Two types of Anarchy

[Big_Don]

Two types of Anarchy

It seems to me that there are two kinds of anarchists in today's political world. Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarcho-capitalists. Sydicalists believe that government should be eradicated and there be no heirarchal systems in existence. All people are completely equal under all circumstances, there are no bosses, and nobody is in charge of anybody else. Everybody works together to achieve harmony and non-aggression. Police would be nonexistant, yet somehow everybody would behave and be generous.
http://www.syndicalist.org/
Anarcho-capitalists believe that although there should be no official government, property rights should be respected and everybody should be free to do what they please with their wealth. They believe in free trade and no interference in their trade or personal wealth. Police should be replaced with private protection organizations. Cartels would be legally formed, yet would probably not work due to the inherent personal selfishness that drives everybody to perform out of their own self interest.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html

[(R)evolution of the mind]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism. It is an oxymoron.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35256

[bunk]

What about anarchist communism? Or those random primitivists?

[apathy maybe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

"Because the types of anarchism vary so largely, anarchism cannot be considered an ideology in the ordinary sense. Rather it is a set of ideas from which ideologies are drawn. On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is undesirable and unnecessary."

Basically "anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchist. There are lots of different types of anarchism, I would say almost as many as there are anarchists.

[SonofRage]

Plus, I'd say that Anarcho-Syndicalism is more a strategy than it is an ideology. Many, if not most, Anarcho-Syndicalists are also Anarcho-Communist

[Poum_1936]

Anarcho capitalism is basically laissez faire capitalism. However you wish to call it, it still sucks.

I was once an "anarchist without adjectives." Are there any who still claim that?

[ComradeChris]

In the capitalist's naive belief that anarchism can exist with free trade, you'll just see the rise of corporations anyway. Who would ultimately rule? The people with the most money anyway...so you'd have rulers/leaders as corporations would be required for every aspect of your life most likely.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:11 AM
Anarcho capitalism is basically laissez faire capitalism. However you wish to call it, it still sucks.

I was once an "anarchist without adjectives." Are there any who still claim that?
I call my self an Adjective Free Anarchist (and did so before I found out about anarchism without adjectives).

I call myself this because I think that any society that can meet the basic principles of anarchism (no-hierarchy, volunteerism, etc) would be a worthwhile society. I also think that within a geographical area you would find some people in communes, and others in a little house on the prairie on their own.

One of the things that first attracted me to anarchism was the idea of individualism, but I think that individualist anarchism as envisaged by some people just wouldn't work.

[TheAnarchyKid]

IS NOT ANARCHISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can’t live in a capitalist society and be free there would be sooooo much exploitation due to the fact that there would be no laws to even remotely control the monopolys if you got sick they would fire you we would be in even a shittier situation than we are now. For anarchism to be successful we need to eliminate capital of any kind in my opinion.

[Demogorgon]

I am no anarchist, but I must reiterate the point made many times here. Anarchy is a wide ranging political theory, some perspectives on which are extremely salient, others that are frankly awful. However Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchy at all. Anarchists oppose hierarchy and capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

Besides you will find most Anarcho-Capitalists are usually extremely authoritarian on social matters anyway

[apathy maybe]

Err, this is like over 2 years old. Nearly three.

Not only that, but the whole "anarcho"-capitalist thing is getting boring for me. I've seen it heaps of times since this thread.

[non-vio-resist]

I know this is an old post but I have to comment on it, as I feel it does an injustice to people who are attempting to learn something about anarchy.

It seems to me that there are two kinds of anarchists in today's political world. Not True.

Big Don, come on now! Could you possibly think in more black and white terms? There are many different schools of anarchist thought but by nature it is anti-capitalism and we strive for a communist, egalitarian society.



Anarcho-capitalists believe that although there should be no official government, property rights should be respected and everybody should be free to do what they please with their wealth.

You're referring to ultra-right hacks (Lew Rockwell is a great example) who have nothing to do with anarchy except they oppose government. These individuals would rarely point out that a multinational corporation is an unjustified hierarchy. They call themselves anarchists because of a gross misunderstanding of the word "anarchy;" that it is synonymous with chaos. You will often hear "free" market proponents speak of "beautiful chaos" and rugged individualism. These so-called anarcho-capitalists (oxymoron, as another user pointed out) are no more than Libertarian party members in most cases, and even more ironic, constitution worshipers (especially because they love their guns with such curious passion). Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of anarchy knows this is garbage.


Police should be replaced with private protection organizations.

