Anarchy vs. Anarcho-Communism vs. ecoanarchy etc [Archive]

apathy maybe

20th March 2007, 11:57

Hey man, with ideas like that you'll find it hard to join the CC. Not that you are missing much, but it is fun sometimes.

Anyway, no true anarchist will force another person to join a commune or to leave one. With the emphases on freedom, anarchism means that you don't force people to do things, when they are not impinging on the freedom of others.

As such, despite individualists and communists disagreeing with each other on whether the other is really anarchistic, it doesn't matter.

So, what is the actual difference? The problem with lumping anarchists into different groups, is that they can be divided in different ways. Economically, how they think we should get to anarchism (revolution, reform, whatever), position on violence, position on the environment and so on. Some pacifists (who oppose all violence) can thus have a burning hatred of the environment, thus putting them at odds with eco-anarchists. But eco-anarchists might be pacifists or not.

It all comes down to however, they all oppose hierarchy and oppression. This obviously leads to opposition to both the state (and government) and capitalism (no, "anarcho-capitalists" aren't really anarchists). They then interpret this idea differently. Pacifists see using violence as being hierarchical and oppressive, and thus oppose it. "Reformists" (who don't want to use the current system and reform it, but would rather build alternative structures outside the current system, so really reformist is not the correct word to use) see revolution in the same way. "Class war" anarchists focus more on class, seeing revolution as legitimate self defence of the lower classes against the ruling scum.

Some ideas (such as eco-anarchism) might even go beyond human society. Eco-anarchists might be environmentalists who see anarchism as the only way to have a truly environmentally friendly society, or they might be anarchists who are concerned about the environment. They might see animals as being oppressed, or they might not. Bio-environmentalists (deep greens) tend to see the biosystem as important, in and of itself. They tend (now days) also to be anarchists, but for environmental reasons, not political ones.

To talk about anarchism as if it is one ideology is misleading and wrong. Rather, it is a super-set of ideologies. But one think is clear, all anarchists are socialists.

Personally, I'm "simply" an anarchist (I like "adjective free anarchism"). Which basically means, I accept all the variants outlined as anarchistic and see them able to co-exist. Any ideology that can not co-exist with another anarchistic ideology, is not anarchistic.

(And the reason I talk of individualists and communists, tending to ignore other theoretical strains is simple. They are the two main economic groups in anarchism. Syndicalists and mutualists and so on, they can be generally placed into one of these two broad groups. Eco-anarchists, pacifists, feminists etc. they also can be classified according to the individual's economic belief.
So, the two ideas are, resources owned in common and resources own by the person(s) using them. You could even talk about means of production, communists think they should be owned in common, individualists by those who use them. When it comes down to it though, there is not a conflict between the two, so long as each does not try and force the other to convert.)

The Feral Underclass

20th March 2007, 12:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:08 pm
What exactly is the difference between all the various anarchist ideologies and tendencies? It seems to me that they in the end could undermine one another.
The difference is in class analysis.

Idola Mentis

20th March 2007, 14:14

Wansn't it Robert Anton Wilson who suggested there are only two kinds of anarchism?

Left anarchists and right anarchists. The left believe that in a free society, people would tend to cooperate. The right believe that in a free society, people would tend to compete. Only way to find out is try it.

apathy maybe

20th March 2007, 15:15

I don't know who said it, but it is bullshit. They might well be a market in an anarchist society, but it isn't going to be the same sort of market we have now. Not only that, to do anything on a large scale you require cooperation, no matter what your economic system. And why isn't there going to be competition in a communist society? Sure it might not be the sort of competition that you are used to now, but I doubt competition will go away simply because a society is communistic.

Nusocialist

20th March 2007, 22:02

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 10:57 am
(no, "anarcho-capitalists" aren't really anarchists).

I know it is an unpopular view, but I will say that there is really little difference between the actual recommendations of Tucker etc and the ancaps, the only differences are terminology and the tradition they come from. They aren't really capitalists in the way we use the word, they use it to mean simply free exchange without coercion, hence at least the left-ancaps such agorists who generally believe a free market will contain mostly worker's co-ops should not be scorned just because they use the word capitalism.

You should really look into the likes of Murray Rothbard during his alliance with the new left in the 60s, Karl Hess, Joseph Stromberg, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, Samuel E. Konkin III and others as well as Auberon Herbert and Herbert Spencer they actually have alot to add particularly alongside new left historians like gabriel Kolko and their analysis of 20th "liberal corporatism."

And geoanarchists like Franz Oppenheimer and Albert.J.Nock add even more to the anarchist view of the state and markets.

apathy maybe

20th March 2007, 22:18

You know what? I disagree.

The big and most important difference is on the issue of property.

Individualists advocate a usage based system, if you don't use it, you lose it.

"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation.

Individualist see a world of worker and worker

The caps, worker and boss.

"Anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists, they can't be.

KptnKrill

21st March 2007, 05:48

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 09:18 pm
You know what? I disagree.

The big and most important difference is on the issue of property.

Individualists advocate a usage based system, if you don't use it, you lose it.

"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation.

Individualist see a world of worker and worker

The caps, worker and boss.

"Anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists, they can't be.
I concur, besides we have Rudy Rocker on our side! The capitalists already take all our material things why they have to be taking our philosophy? The streets can wait, I think first we need to reclaim individualist anarchism. :|

Nusocialist

21st March 2007, 06:07

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 09:18 pm
"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation.

Yes and no, most(at least the thinkers anyway.) ancaps advocate lockean rights, this means that you can only rightfully gain ownership of natural resources by mixing your labour with them and most accept the fact that most current property rights have tainted by statist intervention that means many aren't based on this.
Rothbard for example advocated that as all big businesses are basically kept afloat by the state(ie taxes.) that all public companies(or the fortune 500 companies.) should be taken over by the workers.

