Why Anarcho-Capitalism does not exist

[OleMarxco]

Or perhaps "does not work" is a better fitting word ;)

[LSD]

as the saying says, anarchism leads to despotism, sooner or later

WHO says that!? :huh:

That' a ridiculous statement and entirely without basis!


Should such theories be allowed to exist or be "purged" by fellow anarchists (if not leftists) as an alien element not deserving of being associated with Anarchism?

Anarchism is, by definition, the elimination of hierarchy. Any capitalist society is intrinsically hierarchical.

If you eliminate government, what you're effectively doing is expanding the economic sphere to include the political as well. That is, if there's no government than those who have the money will do the governing.

Now, most so-called "anarcho-capitalists" do favour some sort of regulating or enforcing authority to ensure that "laws" are not broken, that "private property rights" are maintained and so forth. They further claim that this will mean that there will still be effective democracy.

Nothing is further from the truth!

The fact is that even while modern capitalist first world countries are not democratic, they are far more democratic than similar states in the past. Furthermore, without a doubt the most democratic part of a modern first world state is its govenment. In comparison with its economy, it's political arena is quite democritized.

What "anarcho-capitalists" advocate is that we should eliminate the only part of modern society that is remotely equitable and replace it with that part of society that is the least!

They want to take away the only forum that provides even a little to the working class.

The only reason that progressive labour steps have been undertaken is either because of popular movements (strikes, protests, etc..) or government actions. And these actions only occured because the administrations at the time feared a public "backlash".

If we elminate that government and maintain capitalism, two things will happen.

1) There will no longer be any forum for workers to push for increased rights.
2) If the workers try to, instead, strike or protest, there will be no Workers' rights laws and they will be fired or quite possible killed.

Finally, I would point out that "Anarcho-Capitalism" is not only a contradiction, but it is a undesired one at that. Nearly all "Anarcho-Capitalists" do not use that phrase and prefer to refer to themselves as "Libertarians" or some such. We shouldn't throw the term at them if they don't use it themselves! And, besides, it's insulting to every true Anarchist to do so.

If the phrase is misleading, and they don't want it...

Why give it to them?

[apathy maybe]

It has been said, capitalism is inherentially hierarchical, anarchism is anti-hierarchy. Thus the two don't and can't exist together. Sure you could have a system where the only law is the law of strength or force. This is what 'anarcho-capitalists' want.

This situation is of course undesirable. There exists some people who call themselves minarchists <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism>, they desire a minimal state, but otherwise the situation of rule by force (or market).

I don&#39;t know if there exists minarchists who desire a minimal state, but not a capitalist one.

[Elect Marx]

Aside from "anarcho-capitalism" being an oxymoron; does it differ from laissez faire capitalism or minarchism?

[Social Greenman]

An interesting article about the spoiled brat philosophy of Libertarianism

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Social

[Severian]

Lots of ideas are self-contradictory or unworkable, including anarchism itself; nonetheless they exist. Anarcho-capitalism is one of them.

The real problem with anarcho-capitalism is that any propertied class needs a state to suppress the workers and fight with its rivals.

How is GM or Toyota going to break a strike, with no state? Rent-a-cops? (private security) Uneconomical for one company to support a large enough force, and nobody&#39;s going to believe they&#39;re anything but the arm of the bosses, while people have all kinds of illusions in the state representing everybody.

Or how are GM and Toyota going to fight each other? "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my CEO?" Nope, just doesn&#39;t cut it. Again, too obvious who the private armies would serve, not enough room for illusions.

The bosses, if they ever find themselves without a state, rapidly recreate it to deal with these problems.

Significantly, most libertarians support precisely these two functions of the state: cops and armies, but few or no others.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Severian
Significantly, most libertarians support precisely these two functions of the state: cops and armies, but few or no others.
And this is the difference between minarchists and "anarcho-capitalists". "Anarcho-capitalists" believe that private security forces would come into being to provide the functions of cops. Private courts would opperate where people could settle their differences without resorting to violence. They want good things of anarchism, with the bad things of capitalism and the bad things of no state.

[Social Greenman]

It figures that the Libertairians would retain cops and the military. Supress workers from collective bargaining thus keeping wages low and limiting benefits while the capitalist class maximizes profit margins. Liberty and freedom would only exist for the capitalist class and the only voice heard in government (which is getting that way anyways). The military fully funded to squash any insurgencies and continue imperialist expansion.

Social

[OleMarxco]

Imagine that.......corporates no-longer restricted by state fighting among themselves literally trying to "get the monopoloy", not caring for customers and workers along the way. Then I&#39;d atleast call for a revolution, the corporate machine never REALLY needed the government but as a instrument for their needs for the fact&#39;s sake - And that&#39;s just &#39;cuz they&#39;re FORCED to. And what the hell does Libertarians have to do with this? ;)

[Djehuti]

Infoshop have a quite good FAQ explaining why anarcho-capitalists are no anarchists:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html