This is possibly the best example to show how the idea of anarcho-capitalism is anathema. I would never want to speak for anarchists collectively, but I, as an anarchist, and I assure you that many more share my sentiment, are opposed to any kind of armed force that watches over society: this would defeat the purpose of my idea of anarchy, which is essentially societies running themselves. I am opposed to police and prison. I believe privatized arm-forces would actually be an anarcho-neo-conservative :lol: idea, the newest evolution in the right-wing anarchist movement (see Blackwater).

[Sam_b]

believe that although there should be no official government, property rights should be respected and everybody should be free to do what they please with their wealth. They believe in free trade and no interference in their trade or personal wealth. Police should be replaced with private protection organizations. Cartels would be legally formed, yet would probably not work due to the inherent personal selfishness that drives everybody to perform out of their own self interest.

You've basically descirbed libertarianism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I call my self an Adjective Free Anarchist (and did so before I found out about anarchism without adjectives).

I call myself this because I think that any society that can meet the basic principles of anarchism (no-hierarchy, volunteerism, etc) would be a worthwhile society. I also think that within a geographical area you would find some people in communes, and others in a little house on the prairie on their own.

One of the things that first attracted me to anarchism was the idea of individualism, but I think that individualist anarchism as envisaged by some people just wouldn't work.

Why are you an individualist anarchist, rather than a social one? Most individualist would argue that it was because of their "perception" of the world.

[Chom]

I really don't see anarchism as a system of anything. Isn't it simply the tendency to question all authority and a search for a rational justification for it?

And the distinction between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism is really nonsense. As Demogorgon said, capitalism needs hierarchy; you can't really question authority in a hierarchical society in a rational and civilised way without being attacked. And for anarcho-syndicalism, well I believe that the process of analysing authority would lead, in the end, to a society anarchosyndicalists defend.

[The Feral Underclass]

I really don't see anarchism as a system of anything. Isn't it simply the tendency to question all authority and a search for a rational justification for it?

No.

Making Sense of Anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-sense-anarchism-t6416/index.html)

[Luís Henrique]

Anarcho capitalism is basically laissez faire capitalism.

No, it is not. Laissez-faire ideologues know very well that a capitalist society needs a State, and they do not toy with the idea of a stateless society. It is thence a relatively coherent, if reactionary, ideology. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a foolish idea held by people who think "property rights" can be upheld without a repressive political machinery that enforces them unto the mass of have-nots.

In practice, it functions as a support for neoliberalism, but its based in a total miscomprehension of both capitalism and State.

Luís Henrique

[Vageli]

Anarcho capitalism is basically laissez faire capitalism. However you wish to call it, it still sucks.

Yeah, anarcho-capitalism is pretty much hyper capitalism, with no government intervention whatsoever (because governments would not exist). A good portrayal of such a system can be found in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

But yeah, the inherent flaws in the system stem from the fact that you are essentially forming "protection rings" and "cartels" who could, in a best case scenario, raise prices astronomically and enforce them with sheer force.

Something I have never really understood about the system, however, is if there is no government-type institution, where does the money come from with which the whole capitalist system depends? Does anyone know?

[Vageli]

And the distinction between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism is really nonsense.

No offense, but I do not think you have grasped all of the concepts of anarcho-sydicalism. Anarcho-capitalism is basically condoned mafias. I don't see how that relates to syndicalism but perhaps you care to elucidate? :)

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, anarcho-capitalism is pretty much hyper capitalism, with no government intervention whatsoever (because governments would not exist).

Again, no. Laissez-faire capitalism requires a State. It is completely different from "anarcho-capitalism" babble.

Luís Henrique

[Chom]

No offense, but I do not think you have grasped all of the concepts of anarcho-sydicalism. Anarcho-capitalism is basically condoned mafias. I don't see how that relates to syndicalism but perhaps you care to elucidate? :)

I wanted to say that I see that anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism at all, since it's rather anarcho-syndicalism that embodies the anarchist tradition and theory. Anarcho-capitalism automatically becomes Milton Friedman's definition of "free market" which is really a sort of corporative merchantilism, or condoned mafias as you say. So my point was really that there is no anarcho-capitalism/anarcho-syndicalism division, since the first one (anarcho-capitalism) is ridiculous to even try to formulate and the second one (anarcho-syndicalism) is the one that is the true anarchist path.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarcho-capitalism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "anarchism" means.

Essentially, it means (in the literal sense) "without hierarchy".