Most ancaps do believe in a far more decentralised economy, not containing corporations and large or even medium businesses and plenty of workers co-ops.

Individualist see a world of worker and worker

The caps, worker and boss.
This depends on the kind of ancaps, most mainstream or right ancaps believe in a kind of distributionist economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributionism), ie a much more decentralised economy with a mixture of the self-employed, worker's co-ops and small to perhaps medium small capitalist entreprises and their would also be a general reduction in interest and rent and a large decrease in wealth disparity.

The more left leaning ancaps like agorists believe that in general the vast, vast majority of businesses will be workers co-ops or the self-employed and there would be very little renting and low interest rates.

It is a strawman to really say ancaps ensivision a stateless capitalism in the way we use the word capitalism. They simply mean voluntary exchange by capitalism.
It is a problem of traditions and terminology.

"Anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists, they can't be.
Why? They believe in a world free of authority and coercion and generally at least distributionist if not fully socialist in the way we use the word.

It is certainly true that some rank and file ancaps are nothing more than more extreme versions of the vulgar, corporate apologetic, american "libertarians" and they generally have least anarchist attitudes and highest percentage of unanarchists in their ranks of all the anarchist branches,(although anarcho-syndaclism and anarcho-communism have the fair share of people who are far too influenced by vulgar marxism) but their actual ideology generally isn't like this, even if they don't realise it.

They like all kinds of decentralised traditions from both the left and right have things to add to anarchism and libertarianism(in the non-american meaning.)
They have things to other and shouldn't be dismissed on strawmen or the terminology they believe.

Chicano Shamrock

21st March 2007, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm

"Anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists, they can't be.
Why? They believe in a world free of authority and coercion and generally at least distributionist if not fully socialist in the way we use the word.
But wouldn't their capitalist market create the haves and the have-nots? Wouldn't people still be working for a wage. Wouldn't the market naturally create hierarchy? What happens when a comrade is hungry and has nothing to trade in the market? Do the ancaps deny them or do they give to them. Wouldn't giving them "according to their needs" defeat the purpose of the market. If not that means they would deny comrades of what they need. As so I don't really see how solidarity can exist in an anarcho-capitalist commune. It just seems like it would be more rule by those on the top.

Nusocialist

21st March 2007, 10:00

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 21, 2007 06:30 am

But wouldn't their capitalist market create the haves and the have-nots? Wouldn't people still be working for a wage. Wouldn't the market naturally create hierarchy?
Well that is the point, it is a vulgar marxist and quite frankly incorrect assumption to believe that a free market without any coercion will lead to capitalism.
It takes coercion ie the state, to create capitalism.

If we talk about what would be the worst possible outcome of a right-ancap society, it would result in a distributionist society, with a mixture of the self-employed, worker's co-ops and small capitalist entreprise all competing in a decentralised market in pretty much equality.
There would be a fall in interest rates, so credit would be cheaper, hence capital is easier to raise, rent would be less if there is much rent at all and wealth disparities would be low, at the most 1:2-3 of the poorest to the richest, and also there would be far more social mobility so that the richest would be generally those who's talents are better not those who have inherited money.
And this is the worst vision of ancapism(from a socialist point of view.).

What happens when a comrade is hungry and has nothing to trade in the market? Do the ancaps deny them or do they give to them. Wouldn't giving them "according to their needs" defeat the purpose of the market.
Well as I said there would be little wealth disparity and much more social mobility, so that things like poverty and the like would be nearly non-existent, the only problem would be those who cannot work and have no family to help them, then they'd have to rely on charity as the only other choice would be coercion to pay for their care.
But this is no different to libertarian communism, that relies on members of the commune freely joining and agreeing to giving to the needy, that is all a free market is people making voluntary decisions.

As for solidarity it would be a far more decentralised community with the distorting effects of coercion and authority removed so it should improve solidarity and community feeling.

apathy maybe

21st March 2007, 13:07

Individualists advocate a usage based system, if you don't use it, you lose it.

"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation of wealth.

It doesn't matter where you start, now or in the mythical "state of nature", individualist anarchism will always be fairer and lead to less hierarchy then ancap.

Where you allow the unlimited accumulation of wealth, you need to have some way of enforcing that. You get private police forces, you get private armies.

Where you have control over resources, you can prevent others from using that.

Where you have vastly more resources then another, you can outbid them for items.

Basically, "anarcho-capitalistm" is not anarchism. No matter what ancaps think, no matter how much they claim their ideology is similar to individualist or mutialist anarchism, they set up a scenario where it is possible for a hierarchy to form.

And that means, they aren't anarchistic. I'm not even debating whether they got their ideas from anarchism, I'm not debating whether it is a fair system (I don't think it is). I'm just showing, that from the definition of anarchism and the definition of "anarcho-capitalism", they are not the same thing. Simply really.

It doesn't matter how and ancap thinks society should work or what problems it has now. Where you advocate the possibility of unlimited accumulation of resources (or rather the control thereof) you advocate as system that is not compatible with anarchism.

For the record, I do think that it is possible to have a market system and still be anarchistic (and by definition socialistic). However, I don't think that ancap is either of these two things.

And if you are an anarcho-capitalist, I would like you to say so, so that you can be restricted.

The Feral Underclass

21st March 2007, 13:22

Apathy Probably, you band the words Individualist Anarchism around as if you know what they mean, but it is perfectly evident from your rants that you haven't a clue.

Your an amorphic incoherency of ideas and I wish you would just make up your mind.

Basically, "anarcho-capitalistm" is not anarchism... they set up a scenario where it is possible for a hierarchy to form.

As does Individualism.

Nusocialist

22nd March 2007, 00:39

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21, 2007 12:07 pm
Individualists advocate a usage based system, if you don't use it, you lose it.

