Anarchy

[Publius]

What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism or whatever leftist anarcho- you feel like using?

In the absence of government, how would one form but not the other?

[JazzRemington]

The BIG difference between the two is taht "Anarcho-"Capitalism claims that capitalism is workable with anarchism and promotes the idea of a "hands-off" (can't spell the French term) capitalism.

Anarcho-socialists want a "Free form" socialism, socially owned means of production and worker controlled, etc. with no bosses or whatnot.

Neither of them will form on their own. For one to form, it must BE formed by people. But I strongly disagree that "Anarcho-"Capitalism would form independently of what people try because I do not think capitalism is natural.

[Zingu]

Anarcho-Capitalism is really Libertarianism on steriods. No government with a capitalist economy! These people think that would be a perfect society. Unluckly, they cannot seem to forsee that the companies aren't their freinds.

You can obivously see the flaws in Anarcho-Capitalism.


Anarcho-Socialism would be the direct transition to Communism without the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" state. An example would be the Spanish Communes in Spain in 1936. A collective, egalitarian society.


An anarchist could probably better clarify this for you.

[Publius]

Just make it up, everyone else does: Lessay Phair serves well enough.

I support (Mostly) lessaiz faire capitalism.

So essentially they, want "society" to create anarchy, and out of this anarchy, developed structures like anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism will arise?

[Publius]

I know the differnces in theory, I mean what are the differences in practice?

In an abscence of government, how will one form but not the other?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Anarcho-Capitalism hasn't existed in practice and is considered a really bad joke by the anarchist community. Nor does it seem sustainable. For the sake of debate, let's call it by it's less ridiculous name: Laissez-fairez capitalism.

Anarchism: the absence of oppression and masters. We run this society on self-management, direct-democracy and solidarity.

Laissez-fairez capitalism lacks all of them. You are not allowed to vote or self-manage in a capitalist workspace. Even though the workspace fills up a large part of one's life.

Nor is capitalism solidair. You do not work to benefit society in Laissez-fairez capitalism, but to benefit yourself. There goes solidarity.

And money is power. How richer you get, the more power you get. The mere fact that there are (economic) bosses, contradicts "Anarcho-Capitalism". Not to mention that people use money to get political power. It's really to wait, untill an owner of the means of production decides to solidify his power by building a political device to maintain his power.

"Anarcho-Capitalists" seem to base their naming purely on the fact that they wish an absence of government. But anarchism isn't merely a negative, it's also a positive. We have well thought out theories on how to run society. Theories on how run a society free of oppression and masters.

"Anarcho-Capitalism" doesn't share in this positive tradition. It doesn't share anything actually with the rest of the anarchist movement. Maybe some capitalist nut had read an anarchist pamflet which stated "Down with the state!". Dunno, maybe it sounded "cool" or something.

But no. Nobody who lives in a society inwhich he is treated with respect, gets everything for free and does everything volutarily. No one from such a society would trade that in for a pyramid society, with headaches over bills and a forcefull society.

But I do see possiblities, the other way around. The only group which I can think off that would want capitalism are the oppressors. Sounds bit logical, doesn' it?

[Publius]

Leftism is considered a joke by real economists as well.

In anarcho-capitalism there is no oppression because there is no coercion.

You have absolute freedom.

Anarchy is just the lack of a government.

How do you work to benefit society in anarchy?

There has to be some disparity in wealth in anarchy. There are leaders of the collectives.

There is an inversion in society everywhere, it's inescapable.


So your theory is get rid of opression and masters and everything else will fall into place?

Well duh. What you don't realize is that's utopia, the impossible part is getting rid of those people.



Let me tell you what actual anarchy is.

This isn't theory. This isn't in books (That you've read). It exists in the real world, in places like Albania and Somolia.

It's called anarchy. Anarchy involves the lack of government and therefore, the lack of rules.

This is the only rule.

Anarchy is nothing but gun wielding bands of robbers roaming the countryside murdering and pillaging.

The "winner" in anarchy is the person/group with the most/biggest guns.

Everyone else loses.

There is no "society" other than gangs.

There is no production because anything you produce is stolen.

There is no peace because peaceful people are easiest to kill.

