could the road to back to the left be hastened by supporting political movements that [...] would help weaken and even dissolve the very institution under whose boot-heel we live.


This is distinctly a matter of politics-strategies-tactics -- the metaphor usually invoked is that of a *tree*, where someone who strays too far from their own 'home' position is noted as 'going out on a limb', meaning, of course, that their new, *novel* position on something threatens to set them up for a fall politically, since it's too-far-out and unsteady compared to their *standard*, known, expected political principles.

So any decision by a far-left organization to support more-mainstream (status-quo) oriented politics, like that of libertarianism, could only be a *strategy*.

The hazard is that the political time and efforts out-on-a-limb, doing the strategy, would seriously threaten to overshadow and dissolve one's 'core' politics, even to the point where one's own politics *change* as a result of such involvement (also consider any 'entryist' strategy into the bourgeois electoral arena).

Building on the circular / radial 'tree' metaphor, we might, for the purposes of illustration, imagine a radial-spinning left-right political spectrum, where the 'center' is the hegemonic status quo, while the two outlying far peripheries are thrown-outward, *away* from the center, and also kept *opposite* from each other as long as the 'spinning' from the center is considerable. (The 'spinning' may be thought of as the ability of the bourgeois state to keep all non-central positions off-balance and impotent.)

To your point, if a far-left organization strays too far rightward, even just for 'strategic' reasons, it becomes susceptible to the center-pulling *centripetal* force of the spinning -- or co-optation, in other words.

Using this kinesthetic 'feel' of spinning-physics, we can ask if moving center-wards politically would tend to *inhibit* the spinning momentum or *add to it* -- the working class has no class interest in adding to the 'heft' in the middle that only aids the bourgeois-centralizing 'centripetal' force, drawing in everything it can like a massive black hole.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism



http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)


---





So no, there is no reason to support capitalist libertarian parties with the intention of "achieving" a specific "system". Our only task is to accentuate real antagonisms.





NeoLiberal Capitalism >> Capitalist Libertarianism >> Anarco-Capitalism >> Anarco-Syndicalism >> Anarchy.



[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

[OsirisTheMutualist]

NeoLiberal Capitalism >> Capitalist Libertarianism >> Anarco-Capitalism >> Anarco-Syndicalism >> Anarchy.


I don't see how anarcho-capitalism could be used as a transition to any form of leftist anarchism. Chances are, after an anarcho-capitalist society is created, a state would likely form again in order to protect the interests of those higher up on the economic ladder.

[TheIrrationalist]

I don't see how anarcho-capitalism could be used as a transition to any form of leftist anarchism. Chances are, after an anarcho-capitalist society is created, a state would likely form again in order to protect the interests of those higher up on the economic ladder.

i agree, but i wouldn't necessarily see a 'state' forming but rather a new feudalism. much akin to the early 20th century company towns, with their private militaries etc., united by large trusts or monopolies. "l'état c'est ma compaigne"

but i don't see this ever happening, the current state of affairs are far too benefical to large corporations. though i don't think they would be against relaxing of control in certain areas (which is happening).

[OsirisTheMutualist]

i agree, but i wouldn't necessarily see a 'state' forming but rather a new feudalism. much akin to the early 20th century company towns, with their private militaries etc., united by large trusts or monopolies. "l'état c'est ma compaigne"

but i don't see this ever happening, the current state of affairs are far too benefical to large corporations. though i don't think they would be against relaxing of control in certain areas (which is happening).

I see your point. Anarcho-capitalism could possibly also collapse in on itself because capitalist norms are impossible without a state (i.e. high interest, wage labor, property based on wealth, etc) and become mutualism. The AnCap system of property would become a mutualist system of property very quickly, because without the state the price of protecting property will have gone up, thus making absentee ownership impossible, because there is no point in paying to defend property that you neither plan on using nor actually use. This becomes occupancy and use based property, the property standard of mutualism, and then the rest of the system becomes mutualism. Either this or what you and I mentioned before, a new feudalism or a new state forming alongside the capitalist economy.

[Jacob Cliff]

Remember that the Russian Social Democrats were able to agitate and radicalize the working masses under way worse conditions. At the moment we are literally living in a heaven for radicals. This should not be taken for granted of course - it seems that these "heavenly" conditions will degenerate sooner or later.

