Anarcho-individualism v. Anarcho-capitalism

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm not well versed on Benjamin Tucker and the like. What is the difference between anarcho-individualism and anarcho-capitalism?

[apathy maybe]

There have been shit loads of threads on this in the past.

A quick sum up though,

Individualist anarchism does not support capitalism, it does not support rent, interest or profit. It doesn't support "ownership" beyond usage. It is socialistic.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchistic at all, by enabling people to own the world, they set up hierarchies, not to mention that a state of some sort will form in these conditions.


This http://www.revleft.com/vb/information-individual-anarchist-t72342/index.html thread has lots of information and links.

[Kropotesta]

I was under the impression that libertarianism and anarcho capitalism were both forms of individualist anarchism?

[Dimentio]

I was under the impression that libertarianism and anarcho capitalism were both forms of individualist anarchism?

They have more in common with Locke than Bakunin.

[apathy maybe]

I was under the impression that libertarianism and anarcho capitalism were both forms of individualist anarchism?

Well, you would be wrong. "Anarcho" capitalism isn't any form of anarchism at all. It can't be, it supports hierarchies, ownership beyond use and heaps of other stuff that means it cannot be anarchistic.

As to "libertarianism", if you are talking from a US perspective, then nope. The definition most used in the USA is one of minimal state, but still a state. They at least acknowledge that it is not possible to have capitalism without a third party to enforce contracts etc. without prejudice.

So yeah, neither is anarchistic, and one is more honest then the other.

The philosophical underpinnings for both come from liberal traditions (which also influenced individualist anarchism), but they are not variants of individualist anarchism.

[Kropotesta]

As to "libertarianism", if you are talking from a US perspective, then nope. The definition most used in the USA is one of minimal state, but still a state. They at least acknowledge that it is not possible to have capitalism without a third party to enforce contracts etc. without prejudice.

I was refering to Tucker.

[apathy maybe]

Well Tucker was an individualist anarchist. So yeah.

[trivas7]

I'm not well versed on Benjamin Tucker and the like. What is the difference between anarcho-individualism and anarcho-capitalism?

Anarcho-capitalism is an incoherent idea. All anarchists are socialists by definition. Anarcho-capitialism is a bastardized neologism created by a Murray Rothbard who was in the tradition of Austrian (bourgeoisie) economics: look up agorism on wikipedia.

Practically speaking they are in bed with libertarians and believe somehow that the destruction of the state is compatible with capitalism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There have been shit loads of threads on this in the past.

A quick sum up though,

Individualist anarchism does not support capitalism, it does not support rent, interest or profit. It doesn't support "ownership" beyond usage. It is socialistic.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchistic at all, by enabling people to own the world, they set up hierarchies, not to mention that a state of some sort will form in these conditions.


This http://www.revleft.com/vb/information-individual-anarchist-t72342/index.html thread has lots of information and links.

Thank you very much. I've been reading through these threads. Just to clarify, what are the differences between mutualism and Tucker's anarcho-individualism? You can post a link if that better quantifies differences. I hope you excuse my ignorance on the subject; I'm embarassed to admit I know very little about anarcho-individualism. One moer question, just so I can get a good image: anarcho-individualists don't believe in any worker-boss relationship, right? The "family business" we see today wouldn't exist?

[apathy maybe]

Thank you very much. I've been reading through these threads. Just to clarify, what are the differences between mutualism and Tucker's anarcho-individualism? You can post a link if that better quantifies differences. I hope you excuse my ignorance on the subject; I'm embarassed to admit I know very little about anarcho-individualism. One moer question, just so I can get a good image: anarcho-individualists don't believe in any worker-boss relationship, right? The "family business" we see today wouldn't exist?

First question, individualists and mutualists are very similar with regards to economics. (I believe there are either links or other stuff in some of the stickies in Learning, check 'em out.)

Second, individualists, like all anarchists, don't believe in worker-boss relations as being valid. As to families, Proudhon was not very anarchistic when it came to the family, which is why you don't see any anarchists today supporting his ideas on that issue. Individualists would probably be just as happy with any other anarchistic idea of the family though.
(To be perfectly honest, I'm not 100% though.)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

First question, individualists and mutualists are very similar with regards to economics. (I believe there are either links or other stuff in some of the stickies in Learning, check 'em out.)

Second, individualists, like all anarchists, don't believe in worker-boss relations as being valid. As to families, Proudhon was not very anarchistic when it came to the family, which is why you don't see any anarchists today supporting his ideas on that issue. Individualists would probably be just as happy with any other anarchistic idea of the family though.
(To be perfectly honest, I'm not 100% though.)

Thanks; however, by family business I meant things like shops, not social organizations. :)

[apathy maybe]

Yeah I know. But you can only have a "family business" if you have a "family" and all the relationships that implies (hierarchical and all).

I can't really answer your question, because it is one area of individualist anarchist theory that I've never bothered to explore.