"Anarcho-capitalists" advocate something completely different, the unlimited accumulation of wealth.

Ahh but it would not be possible to have large accumulations of wealth, even if it is technically allowed.

It doesn't matter where you start, now or in the mythical "state of nature", individualist anarchism will always be fairer and lead to less hierarchy then ancap.
Well that is true, there is a slightly higer risk with ancaps than mutualists but it is still very small.

Where you allow the unlimited accumulation of wealth, you need to have some way of enforcing that. You get private police forces, you get private armies.
Many individual anarchists believe in private security forces as well, there is nothing wrong with them in a world with litte wealth disparity, particularly a radically decentralised one, and this is the world of the ancaps as well as mutualists.

Where you have control over resources, you can prevent others from using that.

Where you have vastly more resources then another, you can outbid them for items. This control is only possible due to the state.

Basically, "anarcho-capitalistm" is not anarchism. No matter what ancaps think, no matter how much they claim their ideology is similar to individualist or mutialist anarchism, they set up a scenario where it is possible for a hierarchy to form.
No they don't, not really, there would be little wealth disparity, lower interest rates and rent and a mixture of small capitalist entreprise, worker's co-ops and the self-employed and much greater social mobility, there would be little wealth disparity as I understand it, and this is the worst possible scenario from a socialist point of view.

And that means, they aren't anarchistic. I'm not even debating whether they got their ideas from anarchism, I'm not debating whether it is a fair system (I don't think it is). I'm just showing, that from the definition of anarchism and the definition of "anarcho-capitalism", they are not the same thing. Simply really. Anarchism means no rulers, this means basically no coercion as that is what rulers need and they fit this definition.

It doesn't matter how and ancap thinks society should work or what problems it has now. Where you advocate the possibility of unlimited accumulation of resources (or rather the control thereof) you advocate as system that is not compatible with anarchism.
They don't advocate that really, it is technically possible in a way but most of the thinkers belief in a highly decentralised economy with little wealth disparity.

And if you are an anarcho-capitalist, I would like you to say so, so that you can be restricted.
I'm not an ancap, if I had to choose a ideology it would be either mutualism or libertarian communism, but I respect all kinds of real decentralisers and libertarians from the left to the right.

Can I ask you have you ever read any ancaps works? Or anything mutualist, or even anything libertarian outside anarcho-communism, anarcho-sydnalcism or anarcho-collectivism?

I'm always amazed that people who are supposed to be libertarian can be so narrow minded and can be duped by so bland a doctrine as vulgar Marxism.
There is a wealth of texts and thought out there to aid the libertarian(I mean this in the old fashioned way.) outside the classical anarchists movement.(not to say there aren't great texts within it, there are some of the best.)

If you want a good start, here is an excellent mutualist blog that has articles and links on all sorts of libertarian thought from the left to the right. Instead of talking about the differences between individual anarchism and ancapism perhaps you should find out from individual anarchists themselves.

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

apathy maybe

22nd March 2007, 01:26

Yes I have. I've written shit (at least TAT thinks it is shit) on the subject. I'll link to one of the crappier bits on here (later). The good one is in the CC. I might post chunks though.

I have done a lot of research into individualist anarchism specifically, but also into "anarcho-capitalism".

I am in no way a Marxist, I reject Marxian class analysis, large chunks of Historical Materialism

I call myself an "adjective free anarchist", there is a thread about that around somewhere as well...

The point is, that I feel that I do know enough about the subject to spout off about it. (No matter what TAT thinks.)

Nusocialist

22nd March 2007, 01:35

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 22, 2007 12:26 am
Yes I have. I've written shit (at least TAT thinks it is shit) on the subject. I'll link to one of the crappier bits on here (later). The good one is in the CC. I might post chunks though.

I have done a lot of research into individualist anarchism specifically, but also into "anarcho-capitalism".

I am in no way a Marxist, I reject Marxian class analysis, large chunks of Historical Materialism

I call myself an "adjective free anarchist", there is a thread about that around somewhere as well...

The point is, that I feel that I do know enough about the subject to spout off about it. (No matter what TAT thinks.)
Okay, well it is just you seem to be using just the old fallacies.

Anyway, do you know much of those called left-anarcho-capitalists like the Agorists?

And do you think highly of individualist anarchists and their analysis? I think they have some excellent anaylsis particularly alongisde the likes of Franz Oppenheimer.

And just out of curiousity are you saying TAT takes a similar position to me on ancaps?

Janus

22nd March 2007, 02:28

Nusocialist

22nd March 2007, 04:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:28 am

All of whom were either anarcho-capitalists/libertarians or supported private property

They were not anarcho-capitalists and libertarian means anarchist, it has just been stolen by a bunch of pro-corporate, pot smoking repubilcons.

And other than that I don't see your point.

I have.
Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html)
Great and despite their distorted strawman of ancaps(which is at odds with the otherwise excellent faq.) they except these people as anarchists and do not call them ancaps.

No reason except that socialized distribution and ownership don't exist perhaps?What does this have to do with anything?
Who said socialists have to be for collective ownership of the means of production? Socialism is about the worker's owning the means of production or more properly being able to get the full value of their labour.

RGacky3

22nd March 2007, 05:50

There is no SET definition of Anarchism, all we have is pretty much Tendancies within the General theory and Tendancies of people who call themselves Anarchists.

Most people who call themselves Anarchists regect the Idea of Anarcho-Capitalism, if they are correct? Who can really tell (is it Truck or Lorry? More people say Truck so I'll say they are right).

The Majority of Anarcho-Capitalists have been think-tank, political-scientist types who really don't have any effect any of the grass roots type Anarchists, its never really been a movement like Social-Anarchism has and is. But really if Anarcho-Capitalism is real Anarchism or not is a pointless debate because theres nothing Objective to go by, its just a word people use to discribe certain ideologies, and most of them reject Anarcho-Capitalism and a legitimate form of Anarchism, thus so will I.