While the RSDLP was organizing under a severely repressive state apparatus, compared to our liberal-democratic one, I don't know if one can say conditions were way worse when one factors in state force. Of course, radicals today have the freedom to meet up, chat on sites like this, organize and agitate and so on -- but unlike Russian autocracy, we have mass-surveillance, guided missiles, a very intricate and powerful broadcasting system and media, etc. The danger today I feel is not so much organizing the masses themselves -- but what TO DO with a mass movement (which, given our circumstances, will likely not be 'mass' if we, as you said, see a degeneration of our democratic standards -- which will consign our work to clandestine 'vanguardist' politics in spirit of the Bolsheviks).

[ComradeAllende]

I see your point. Anarcho-capitalism could possibly also collapse in on itself because capitalist norms are impossible without a state (i.e. high interest, wage labor, property based on wealth, etc) and become mutualism.
Anarcho-capitalism itself rests on a number of questionable and self-contradicting. Ancaps generally oppose the existence of large corporations, viewing them as a legal creation of the state and an inherent market barrier (which is correct, but also besides the point). Yet barring the abolition of scarcity, the abolition of large corporations would reduce the productivity of modern capitalist economies, given the benefits of economies of scale and innovation that is facilitated within large institutions.

[lanadelarosa]

Why is anarchism getting so popular in the left? This feels like trolling. How could you possibly transition from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism at all, much less anarchism? Why do anarchists completely ignore historical and material reality? These emotionally-informed politics are just dividing the left. Socialism needs to be the main goal for all leftists right now, regardless of what anarchist utopia you want in the future. And supporting neoliberal/conservative/fascist parties isn't going to speed up the process of decaying capitalism in the slightest, at least not in the way you're hoping for. This whole notion of letting things get worse so we can make them better is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Anarchists, please think things through.

[John Nada]

Supporting so-called "anarcho"-capitalism as a supposed path to actual anarchy is accelerationism. It's austerity to the max. Essentially people who don't have property and gold(ie the proletariat) will have most democratic stripped away in the name of protecting property owners' negative rights. Regardless of theoretical "choice" to opt out of whatever, leaving capitalist relations of production(classes and property) and private institutions(arbitration and contracts, private security, corporations, ect which can all exist "voluntarily") to rule will de facto be a state, making "anarcho"-capitalism a contradiction in terms. And without a safety-net, people will die; if private charity were superior to state welfare there's absolutely nothing stopping from solving poverty yet it hasn't.

Plus there's the question how they're going to have "true capitalism" in one country. What's to stop "crony-capitalists" from getting state partners abroad? If implimented in a semi-colonial nation(which is damn near already happening, ie Honduras), it is a great way trans-national corporations to take over.

I don't see how a bunch of company towns will speed up the possible revolution, anymore than voting Republican. I only see it degenerating into either fascism or some type of neo-feudalism.
NeoLiberal Capitalism >> Capitalist Libertarianism >> Anarco-Capitalism >> Anarco-Syndicalism >> Anarchy.

I know there are many different sides to the left; but I think this may rest in between Reformation and Revolution because somewhere along this road there has to be revolution to end capitalism and bring in Socialism. Just looking for some thoughts.That would be a bizarre, ahistorical, accelerationist, stageist path to anarchy. Events do not proceed in a neat linear line. As far as I know, no anarchist(an-caps aren't part of the anarchist tradition) tendency subscribes to progressing austerity=progressively closer to anarchy. Remember that anarchy doesn't just mean no state, but is an antonym to hierarchy in all its forms. Having "anarcho" in the name and claiming to oppose the state, yet upholding class and other forms of hierarchy, doesn't make them allies.

[ckaihatsu]

Why is anarchism getting so popular in the left? This feels like trolling. How could you possibly transition from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism at all, much less anarchism? Why do anarchists completely ignore historical and material reality? These emotionally-informed politics are just dividing the left. Socialism needs to be the main goal for all leftists right now, regardless of what anarchist utopia you want in the future. And supporting neoliberal/conservative/fascist parties isn't going to speed up the process of decaying capitalism in the slightest, at least not in the way you're hoping for. This whole notion of letting things get worse so we can make them better is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Anarchists, please think things through.