Anarcho-capitalists take it to mean "without the state". And of course there are many sources of hierarchy that do not stem directly from the state. Adding to this is the fact that most ancaps don't see the concept of "hierarchy" in terms of class and/or social standing as a problem. I've never been entirely sure why ancaps insist on keeping "anarcho" in the name of their ideology, as what they endorse most resembles a sort of "nightwatchman state", who's only real function is to protect property. Adding to this is the fact that their views on how police forces would function within an anarcho-capitalist society is pretty unrealistic, in my view, to say the least.

This is kind of beating a dead horse on my part, though. This matter has been discussed ad nauseum.

I'd divide the anarchist tradition more along the lines of individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, personally. And there are subdivisions within these respective traditions, as well.

[Chom]

I agree, but...


I'd divide the anarchist tradition more along the lines of individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, personally. And there are subdivisions within these respective traditions, as well.

what's individual anarchism based on? I just can't see any other form of anarchy other than the collective and syndicalist one.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I agree, but...



what's individual anarchism based on? I just can't see any other form of anarchy other than the collective and syndicalist one.

Individualist anarchism has historically ranged from Max Stirner (on the extreme end) to the American anarchist school, who were more collectivist. People like Voltairine De Cleyre (in her early days), and John Henry MacKay. Some might even argue that Proudhon had strong individualist undercurrents in his writing. Hell, ALL anarchists warn against individualism being destroyed; usually individualist anarchists put more emphasis on this concept, though.

Often it's more philosophical than practical, as well. (Stirner again comes to mind.)

[Dros]

Anarcho-capitalism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "anarchism" means.

Essentially, it means (in the literal sense) "without hierarchy".

Anarcho-capitalists take it to mean "without the state". And of course there are many sources of hierarchy that do not stem directly from the state. Adding to this is the fact that most ancaps don't see the concept of "hierarchy" in terms of class and/or social standing as a problem. I've never been entirely sure why ancaps insist on keeping "anarcho" in the name of their ideology, as what they endorse most resembles a sort of "nightwatchman state", who's only real function is to protect property. Adding to this is the fact that their views on how police forces would function within an anarcho-capitalist society is pretty unrealistic, in my view, to say the least.

This is kind of beating a dead horse on my part, though. This matter has been discussed ad nauseum.

I'd divide the anarchist tradition more along the lines of individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism, personally. And there are subdivisions within these respective traditions, as well.

I'm afraid your etymology is incorrect.

The greek root word "arche" means "power". So "anarchy" is a system without any power. In modern societies, the systemic organ of power is the state. So anarchy can correctly be taken to mean, in a modern context, "without state".

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm afraid your etymology is incorrect.

The greek root word "arche" means "power". So "anarchy" is a system without any power. In modern societies, the systemic organ of power is the state. So anarchy can correctly be taken to mean, in a modern context, "without state".

Huh.

I was told that the word "arch" was used to denote hierarchy. (Such as "archbisop" denotes a sort of hierarchy within the church.)

[Luís Henrique]

Huh.

I was told that the word "arch" was used to denote hierarchy. (Such as "archbisop" denotes a sort of hierarchy within the church.)

Nope. "Hierarchy" itself is compounded by hieros, sacred, and arche, command. It initially referred to religious power structure, wich are very, well, hierarchical.

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nope. "Hierarchy" itself is compounded by hieros, sacred, and arche, command. It initially referred to religious power structure, wich are very, well, hierarchical.

Luís Henrique

Obviously whoever told me about this had their wires crossed!

:cursing:

Well, regardless, my basic point still stands in regards to anarchists and their stance towards hierarchy (and power, for that matter).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It says something when capitalist apologists are trying to invent new phrases like "free markets" and "commercialism" to describe their philosophy and move away from the realities of capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

Why are you an individualist anarchist, rather than a social one? Most individualist would argue that it was because of their "perception" of the world.

Two thousand and five. That is when that post was made. Also, where did I say I was an individualist anarchist?

I argue for anarchism. Freedom, non-hierarchy and all that jazz. To talk about me being an "individualist" anarchist, or a "social" anarchist is just silly. Those terms don't mean anything if you try and apply them to me.

I want a system where people are free. In some cases that might mean a communist system, but you have to watch that you don't start enforcing social norms on people too much, and I don't have a problem with anarchist communism. I can also see how a mutualist market system can be anarchistic, and in such a system people would also be free.

The question comes down to, what is more important, the individual or the collective? I say the individual, because collective freedom is meaningless if the individuals within that collective aren't free.

I hope that makes some semblance of sense. (And, as far as I can tell, this has been my position since 2005. Since I started calling myself "adjective free", I have argued for the individuals right to choose. If you can find examples of me doing otherwise, I'ld welcome links.)

[The Baconator]

Edit :D