Welcome to anarchy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The idea is that a free society is inherently socialistic - that is, that, free from coercive structures, in a society capable of generating massive surpluss, people will sensibly (whether you believe in altruism OR self-interest) organize themselves in a decentralized democratic way.
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is inherently undemocratic - it puts control of the economy in the hands of a small minority - rather, it is arguable that a pure-gift economy, based on the free exchange of goods offers a means by which people are better able to meet their needs and actualize their desires.
Capitalism - even if you're self-interested - is a lottery. The pure-gift economy, however, offers not only a 'sure thing' . . . but meaningful participation in the systems that ensure that it will be a 'sure thing'.
Most libertarians abhore the initiation of force, and the interference of higher bodies in the matters of the individual - but the freest market doesn't stop these things. It simply switches force and control away from quasi-democratic gov't into the hands of authoritarian corporate bodies. The anarchist platform, however, offers a means of organization that really challenges the illegitimate concentration of coercive force in any form.
I understand you swinging away from this sort of thing in reaction to, say, the manifestations of state-capitalism (In the Eastern Bloc, etc.) - I don't blame you. But I highly recomend investigating the history, philosophy, and practice of anarchism. It certainly changed my mind (Speaking as a former right-wing nut, haha.)

[Xvall]

I think the primary difference is the way in which the two ideologies percieve things in an anarchist society. Anarcho-Capitalist believe that in an anarchist society, currency will still exist, and there will be no limitations on trade and commerce; that everyone will simply do as they please in unlimited freedoms, and that the natural economy will preserve itself. Anarcho-Communists/Socialists belive that in an anarchist society people will band together into small (sometimes large) communities and work as a single unit for the "common good". They believe that currency will no longer exist, and there will be no existing classes.

I think.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wow, posts are going up quicky in this thread - to reply to the new points:

Anarchy is not chaos, but rather, rules and order instituted in a radically decentralized, horizontal, democratic way. The voluntary participation of people within given frameworks, for the mutual benefit of all involved.

e.g. When you play a game of pick-up soccer, there's nothing to prevent you from cheating, except the general agreement on a set of rules. Does it degenerate into violent craziness? Of course not.

[Publius]

I think the primary difference is the way in which the two ideologies percieve things in an anarchist society. Anarcho-Capitalist believe that in an anarchist society, currency will still exist, and there will be no limitations on trade and commerce; that everyone will simply do as they please in unlimited freedoms, and that the natural economy will preserve itself. Anarcho-Communists/Socialists belive that in an anarchist society people will band together into small (sometimes large) communities and work as a single unit for the "common good". They believe that currency will no longer exist, and there will be no existing classes.

I think.

Excellent summary.

Thanks.

[Publius]

Wow, posts are going up quicky in this thread - to reply to the new points:

Anarchy is not chaos, but rather, rules and order instituted in a radically decentralized, horizontal, democratic way. The voluntary participation of people within given frameworks, for the mutual benefit of all involved.

e.g. When you play a game of pick-up soccer, there's nothing to prevent you from cheating, except the general agreement on a set of rules. Does it degenerate into violent craziness? Of course not.

That's cute.

Try telling that so the Somalis.

The nice ones will ignore you for you being so stupid.

The mean ones will just shoot you. And get away with it.


What you fail to realize is, we aren't playing soccer, we're playing life.

Life is different. Life, in an anarchistic society, has no agreed upon rules because not everyone agrees upon them.

It's great that your commune agrees to a bunch of rules and sharing, but it means roughly jack shit when the Banditos come and kill all of you and take your food.

If you don't think that's what anarchy would result in, I beg of you, visit Albania or Somalia.

[Publius]

The idea is that a free society is inherently socialistic - that is, that, free from coercive structures, in a society capable of generating massive surpluss, people will sensibly (whether you believe in altruism OR self-interest) organize themselves in a decentralized democratic way.
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is inherently undemocratic - it puts control of the economy in the hands of a small minority - rather, it is arguable that a pure-gift economy, based on the free exchange of goods offers a means by which people are better able to meet their needs and actualize their desires.
Capitalism - even if you're self-interested - is a lottery. The pure-gift economy, however, offers not only a 'sure thing' . . . but meaningful participation in the systems that ensure that it will be a 'sure thing'.
Most libertarians abhore the initiation of force, and the interference of higher bodies in the matters of the individual - but the freest market doesn't stop these things. It simply switches force and control away from quasi-democratic gov't into the hands of authoritarian corporate bodies. The anarchist platform, however, offers a means of organization that really challenges the illegitimate concentration of coercive force in any form.
I understand you swinging away from this sort of thing in reaction to, say, the manifestations of state-capitalism (In the Eastern Bloc, etc.) - I don't blame you. But I highly recomend investigating the history, philosophy, and practice of anarchism. It certainly changed my mind (Speaking as a former right-wing nut, haha.)