KptnKrill

22nd March 2007, 16:30

That is incorrect, individualists doesn't mean ancaps it means people like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner or Max Stirner and most social anarchists do accept these guys as anarchists
All of whom were either anarcho-capitalists/libertarians or supported private propertyPerhaps you should actually read some of these people and by read I mean actually grasp the meaning of what they were saying instead of simply parsing out the words and fitting them into what today's definition of "private property" is.

1) Capitalism is not equal to private property, capitalism is private property combined with the wage system. Even Marx considers this to be true.

2) Private property as used by Benjamin Tucker did not refer to private property as we understand under capitalist societies today, instead he and individualists like him used it to refer to property that was used by the individual so that possession is determined by usage. That is a much different system than being able to manipulate capital and allocate and horde resources that one doesn't even use. In fact it has more in common with land usage within traditional Iroquois societies. Which can hardly be described as capitalistic.

There is no reason why the communities envisaged by these writers would not be anarchist and not be socialist.
No reason except that socialized distribution and ownership don't exist perhaps?What the hell?

OneBrickOneVoice

22nd March 2007, 23:06

I don't define anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-anti-revisionism as anarchist tendencies.

Anarcho-Capitalism is impossible even in theory because class society demands a state. Who will protect the wealthy from the masses of workers and oppressed in a "anarcho-capitalist society"?

Anarcho-Anti-Revisionism like the PLP is just a Marxist-Leninist Deviant.

Vendetta

22nd March 2007, 23:11

I'm a bit (okay, really) drunk right now, but shouldn't all anarchists accept each other? I thought their (meaning primary and universal) goal was the otherthrow of the state. Or is the economy first?

Also, I've looked into anarcho-capitalist thought and theory, and I do not understand it at all, mainly because I see no hiderance in an anarcho-capitalist society to stop me from enslaving everybody on the planet.

On the whole, I think anarcho-communism is th best of the anarchist followings.

Fawkes

22nd March 2007, 23:18

Anarcho-Capitalism is impossible even in theory because class society demands a state. Who will protect the wealthy from the masses of workers and oppressed in a "anarcho-capitalist society"?
Companies will form cartels because --- as it is in all capitalist societies --- accumulation of wealth is the top priority and these will be defended by private armies. The whole idea of anarcho-capitalism fails because anarchism is all about the destruction of hierarchy yet anarcho-capitalists leave in one glaring form of hierarchy and that is economically.

I'm a bit (okay, really) drunk right now, but shouldn't all anarchists accept each other? I thought their (meaning primary and universal) goal was the otherthrow of the state. Or is the economy first?

Also, I've looked into anarcho-capitalist thought and theory, and I do not understand it at all, mainly because I see no hiderance in an anarcho-capitalist society to stop me from enslaving everybody on the planet.

On the whole, I think anarcho-communism is th best of the anarchist followings.
Surprisingly coherent for a drunk person.

The Feral Underclass

23rd March 2007, 00:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:35 am
And just out of curiousity are you saying TAT takes a similar position to me on ancaps?
Anyone who rejects class struggle and accepts a division of labour is not, nor can they ever be considered an anarchist.

Fact!

Vendetta

23rd March 2007, 00:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:18 pm

I'm a bit (okay, really) drunk right now, but shouldn't all anarchists accept each other? I thought their (meaning primary and universal) goal was the otherthrow of the state. Or is the economy first?

Also, I've looked into anarcho-capitalist thought and theory, and I do not understand it at all, mainly because I see no hiderance in an anarcho-capitalist society to stop me from enslaving everybody on the planet.

On the whole, I think anarcho-communism is th best of the anarchist followings.
Surprisingly coherent for a drunk person.
I'ver had my practice of practicing while drunk.

But it does surprise me, as my friends tell me I'm just a bit more coherent when drunk.

Edit: Um...lemme rephrase that...practice of typing while drunk. :rolleyes:

Nusocialist

23rd March 2007, 01:05

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:15 pm

Anyone who rejects class struggle and accepts a division of labour is not, nor can they ever be considered an anarchist.

Fact!
Whatever I don't agree with Marxism particularly the vulgar kind and I don't believe those who use vulgar Marxism are real anarchists.

Nusocialist

23rd March 2007, 01:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:18 pm
Companies will form cartels because --- as it is in all capitalist societies --- accumulation of wealth is the top priority and these will be defended by private armies.

This is a vulgar Marxist concept(shared by many liberals and conservatives.), free markets do not, I repeat they do not form cartels or even capitalism without coercion or usually the state intervening, Marx(hence I differentiate between Marx and vulgar Marxists.) believed so as shown by his work on primitive accumulation, he showed that it was not a free market that created capitalism, it was the state and a little pirvate coercion.

Furthermore it requires coercion to maintain capitalism.

The whole idea of anarcho-capitalism fails because anarchism is all about the destruction of hierarchy yet anarcho-capitalists leave in one glaring form of hierarchy and that is economically.No they don't you are painting a strawman picture, as I said at worst the ancap economy would be Distributist economy with a mixture of small capitalist entreprises, worker's co-ops and the self-employed.

Btw you do realise these are the kind of people who use capitalism as simply meaning a coercionless society?

Nusocialist

23rd March 2007, 01:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:50 am
There is no SET definition of Anarchism, all we have is pretty much Tendancies within the General theory and Tendancies of people who call themselves Anarchists.

Most people who call themselves Anarchists regect the Idea of Anarcho-Capitalism, if they are correct? Who can really tell (is it Truck or Lorry? More people say Truck so I'll say they are right).

