[SecretSquirrel]

if you knew even a shred of Kant and "based" your opinion on it, you would recognize any form of socialism or redistribution to be repugnantly immoral

[Melodramatic]

^

I know little of Kant's political philosophy or ethics but I base my value system on his theory I believe is called transcendal idealism. Admittedly I have only heard second hand explanations of it, although such were made by a respectable source on philosophy.

[Suska]

I know some Kant, strangely I don't find helping the desperate or organizing collectively morally repugnant. Maybe Schopenhauer dispelled the Kantian spell?

I even call myself an Anarchist. What do you think of that Squirrel? Imagine that, an Anarchist with an open mind, does that seem dissonant to you? Like maybe Anarchists are the sort of people who have fixed ideas?

[Jingles]

So essentially, you are saying that your entire attack on voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism (which you conflate again and deliberately) is the bald assertion that we don't actually adhere to our beliefs?

While I was skimming through the thread I picked up on this. It's probably worth pointing out that capitalists are not economists. Or philosophers. They're, well, capitalists, and yes, they will use force to ensure they're paid, because they already do in real life. I think that assuming that every capitalist in an ancap society would conduct themselves according to ancap ideology is like believing everyone who lived in the Soviet Union was a communist.

[houndred]

There is a continuum of anarchism with Anarcho-Syndicalists at one end and Anarcho capitalists at the other with (from left to right) Agorists, Georgists, Mutualists,social anarchists, Collectivist anarchist and communist anarchists. All are legitimately called Anarchists.

Godwin predates Proudon and Prudhon has very little in common with syndicalists at the 'left end.

For those who claim to be against force- if on the left exactly how are you going to obtain the lands currently owned by 'the capitalists'?

[Paradigm]

I believe I have anarchist blood running through my veins. I can agree with anarchist distrust of humans with authority.

1) Is capitalism authoritarian?
2) Do you view capitalism as compatible with anarchism? Why or why not?
3) Do you believe ancaps would be an exploitive force in an anarchistic society?
4) In what sense are ancaps anarchists?
5) Are ancaps really capitalists in disguise?

1) Yes. You have one class that owns the means of production, and another class that has nothing and must submit to the former class for their daily bread. I'd consider that authoritarian.

2) Defined as the private ownership of the means of production, no. It is possible to have market anarchism that is not capitalistic, but any system in which one class is submissive to another is antithetical to anarchism.

3) I don't think they'd be much more than a nuisance. You can't really have capitalist property relations without the state, so unless they went as far as actually establishing a state(which would be kind of odd, considering their ideology), I don't think they'd be much of a threat.

4) In the sense that they don't believe in the state. In some cases this is disputable, however, as many of them talk about "private government" or "private police," making their system look a lot like Sicily under the rule of the mafia.

5) I don't see where the disguise is. They openly call themselves capitalists. The "anarcho" part is more disputable, but they've already stolen the word "libertarian" from us, so why not let them have the term "anarchist" as well?

There is a continuum of anarchism with Anarcho-Syndicalists at one end and Anarcho capitalists at the other with (from left to right) Agorists, Georgists, Mutualists,social anarchists, Collectivist anarchist and communist anarchists. All are legitimately called Anarchists.

As a current anarcho-syndicalist and former Georgist, I'm confused as to how you classify the latter as anarchist. It is certainly left-libertarian, and there is a tiny anarchist contingency within it, but by and large it is an ideology meant to work within a state system.

Prudhon has very little in common with syndicalists at the 'left end.

How so? He supported worker co-ops, federation, and dual power. He pretty much laid the groundwork for anarcho-syndicalism.

For those who claim to be against force- if on the left exactly how are you going to obtain the lands currently owned by 'the capitalists'?

Well, most anarchists are not against force per se, but rather the illegitimate force by which the state wields its power. In any case, since we view absentee ownership as illegitimate, we would simply occupy vacant lands and put them to use. If capitalists try to use force to evict us, we will defend ourselves. The initiation of force, then, would be on their side, not ours.