Just a few notes:

Anarcho-captialism is purely democratic, you vote with your dollars.

That is absolute democracy whether you like it or not.


Captitalism isn't a lottery. It takes skill and intelligence to "win".


There is nothing to study about anarchy. Anarchy is black hole into which all intelligent thought descends. Anarchy is violence. Anyone who thinks it's different clearly doesn't understand.

Anarchy is nihlism.

Anarchy is nihilism, that's all that needs to be said.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You know that Democracy means will of the majority?


Anarcho-captialism is purely democratic, you vote with your dollars.

In Laissez-fairez capitalism people are not worth the same ammount, thus they do not posses the same ammount of political power. LF Capitalism isn't democratic.

But you're wrong. There are the stories of people who work hard and then become very rich. But that's not the general story. Most rich people inherited their money and most people who try getting rich, die trying.

Anarchism isn't violence. Nor is it any other bullshit that you stated. Maybe you should read a REAL book.

[Publius]

God, you're hilarious.

Somalia is as anarchistic as you can get.

It has no government.

There is nothing but violence.

Are you going to tell me Somalia is a great place and my facts are wrong?

Because if you aren't, you're admitting that anarchy (True anarchy, the government up and left the country) leads to nothing but nihlistic violence.

I don't need to read a book to see this.

The people of Somalia didn't need to read a book to figure out they would be killed unless they armed themselves.

The number of "autonomous collectives" in Somalia is zero. The number of warlords is in the thousands.

If you want anarchy, go to Somalia.

Pack a lunch, you're gonna need it.



So you support democracy?

You support the majority destroying the minority? The Aryan majority gassing and killing the Jew minority?

That's true democracy, "the majority rules".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You liar. Somalia isn't anarchism. It not even horizontally organised. In Somalia there are, as you stated, thousands of rulers insteads one ruler(the government). Somalia isn't anarchism, it's chaos. There is a hugh difference between those two. You do need to read a book or atleast an article to undestand that.

You contradict yourself man. Burn the book which told you, that anarchism means solely an absence of government.

Edit: What a bullshit about majority oppressing a minority. I do not support that. I am in favor of decentralized power. There is no state from, out of which you can't move if you are against certain proposals. And please do not EVER compare Hitler to anarchists. It makes you even stupider then you are. if any of us two should compare the other with Hitler, then I should do it. Afterall Hitler was a capitalist.

[Publius]

Somalia isn't anarchism?

The BBC disagrees: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm

And I quote "Somalia is the only country in the world in which there is no government"

[Publius]

dictionary.com disagrees with you as well.

I bolded the part that proves you wrong so you can find it more easily.

an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You contradict yourself again.

A local warlord has political power. Thus Anarchism does not exist in Somalia.

But you should have bolded the second part. That is another definition of anarchy. Political confusion and chaos. Somalia is in chaos and it lacks a central ruler. Instead of that, Somalia has thousands, ten thousands of small local rulers. Rulers nonetheless. Thus not anarchist.

But using anarchism as an synonym for chaos is just wrong. Once democracy was used as a synonymous for chaos by the rulers of that time. Anarchism isn't chaos, it has proofen itself.

Somalia is not a horizontally organised society of free individuals living in solidarity. Thus not anarchist.

[Publius]

Some of Somalia is like that.

Some of Somalia is as horizontally organized as you can be: They have mob rule with no leader. They pillage as a group.


And all of those definitions apply.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No it doesn't. Even mob rule is political authority of individuals over other individuals. The mere fact that a group of people has more power then others, states it out as anarchism.