The Majority of Anarcho-Capitalists have been think-tank, political-scientist types who really don't have any effect any of the grass roots type Anarchists, its never really been a movement like Social-Anarchism has and is. But really if Anarcho-Capitalism is real Anarchism or not is a pointless debate because theres nothing Objective to go by, its just a word people use to discribe certain ideologies, and most of them reject Anarcho-Capitalism and a legitimate form of Anarchism, thus so will I.
Well I recommend you do your own research instead of accept the opiinions of others blindly.
The reason these people reject ancapism is two-fold, first they come from a completely different background in general ie the old-right and use different terms and attitudes
Secondly they just look at the word capitalism and immediately reject them despite the fact the ancaps use a different definition they just mean free, voluntary exchange without coercion, they don't mean anything that has to have a wage system or even capitalists.
It is very hypocritical that people who spend their lives telling people socialism don't have to mean gov't control of the economy would fall for this kind of terminology tyranny.

Janus

23rd March 2007, 17:53

And other than that I don't see your point.
That most social anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalists as true anarchists?

Great and despite their distorted strawman of ancaps(which is at odds with the otherwise excellent faq.) they except these people as anarchists and do not call them ancaps.
Where do they do that? So any ideological and practical critique of anarcho-capitalism is automatically a strawman arguement?

Originally posted by FAQ
So, unlike anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the "abolition of the proletariat" (to use Proudhon's expression) via changing capitalist property rights and institutions. Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the anarchist have different starting positions and opposite ends in mind and so they cannot be considered part of the same (anarchist) tradition.

Who said socialists have to be for collective ownership of the means of production?
Socialism is a vague term but even in its general form, it means either collective or state control of the means of production.

What does this have to do with anything?
Are you trying to be this obtuse? Anarcho-caps support private property and free markets. How is that socialist in any sense of the word?

Socialism is about the worker's owning the means of production or more properly being able to get the full value of their labour.
Right (you just repeated my def.) which is why there's no place for private property and markets in such a system as both of these necessitate exploitation and inequality, something which true anarchists seek to end.

Janus

23rd March 2007, 18:33

instead of simply parsing out the words and fitting them into what today's definition of "private property" is.
Private property is a means of exclusion and thus inherently exploitative. The definition hasn't changed much asides from some superficial legal changes.

Private property and markets will all be done away with in socialism and communism.

2) Private property as used by Benjamin Tucker did not refer to private property as we understand under capitalist societies today, instead he and individualists like him used it to refer to property that was used by the individual so that possession is determined by usage. That is a much different system than being able to manipulate capital and allocate and horde resources that one doesn't even use.
In socialism and communism, everyone should have a right to usage not just those who supposedly "own" it. Also, how do modern day capitalists not use their capital?

In fact it has more in common with land usage within traditional Iroquois societies. Which can hardly be described as capitalistic.
How so? The Iroquois practiced communal land ownership.

What the hell?
So you don't support it?

FuckWar

24th March 2007, 02:11

nusocialist, im really unsure how you are interpreting marx. most troubling is the agency that you grant the state. you insist that free markets dont create hierarchies, and that a state creates hierarchies and oppression, but where does this "state" come from?

Any decent leftist analysis of the rise of state-power will atrribute it directly to materialist forces that necessitate a form of control over the working majority to protect the interests of the few. This means that when individuals are allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth (or "wealth" in general) a system to regulate that wealth will be implemented.

So if people are allowed to accumulate such wealth, they will necessarily create hierarchies to facilitate this system. and anarchists hate hierarchies.

shit.

so my point is that "anarcho-capitalism" is most likely a trendy term for "libertarian bullshit artist", since the terms necessarily contradict each other.

Nusocialist

24th March 2007, 03:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:53 pm
That most social anarchists don't recognize anarcho-capitalists as true anarchists?

So? Most have strawman opinions of them.

Where do they do that? So any ideological and practical critique of anarcho-capitalism is automatically a strawman arguement?
There arguments is against strawman, it is not against what actual ancap thinkers believe.

Socialism is a vague term but even in its general form, it means either collective or state control of the means of production.
No it means the workers, this can be individually, it doesn't have to be collective.

Are you trying to be this obtuse? Anarcho-caps support private property and free markets. How is that socialist in any sense of the word?
Because their system is unexploitative or ar worst slightly exploitative, it is not the corporate feudalism that most social anarchists picture it, it wouldn't have corproations.

Right (you just repeated my def.) which is why there's no place for private property and markets in such a system as both of these necessitate exploitation and inequality, something which true anarchists seek to end.

Who says they necessitate exploitation and inequality, they are just a method of exchange, it takes coercion to mkae them exploitative and for inequalities to arise.

Nusocialist

24th March 2007, 03:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:11 am
nusocialist, im really unsure how you are interpreting marx. most troubling is the agency that you grant the state. you insist that free markets dont create hierarchies, and that a state creates hierarchies and oppression, but where does this "state" come from?

I'm not a Marxist, I admire Marx and accept some of his work, but I'm not using his work to make this point, I just mentioned him as he must have at least agreed with me partially because he mentions primitive accumulation, where in order to create capitalism it took alot of state and private coercion and didn't just come about naturally from the market.
I think it was Marx who said nature doesn't on one side create those with large accumulations of capital and on the other people with nothing to sell but their labour.
And that is my point, that free markets in the absence of all coercion would not result in large accumulations of wealth, nor much inequality, nor rent, interest or profit. This is the general mutualist argument and was realised by many social anarchists once upon a time.
Obvioulsy with our massively tainted system if a free market was created there would still be exploitation but I again share the mutualist ideal that without coercion all the large accumulations of wealth and exploitation would disappear in a generation or two, but obviously that would dependent on a lack of private coercion from the rich who have gained their position through statist coercion, so in practise expropriation would be necessary.

An excellent guide to this is in the second half of Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist political economy, it traces the history of capitalism and the state.

http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html (Part two is the important bit.)