[houndred]

I'm confused as to how you classify the latter as anarchist

It certainly is not my beleif by any stretch of the imagination but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

In any case, since we view absentee ownership as illegitimate, we would simply occupy vacant lands and put them to use.

what counts as 'vacant' If I own land and rent it to someone is that vacant? Does vacant mean unutelised?

the US government used to allot 160 acres to anyone who applied under the homestead act until the mid eighties. Did no anarchists take advantage and start communes?

Land is pretty cheap in parts of the US . In Missouri good cropland is about 2500 dollars an acre(timberland is half that why don't anarchists each get 40 acres and build a large commune there? Why so little action?

[Paradigm]

It certainly is not my beleif by any stretch of the imagination but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Perhaps you missed the context of what I was saying, but I was referring to Georgism.

what counts as 'vacant' If I own land and rent it to someone is that vacant? Does vacant mean unutelised?

If the person is occupying the land or putting it to use, then it is not vacant. The thousands of foreclosed homes out there would be considered vacant.

the US government used to allot 160 acres to anyone who applied under the homestead act until the mid eighties. Did no anarchists take advantage and start communes?

Wow, that was an incredibly dense assumption of yours. You think this is just about anarchists trying to be left alone. It's about achieving social justice, which means that the poor and homeless need to be given access to this vacant land as well.

Land is pretty cheap in parts of the US . In Missouri good cropland is about 2500 dollars an acre(timberland is half that why don't anarchists each get 40 acres and build a large commune there? Why so little action?

There are anarchist communes, but you completely miss the point. We're not just trying to run away from capitalism. We intend to abolish it.

[Writ_Large]

We're not just trying to run away from capitalism. We intend to abolish it.

How can you call yourself an anarchist when you intend to interfere with my ability to associate freely? As soon as you grant yourself that ability, do you not simply reinstitute coercion?

(Sorry- I know it said "no ancaps allowed")

[Paradigm]

How can you call yourself an anarchist when you intend to interfere with my ability to associate freely?

Because capitalism is not a state of free association. It is a coercive system which requires a state to enforce the legal fiction of private property, the owners of which then use their state-sponsored privilege to exploit the workers and dispossessed. Thus the people are robbed at least twice: first by dispossession of their common right to the Earth, and second by the exploitation of their labor. Ancaps, of course, delude themselves into thinking that capitalism can work without the state, making them - to borrow a term from Lenin - useful idiots.

As soon as you grant yourself that ability, do you not simply reinstitute coercion?

Overthrowing an oppressive and coercive system is hardly what I'd call coercion. Furthermore, the means of overthrowing capitalism would require no aggressive violence(defensive violence is another matter). Dual power, direct action, general strikes...these things do no violence to any person. They are only violent to the flow of capital which we seek to disrupt.

[Writ_Large]

Because capitalism is not a state of free association. It is a coercive system which requires a state to enforce the legal fiction of private property, the owners of which then use their state-sponsored privilege to exploit the workers and dispossessed.

We obviously have some fundamental disagreements about the nature of private property, and we shouldn't hijack this thread to drag them out.

The means of overthrowing capitalism would require no aggressive violence(defensive violence is another matter). Dual power, direct action, general strikes...these things do no violence to any person. They are only violent to the flow of capital which we seek to disrupt.

What? They do violence to the strikebreakers, the noble scabs who are not willing to put their livelihoods on the line for a union. What you're really disrupting is their ability to work and contract freely.

[Paradigm]

What? They do violence to the strikebreakers, the noble scabs who are not willing to put their livelihoods on the line for a union. What you're really disrupting is their ability to work and contract freely.

Apparently you're not familiar with the term general strike. India had one just two weeks ago.

[houndred]

Wow, that was an incredibly dense assumption of yours. You think this is just about anarchists trying to be left alone. It's about achieving social justice, which means that the poor and homeless need to be given access to this vacant land as well.

They could have used the homestead act too

Wow, that was an incredibly dense assumption of yours.

GFY

There are anarchist communes

Link?

Apparently you're not familiar with the term general strike. India had one just two weeks ago.

We had one in 1926 in the UK. That achieved nothng either

We're not just trying to run away from capitalism. We intend to abolish it.

How? By wearing black a lot?