There's a fairly recent thread on this topic:


Let's Talk Accelerationism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195692-Let-s-Talk-Accelerationism

[TheIrrationalist]

i think libertarian theorists like hans-herman hoppe and stefan molyneux are clearest links of the so-called anarcho-capitalism with fascism and the authoritarian 'old right'. both are quite clearly white supremacists, and especially hoppe has been supporting 'privatisation' of political power, i.e. outright absolutism and dictatorship. in my opinion american libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are just fascism disguised with wank about the liberal virtues. it is pure reaction, it just has an appeal for the white labour aristocracy and petite bourgeoisie that fascism doesn't have in america. the point of fascism is to create forms where the aggravation of class conflict on a large scale becomes impossible (much like social democracy or new deal liberalism?). that said fascism, or in this case anarcho-capitalism and american libertarianism, is no strategy for class struggle, or indeed acceleration.

[(A)]

I dont believe that any current state could be reformed into a socialist one. We can yell and scream and cry but the state will continue to exist and prevent any real movement of the whole to the left. Without removing the state how do we achieve the goals of socialism? Is State socialism the goal of the majority on RevLeft?

I am as much anti-Authoritarian as I am Anti-Capitalist. I would rather remove the state and fight the capitalists then yell at the state to remove the capitalists for me to which they will simply reply no. Even if the state socializes all of the planets production would you trust the rule of the Minority or the Tyranny of the Majority?

[ckaihatsu]

I dont believe that any current state could be reformed into a socialist one. We can yell and scream and cry but the state will continue to exist and prevent any real movement of the whole to the left. Without removing the state how do we achieve the goals of socialism?


This is uncontroversial.





Is State socialism the goal of the majority on RevLeft?


This is a recurring suspicion from anarchists, unfortunately, about the non-anarchist revolutionary left, due to fundamental differences in strategy -- but no revolutionary is calling for the 'reformation' or sheer *bureaucratization* of the state, as into Stalinist-type state socialism.





I am as much anti-Authoritarian as I am Anti-Capitalist.




I would rather remove the state and fight the capitalists then yell at the state to remove the capitalists for me to which they will simply reply no.


Yup.





Even if the state socializes all of the planets production would you trust the rule of the Minority or the Tyranny of the Majority?


I find this to be problematic, insofar as 'socializing production' assumes that a parliamentary-type hierarchical apparatus of political representation -- like today's -- would have to exist for matters of socialized production.

Anarchists tend to think that abstracted (actually private-property-based) 'power' relations would continue to exist, into a post-capitalist socio-political context, hence the use of the word 'rule' here.

I'll counterpose a sense of project-based *cooperation* over the world's collectivized production, with a mass-prioritized *list* of aggregated demands / needs / wants, with *no* personification of 'power' and power-relations, since that concept itself implies a bottlenecking / log-jamming of people's unfettered access to natural resources and the fruits of collectivized production.

[(A)]

This is a recurring suspicion from anarchists, unfortunately, about the non-anarchist revolutionary left, due to fundamental differences in strategy -- but no revolutionary is calling for the 'reformation' or sheer *bureaucratization* of the state, as into Stalinist-type state socialism.

So their are no Stalinist's left? Beyond Stalin tho; an authoritarian state can exist without capitalism. Their was tyranny before capitalism and I am sure their could be after. Their is Tyranny in Democracy. Look at Brittan. Even the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" stinks authoritarian power structures. I want an end to all Dictatorships; even the dictatorship of the people.



I find this to be problematic, insofar as 'socializing production' assumes that a parliamentary-type hierarchical apparatus of political representation -- like today's -- would have to exist for matters of socialized production.

Anarchists tend to think that abstracted (actually private-property-based) 'power' relations would continue to exist, into a post-capitalist socio-political context, hence the use of the word 'rule' here.

I'll counterpose a sense of project-based *cooperation* over the world's collectivized production, with a mass-prioritized *list* of aggregated demands / needs / wants, with *no* personification of 'power' and power-relations, since that concept itself implies a bottlenecking / log-jamming of people's unfettered access to natural resources and the fruits of collectivized production.