Any decent leftist analysis of the rise of state-power will atrribute it directly to materialist forces that necessitate a form of control over the working majority to protect the interests of the few. This means that when individuals are allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth (or "wealth" in general) a system to regulate that wealth will be implemented.
For an anarchist you talk alot like a Marxist.
State power arises to guarantee the place of those who are wealthy, they get wealthy by coerciong others, the state is simply an official, consolidation of this private coercion.
Now, yes, in certain situation a free market can create small wealth disparities but these are small and transient, it takes coercion to really create a system like capitalism, massive coercion and not just at the beginning in order to seperate most from the means of production, they must be kept seperated from them and this takes more than just police to protect current property "titles" it takes extra ongoing coercion and restraints.
On this subject Franz Oppenheimer's The State cannot be beat.

http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm

So if people are allowed to accumulate such wealth, they will necessarily create hierarchies to facilitate this system. and anarchists hate hierarchies.
There a difference between what is allowed and what is possible, it would be allowed for a commune to have a thermonuclear weapon, but how likely is it that a decentralised commune is going to?

The arguments of the mutualists and others that I have given above, strengthen anarchism by a hell of alot and give it an actual historical basis, it allows us for instance to show capitalism(as in the leftist definition.) isn't the free market, property respecting paradise that the right likes to talk about and is based on massive and ongoing coercion.

Janus

24th March 2007, 21:58

it is not against what actual ancap thinkers believe.
As far as I can tell, there are different types of anarcho-capitalists. Some are for full "laissez faire" capitalism and others are looking for a more moderate economic system like extending workers' roles into a shareholder under capitalism (which seems to be what you're suggesting).

No it means the workers, this can be individually, it doesn't have to be collective.
Individually? Then that would mean private property is retained and which leads on

Because their system is unexploitative or ar worst slightly exploitative, it is not the corporate feudalism that most social anarchists picture it, it wouldn't have corproations.
In such a market economy, wage slavery is still retained since in order for it to make any sense, labor power would still have to become a commodity. When this occurs, workers do not receive the full value of their labor which is where exploitation occurs.

Who says they necessitate exploitation and inequality, they are just a method of exchange,
Simple observation and economics. Even exchange/trade will create exploitation and inequality as market forces always create inherent trade imbalances between different regions (particularly between more wealthy/advanced regions and those who aren't as much).

If everything that exists must have a specific owner and as these owners trade their property, then distribution must become uneven. And with this, social disparity is inevitable.

it takes coercion to mkae them exploitative and for inequalities to arise.
No, it doesn't. Just because you stop coercion doesn't mean you can prevent exploitation and inequality from occuring within an economic system. You have to abolish the economic factors which create this inequality i.e. private property and markets not simply the political forces that ensure its survival in capitalism.

apathy maybe

24th March 2007, 22:08

Nusocialist, rather then leave you hanging, I'll direct you to An Anarchist FAQ (http://www,anarchyfaq.org). They basically have my argument as to why "anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchistic.

Also, you seem to be using a different definition of what "anarcho-capitalism" is, compared to what I am use to. I sometimes hang out on Wikipedia, and there are anarcho-capitalists. They aren't individualists, they may claim to be, they may claim them in their ancestry, but they aren't.

Why? Because (and this is using my understanding of what "anarcho-capitalism" and individualist anarchism are):
Individualist anarchists
* oppose worker, boss relationships,
* have a usage concept of property,
* oppose rent, interest and profit.
Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand, have no problem with
* unlimited accumulation (assuming that it is fair and just and all that),
* rent, interest or profit,
* nor with voluntary servitude (OK, maybe this should be worker/boss relationships, but I'm biased I admit).

So, on this basis, I say that "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchistic. If you disagree with my assessment of what they believe, then please do explain what they think on each of these points.

Severian

25th March 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:00 am
Well that is the point, it is a vulgar marxist and quite frankly incorrect assumption to believe that a free market without any coercion will lead to capitalism.
It takes coercion ie the state, to create capitalism.
That's nonsense - it's in the nature of the market to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. In market competition, there are necessarily winners and losers.

The state is a product of class inequality - not vice versa. Class differentiation came first, historically - the state arose to defend it.

I know it is an unpopular view, but I will say that there is really little difference between the actual recommendations of Tucker etc and the ancaps, the only differences are terminology and the tradition they come from.

So what you're saying is there's little difference between you and a supporter of capitalism?

Nusocialist

25th March 2007, 04:03

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2007 09:08 pm
Nusocialist, rather then leave you hanging, I'll direct you to An Anarchist FAQ (http://www,anarchyfaq.org). They basically have my argument as to why "anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchistic.

Also, you seem to be using a different definition of what "anarcho-capitalism" is, compared to what I am use to. I sometimes hang out on Wikipedia, and there are anarcho-capitalists. They aren't individualists, they may claim to be, they may claim them in their ancestry, but they aren't.

Why? Because (and this is using my understanding of what "anarcho-capitalism" and individualist anarchism are):
Individualist anarchists
* oppose worker, boss relationships,
* have a usage concept of property,
* oppose rent, interest and profit.
Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand, have no problem with
* unlimited accumulation (assuming that it is fair and just and all that),
* rent, interest or profit,
* nor with voluntary servitude (OK, maybe this should be worker/boss relationships, but I'm biased I admit).

So, on this basis, I say that "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchistic. If you disagree with my assessment of what they believe, then please do explain what they think on each of these points.
I'm familiar with anarchist faq and except for this section think it is excellent, however this section is full of strawmen, it basically says capitalism as in the anarchist/socialist/leftist idea of capitalism is unanarchistic and then paints its own idea of what anarcho-capitalism could mean without refering to real ancapism.

Ancapism is okay with those things you mention, as is mutualism though and really is any anarchism as long as there is no coercion, it is just most ancaps like other anarchists believe they will be far,far less if not gone.