Anarchism = nobody rules nobody.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron. Anarchy literally means 'no rulers'. Capitalism by definition is rule of capital; plutocracy, rule of the wealthy. Instead of the current situation of "public states" where the less wealthy at least may have some voice in some countries, "anarcho-capitalism" would have many "private states" with the wealthy owner(s) of the state having all the power.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

True. Anarcho-Capitalism is totally an oxymoron. The two could never coexist.

[Publius]

Nobody rules nobody?

I think you mean nobody rules somebody or somebody rules nobody.

So basically, your perfect society is a perfect society.

A society where nobody rules anyone else.

That's like saying "My perfect society is a society where everyone has everything they want or need".

It deserves a "Fucking duh" award.

The problem is it's impossible for everyone to have everything they want just as it's impossible to have no one ruling or none with more power than anyone.

Someone will always have more power simple because some people are leaders and some are followers.

Some people wish to ascend and ascend they will.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Someone will always have more power simple because some people are leaders and some are followers.

Some people will always have more "influential power" than others, there's no way around it. Some people will also have more "coercive power" as long as the majority of people are willing to be just followers, slaves. But this is what we want to change. We want people stop following their capitalist masters' commands. Once people won't subject themselves to being coercively led, we will have a better society.

[Publius]

You want to force people to be free?

How nice of you, telling me who I can or can't follow.

"I have freedom but not the freedom to make my own decisions about who I work for".

Thanks for the freedom!

The freer the market, the freer the people - Lugwig von Mises

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

That's a lie. The Market mechanism requires people to be subjected, as well as tyrants at the workfloor. The freer the market, the more this applies.

Out of curiousity. If you truely believe so, then why aren't you a "anarcho-capitalist".

[Publius]

Because market freedoms require property rights.

In anarchy they don't exist.

You are perfectally free -- to steal your neigbors goods.

That doesn't work so well.

Government provides order.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Government provides order, but a government is not necessary for order. Order can also exist in a society of free individuals working together on a voluntarily basis. I don't need anyone to force me, in order to work organized and effective. Do you?

[Publius]

Of course.

I don't drive 55 out of the goodness of my heart. I would be doing 120 going the wrong way on the freeway, backwards, popping wheelies if the state didn't stop me.

And let's just say public nudity/public drinking/sexual harrassment and public uriniation laws provide a good mix of restriction and freedom.

Ask the joggers down at the park about that one.

And don't me started on legislating morality.

Put it this way, I didn't know snorting blow off a hooker's ass while in the bed of truck was against the law, but now that I'm off of PCP I can see the reason for it.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Bla bla bla.

Would you rape someone, chop her then into pieces, boil and eat her with mustard. If you would get the chance of going unpunished.

I assume that you say no, otherwise you would have some serious mental issues. That you say no shows that even you have a social side.

Though talk, but I don't think you would speed 120 km through an area with playing kids. I dare you too proof me wrong.

In capitalism, you are not punished to see in your mistake and better your life. You are punished, so that you suffer and try to avoid suffering the next time. Either by not committing the crime or not getting caught. Most people who are already in the cycle of par example stealing, choose to avoid capturement instead of stopping with stealing.

And why would someone stop with stealing. Why is stealing wrong? Capitalism isn't a system based on justice.

[Publius]

This proves my hypothesis: Pinkos are arrogant, egoists with no actual intelligence and no sense of humor.

That post was meant to be funny, and to me and my contemporaries, it was uproarious.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Not my fault. You and your fellow wannabe CEO's have said stupider things then this. It's really hard to notice when a capitalist is being stupid or funny. I didn't laugh, nor is anyone called Pinko.

[Publius]

You pinkos sure are self-important.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yeah.

You'll get a suspension the next time that you call spam, troll or call names.

[Publius]

Just ban me then.

I don't feel like dealing with you pinkos, your stupid rules, your self-importance or any of this other shit.

I don't think you're stupid, I just don't think you know what they hell you're talking about.


And I think it's strange that anarchists such as yourselves believe in ruling these forums with an iron fist.

You can invert this society and shove it up your horizantal ass.

Good day.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Good day.

It's a small simple fact. This message board is not society, it's just a messageboard. We leftists talk with each other here. We want an indepth debate on leftism, what we don't need is a messageboard filled with left vs right debates. We have Opposing Ideologies for that. Deal with it. If you hate it, then leave. As simple as that.