There is more than just economic tyranny. Democratic Tyranny, religious tyranny. You believe all of these things will simply melt away? People have been tainted by Capitalism. No revolution of the masses will overcome the sickness of our culture in our lifetimes. Its going to take generations and a whole lot of work to reach a point where we as a people are ready for Communism; are ready for a 'prioritized *list* of aggregated demands / needs / wants.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

[A]n authoritarian state can exist without capitalism. Their was tyranny before capitalism and I am sure their could be after. Their is Tyranny in Democracy. Look at Brittan. Even the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" stinks authoritarian power structures. I want an end to all Dictatorships; even the dictatorship of the people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an actual governmental dictator, but the squashing of bourgeois capitalist tendencies by the workers, and the strict disallowance of economic oppression and hierarchy.

[Terri]

I dont believe that any current state could be reformed into a socialist one.

I'd just like to mention that Brazil was adapting itself to a more collectivist society, before making a full transition to socialism, which was the end goal of the then ruling part. While the plans was shot down by corruption scandals and a parliamentary coup, it was very well on its way to become a modern socialist society that didn't utilize a full-scale revolution to achieve its goal.

[(A)]

While I agree that economic oppression and hierarchy are bad. I dont want a dictatorship repeating the Russian revolution in my back yard. the last several times it has ended in tyranny.

If you dont think socialism can beat capitalism on its own merits without the use of an army; then is it really the best system?

I believe that freedom is the only path to socialism. Give every individual the freedom to work and benefit from their own labors and then watch as capitalism slowly rots away.
Capitalism NEEDS Wage Slavery and Land exploitation to exist. Without control of the land and without control of Labor Capitalism can not make a profit. No profit; no Capitalism.

I think the revolution needs to be one against the state and the system of theft. That's all Capitalism is. Its not the free Market. Its the Enslaved Market.

[(A)]

I'd just like to mention that Brazil was adapting itself to a more collectivist society, before making a full transition to socialism, which was the end goal of the then ruling part. While the plans was shot down by corruption scandals and a parliamentary coup, it was very well on its way to become a modern socialist society that didn't utilize a full-scale revolution to achieve its goal.

The state; as always ruined the plan. Power has to be in the hands of the people (as in no individual or collective should hold power over the people). The state should only serve to protect and conserve the means of production; not direct it and control it. I have never met a state I could trust with power.
As the Jewish barber said; The power they took from the people will return to the people.

[ckaihatsu]

So their are no Stalinist's left? Beyond Stalin tho; an authoritarian state can exist without capitalism. Their was tyranny before capitalism and I am sure their could be after. Their is Tyranny in Democracy. Look at Brittan. Even the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" stinks authoritarian power structures. I want an end to all Dictatorships; even the dictatorship of the people.


(See post #16.)


---





I find this to be problematic, insofar as 'socializing production' assumes that a parliamentary-type hierarchical apparatus of political representation -- like today's -- would have to exist for matters of socialized production.

Anarchists tend to think that abstracted (actually private-property-based) 'power' relations would continue to exist, into a post-capitalist socio-political context, hence the use of the word 'rule' here.

I'll counterpose a sense of project-based *cooperation* over the world's collectivized production, with a mass-prioritized *list* of aggregated demands / needs / wants, with *no* personification of 'power' and power-relations, since that concept itself implies a bottlenecking / log-jamming of people's unfettered access to natural resources and the fruits of collectivized production.





There is more than just economic tyranny. Democratic Tyranny, religious tyranny. You believe all of these things will simply melt away?


Yes. This is actually a part of theory, that all other, myriad social ills are the 'superstructure' that grow out of the 'base' economic-material functioning, meaning capitalism and its class divide based on one's relation to the means of mass production (wealth ownership, basically).





People have been tainted by Capitalism. No revolution of the masses will overcome the sickness of our culture in our lifetimes. Its going to take generations and a whole lot of work to reach a point where we as a people are ready for Communism; are ready for a 'prioritized *list* of aggregated demands / needs / wants.


*Or* -- people *already* have these 'lists' ready to go, as for decent housing, medical care, education, etc., and it's the *capitalist system* that's preventing them / us from realizing fulfillment according to these demands.

I wouldn't presume to put forth any arbitrary calendar date for a revolution along these lines.