What part of they believe in a mixture of small capitalist entreprises, co-ops and the self-employed with little wealth disparity and much lower and less interest and rent, do all you people not understand?

You just keep returning, like the faq, with critiques of current capitalism without looking at what ancaps believe.

And you also forget that they, like increasing amounts of americans have the old right definition of capitalism, which makes no mention of wages, many people not having access to the means of production etc etc.
To them capitalism means free markets who more properly simply voluntary, coercionless exchange.

Nusocialist

25th March 2007, 04:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:58 pm
As far as I can tell, there are different types of anarcho-capitalists. Some are for full "laissez faire" capitalism and others are looking for a more moderate economic system like extending workers' roles into a shareholder under capitalism (which seems to be what you're suggesting).

Oh there are certianly different types, there are those called left-ancaps, like agorists who believe a free market would have no capitalists and the tiniest amount of rent and interest, they are also closer to many leftwing ie class struggle positions.These ones I'm sure even you guys could learn to respect.(as long as you are fine with mutualists.)

Then there are the mainstream or right ancaps, who generally believe, as I said, that there system will create not what we see as capitalism, but an extremely distributionist economy.(I hope you know what this means.)

Individually? Then that would mean private property is retained and which leads on
It means that an economy can be an artisan economy ie one where there are the self employed who own there own means of production and hire no one else, mutualists believe there system will be see a mixture of these and worker's co-ops, as do left ancaps, mainstream ancaps add some small capitalist entreprises.

In such a market economy, wage slavery is still retained since in order for it to make any sense, labor power would still have to become a commodity. When this occurs, workers do not receive the full value of their labor which is where exploitation occurs.
Well in the ancaps system, you'd have far more choice, you could get much cheaper credit and it would be 100 times easier to start a business of your own or join a co-op, if you joined a capitalist entreprise it really would be a free choice and therefore you'd have 100 times more bargaining power.

Simple observation and economics. Even exchange/trade will create exploitation and inequality as market forces always create inherent trade imbalances between different regions (particularly between more wealthy/advanced regions and those who aren't as much).Simple observation of what? The statist system we live in?

No, it doesn't. Just because you stop coercion doesn't mean you can prevent exploitation and inequality from occuring within an economic system. You have to abolish the economic factors which create this inequality i.e. private property and markets not simply the political forces that ensure its survival in capitalism.
What is your back up for this, Marx himself went into a lenghty piece on the primitive accumulation ie political forces that were necessary to create capitalism and therefore exploitative private property.
The reason people can be exploited by private proeprty is that some have alot and most have very little, this is not natural and takes coercion ie the state to create and maintain, this Marx realised, this is historical fact.

Now I'm of course not suggesting that just removing the state now, would slove everything because the rich could just use private coercion which is much the same.
I doubt many ancaps would suggest this either, although some do suggest we try and convince everyone to become anarchist before we have a revolution.

If everything that exists must have a specific owner and as these owners trade their property, then distribution must become uneven. And with this, social disparity is inevitable.
Why must everything have an owner? This is another important point to ancaps(through the geoanarchist, Albert.J.Nock and Franz Oppenheimer.), that the reason for rent and profit generally is that all land is occupied and it is occupied not through people legitmately mixing their labour with the land but through state pre-emptive action.

Nusocialist

25th March 2007, 04:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:56 am

The state is a product of class inequality - not vice versa. Class differentiation came first, historically - the state arose to defend it.

Yes and no, that official state is indeed, but the original classes grew up not due to nature but coercion and theft, the state was just an official mask for the dominate robber classes to hide behind.

So what you're saying is there's little difference between you and a supporter of capitalism?
It depends how you use the word capitalist, there is light-years of difference between the people who subscribe the leftist idea of capitalism and me, ancaps are not people I'd call capitalists by my definition and there is little difference between them and all anarchists.

Janus

25th March 2007, 05:07

It means that an economy can be an artisan economy ie one where there are the self employed who own there own means of production and hire no one else, mutualists believe there system will be see a mixture of these and worker's co-ops, as do left ancaps, mainstream ancaps add some small capitalist entreprises.
What prevents the self-employed from hiring others? You have a market, labor is still a commodity, the workers don't receive the full credit of their labor and there are still blatant capitalist businesses. Nothing much has changed except there's no longer a state but with this creation of classes by this market economy, a state will be created again anyways.

Well in the ancaps system, you'd have far more choice, you could get much cheaper credit and it would be 100 times easier to start a business of your own or join a co-op,
So you simply want "market socialism"/a mixed economy? What's the point of the revolution then? Capitalism hasn't been abolished nor the fundamental bases on which it's built: markets and private property.

if you joined a capitalist entreprise it really would be a free choice and therefore you'd have 100 times more bargaining power.
Bargaining power over who?

What is your back up for this, Marx himself went into a lenghty piece on the primitive accumulation ie political forces that were necessary to create capitalism and therefore exploitative private property.
Yes, but capitalism can survive without a central state. That's why so many capitalists these days complain about state intervention/hampering.

Why must everything have an owner?
Why are you asking me? This is your system that we're talking about.

Nusocialist

25th March 2007, 05:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:07 am
What prevents the self-employed from hiring others? You have a market, labor is still a commodity, the workers don't receive the full credit of their labor and there are still blatant capitalist businesses. Nothing much has changed except there's no longer a state but with this creation of classes by this market economy, a state will be created again anyways.

It would be almost as easy to start your own business than work for a capitalist, and of course co-ops would be far more numerous, at least as much so as capitalist entreprises, so that if you decided to work for a capitalist it would be voluntary and you'd have far more bargaining power.