[Paradigm]

They could have used the homestead act too

Irrelevant.

GFY

Why don't you go ahead and tell me what that stands for. I think the admins might be interested to know.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... ommunities

We had one in 1926 in the UK. That achieved nothng either

In isolation, their effectiveness is more about raising awareness. As part of a broader strategy, they can be useful in bringing capital to its knees.

How? By wearing black a lot?

Dual power and direct action, among other things. If things get escalated enough, then outright insurrection might be warranted, but that's for when things start to look like Greece.

[houndred]

Irrelevant.

Why?

Why don't you go ahead and tell me what that stands for. I think the admins might be interested to know.

Awww big tough anarchist who will fight against the state but so long as no one calls him names because he might cry

your list of communities

Hilarious -whiteway colony -now all private houses selling at market rates,
Utopia - ghost town
Brentwood community long gone
Life and labour -russian -long gone
Christiania - gone never a cooperative just a big squat
Tumballplex housing cooperative not a commune -
Whiteway claimed by Ghandi as a 'failed tolstoyan expermiment' not anarchist and just housing

which leaves only twin oaks where you do 42 hours of work a week and get 'basic necessities' in return. Great! what an achievement!

things get escalated enough, then outright insurrection might be warranted, but that's for when things start to look like Greece.

Insurrection? SO you are violent. Why don't you just get your people elected? Where is Greece's Anarchist party? How many people vote for them?

[Paradigm]

Why?

Because homesteading doesn't stop capitalism from exploiting workers, creating poverty, destroying the environment, and causing wars, among numerous other atrocities. Anarchists have no interest in fleeing from capitalism when it's still out there causing untold misery to others.

Awww big tough anarchist who will fight against the state but so long as no one calls him names because he might cry

Who's crying? I'm just wondering if you're going to stand by what you say or hide behind ambiguous acronyms.

Insurrection? SO you are violent. Why don't you just get your people elected? Where is Greece's Anarchist party? How many people vote for them?

You can't possibly be serious.

[houndred]

You can't possibly be serious.

what I asked about elections? No sorry obviously you can't get anyone to vote for anarchists in the USA or in Greece.

Anarchists have no interest in fleeing from capitalism when it's still out there causing untold misery to others.

You mean they don't actually want to work when they can live off welfare or their parents.

Sorry Mom but I have to stay on at college for another year. I know its been 8 years now but I will graduate this year from community college

[Happyhippo]

what I asked about elections? No sorry obviously you can't get anyone to vote for anarchists in the USA or in Greece.

Do you really think starting anarchist parties is a good idea? I`m fairly sure you haven`t thought that through if that`s the case.

You mean they don't actually want to work when they can live off welfare or their parents.

Sorry Mom but I have to stay on at college for another year. I know its been 8 years now but I will graduate this year from community college

Your tone is quite horrible in general in this thread.

[houndred]

Do you really think starting anarchist parties is a good idea? I`m fairly sure you haven`t thought that through if that`s the case.

Well if you are going to have enough people for this revolution then why not test it in the polls first. If you can't even get a single representative elected its probably a good indicator that the people are't going to rise up and support you.

Your tone is quite horrible in general in this thread.

Once your friend Paradigm said "

Wow, that was an incredibly dense assumption of yours

." then ,frankly, all civility is off.

Actually I am fairly keen on Georgism as a theory but I am not naive enough to ever think it has any possibility of happening.

[Eran]

I think that assuming that every capitalist in an ancap society would conduct themselves according to ancap ideology is like believing everyone who lived in the Soviet Union was a communist.

But you don't need to make that assumption. I, for example, am an anarchist, and still I pay my taxes.

The point is that if the bulk of society supports ancap ideology, stable structures will be in place to make sure that capitalists (as well as all others) respect other people's property. If a capitalist (or any other person) attempts to violate another's property rights, that other person can sue, the courts would find in his favour, and, if necessary, enforcement agencies would recover damages per the court order.

A rogue capitalist will have less chance to do damage in an ancap society than in our own. At the moment, the strong and obvious ties between some wealthy people and the political elite allow the former to "get away with murder" (mostly figuratively).

The same will not hold in an ancap society.