So you simply want "market socialism"/a mixed economy? What's the point of the revolution then? Capitalism hasn't been abolished nor the fundamental bases on which it's built: markets and private property.
I'm not an ancap.
What is wrong with completely free market though, you have not made a decent case that they must degenerate into capitalism as we call it.

And I was talking about the worst possible case of ancapism where there would be co-ops, the self employed and small capitalist entreprises and it would almost as easy to be self-employed and as easy to join a co-op as work for a capitalist so working for a capitalist would be completely voluntary, it would like Marx described colonies with abundant land for natives and settlers and so it was extremely hard if not impossible to hire labour even at the highest wage.

Bargaining power over who?A capitalist.

Yes, but capitalism can survive without a central state. That's why so many capitalists these days complain about state intervention/hampering.
All this intervention is caused by capitalist, just by different groups and factions hence regulation is fuelled by large corporations as it stifles smaller competitors etc.

Capitalism can survive without a nation state, it just needs coercion, but a nation state or some such large, centralised coercive authoirty is needed for really large and centralised captialism.

Why are you asking me? This is your system that we're talking about.
No it is not, I'm not an ancap.
In ancapism you only start by owning what you mix your labour with, hence most argue that without the state's pre-emptive land grabs, even today there is nowhere near enough people for all productive land to be owned in this way.

RGacky3

25th March 2007, 07:56

Like a I said before you can't pidgon hole terms and define them exactly because langauge changes and meanings change as time goes on, and words such as Anarchism are used to describe a number of ideas, and generally the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism are not part of it, maybe in the future most people will use Anarchism in that sense, but language is'nt a SET thing.

Nusocialist

25th March 2007, 08:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:56 am
Like a I said before you can't pidgon hole terms and define them exactly because langauge changes and meanings change as time goes on, and words such as Anarchism are used to describe a number of ideas, and generally the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism are not part of it, maybe in the future most people will use Anarchism in that sense, but language is'nt a SET thing.
How are these ideas not part of anarchism once the strawmen are removed?

Other than that you are completely correct.

freakazoid

25th March 2007, 08:40

Why would someone choose to be an "ancap" as opposed to one of the others?

And what is a "vulgar Marxist"?

apathy maybe

25th March 2007, 13:54

Nusocialist: Believe me, I'm more on your side then most of the others in this thread. It seems however, we are arguing different definitions. (And I also know that you aren't an anarcho-capitalist. Quick sob story, about a year ago, I defended individualist anarchism in the CC, some people who failed reading comprehension, then conspired to kick me out.)

Based on my understanding of anarcho-capitalism and mutualism etc., only the first might lead to a new class society (and probably a new state). This is because it allows for the accumulation of property beyond what is being immediately used.

As such, there needs to be private security or similar to stop other people from using this (for example land) property. So, if you have unused land, you rent it out to someone. They refuse to pay the rent, but continue to occupy the land. Now what? In my understanding of mutualism and individualist anarchism, the person refusing to pay rent has every right to continue to occupy that land. They are using it, it wasn't being used before.
But under an anarcho-capitalist system (and again, this is my understanding), the "owner" could get the police (a private security firm) to evict the person. And, if they refuse to go and defend their property, then the police can kill them and no worries.

Once you get the possibilities for such a system, then well...

RGacky3

25th March 2007, 17:38

what the hell is a strawman? and what are strawmen doing in Anarchism?

The Feral Underclass

25th March 2007, 20:40

Originally posted by Nusocialist+March 23, 2007 01:05 am--> (Nusocialist @ March 23, 2007 01:05 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:15 pm

Anyone who rejects class struggle and accepts a division of labour is not, nor can they ever be considered an anarchist.

Fact!
Whatever I don't agree with Marxism particularly the vulgar kind and I don't believe those who use vulgar Marxism are real anarchists. [/b]
Then you are very deluded.

Ol' Dirty

25th March 2007, 22:26

Many of the differences between libertarian communism and social anarchism are purely nominal. Actions, my freinds, and not words, are what matter.

Janus

27th March 2007, 01:44

It would be almost as easy to start your own business than work for a capitalist,
How? Where would the resources and material come from?
and of course co-ops would be far more numerous, at least as much so as capitalist entreprises, so that if you decided to work for a capitalist it would be voluntary and you'd have far more bargaining power.
Is that all you want to change? Then what's the point of the revolution?

What is wrong with completely free market though, you have not made a decent case that they must degenerate into capitalism as we call it.
I just outlined how markets and trade are inherently exploitative and unbalanced. Markets are the underpinnings of capitalism. For markets to function properly, they have to commodify everything including labor thus making its value subjective and lower than the value of the goods produced by that labor (based on the supply and demand dynamic). Thus, workers don't gain the full fruits of their labor (not that it matters since capitalism seems to have survived in your system anyways) Free markets are even worse in that everything is driven by market forces creating greater inequality and disparity.

And I was talking about the worst possible case of ancapism where there would be co-ops, the self employed and small capitalist entreprises and it would almost as easy to be self-employed and as easy to join a co-op as work for a capitalist so working for a capitalist would be completely voluntary, it would like Marx described colonies with abundant land for natives and settlers and so it was extremely hard if not impossible to hire labour even at the highest wage.
This is still a profit driven system. There is still capitalism and wage labor. Thus there is still exploitation and inequality. You assume that market forces will keep this all in balance yet the only way to enforce this balance is through a state to set controls,etc.

A capitalist.
So there is still capitalism in this system of yours? What's really changed and how do you plan on preventing a revertion back to the old system?

Capitalism can survive without a nation state, it just needs coercion, but a nation state or some such large, centralised coercive authoirty is needed for really large and centralised captialism.
Capitalism doesn't require coercion. You're transferring the traits of states into an economic system. Capitalism is defined by the existence of suplus value not coercion.

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

No it is not, I'm not an ancap.
You keep saying that but you seem to be defending it pretty ardently here. Do you support it?