[lubbockjoe]

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?

[Decky]

I think it's a little harsh to ask people not to defend themselves. That wouldn't be a debate, you might as well talk to yourself if you only want people to agree with you.

[lubbockjoe]

I think it's a little harsh to ask people not to defend themselves.

I’m not interested in a defense from ancaps. That is not the purpose of this thread. No harshness intended.

That wouldn't be a debate, you might as well talk to yourself if you only want people to agree with you.

Do all threads need to be in the form of a debate? I want to understand how anarchists view anarcho-capitalism.

I thought it would be interesting to hear exclusively from anarchists about what I’ve learned from a similar thread I posted in this forum: Some questions for Anarcho-capitalists.

The subject matter of this thread is identical to Some questions for Anarcho-capitalists.

If ancaps wish to debate, feel free to post there.

[SecretSquirrel]

I'm a voluntaryist. You call me an An-Cap. I am a true anarchist. I would never use force to get my way and I could not possibly care less what other people do as long as they stay out of my business.

Massive homosexual fuck-orgies? Go ahead
Snorting piles of drugs? Not my business
Educating your own kids rather than sending them to school? Whatever
Hiring people for low wages? It's up to them to make that choice, not me
Owning a billion Glocks and AKs and a tank on cinderblocks in your backyard? cool
Holding an opinion I disagree with? You're wrong, but I don't even care

But here's the thing: You respect my own rights too, and don't force me to help you enforce your own vision of society or rob me to fund your militia of costumed men to do the same

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

You are no anarchist. You are a little boy too ignorant to recognize the authoritarian character of your dream

[myrmeleo]

I went through what I would consider something of an "anarchist" period. I would say that in terms of hierarchy, capitalism is indeed incompatible with anarchism. My eventual conclusion, however, was that anarchism by itself has its own issues — mainly, that it is self-contradictory. The only way to have an anarchist society larger than a handful of people is with voting, and at the end of the day, creating a hierarchy to run it. I remain sympathetic to many of the goals of (social) anarchy, but it just kinda falls off the wagon once you start considering how things would actually get done. If anything, at least SS's philosophy is less internally prone to contradictions.

[SecretSquirrel]

There are only two internally consistent (and therefore defensible) ideologies when divided on the following fork:

1) Pure voluntaryist anarchism (logically derived from "ends do not justify means")
2) Pure totalitarian utilitarian despotism (logically derived from "ends do justify means")

There is no logical middle position. Anyone who claims to be somewhere between the two is either:

1) Lying
2) Too stupid or lazy to understand logic

[Lightman]

Um, no, because pursuing utilitarian ends does not imply totalitarian despotism, as totalitarian despotism does not lead to the greatest social utility.

And what's inconsistent about a state whose powers are in accordance with Kantian ethics (where the ends do not justify the means, but where positive duty exists) and not fanatical ancap ideology?

[Wolfman]

I think it's a little harsh to ask people not to defend themselves.

He wants to talk to Leftist Anarchists. He's not bad mouthing anyone, he just wants to talk to people who aren't going to tell him to go fuck himself getting out of the door.

You are no anarchist. You are a little boy too ignorant to recognize the authoritarian character of your dream

He's closer to being an Anarchist in the original sense then you are. Infact, if Proudhon knew people like you were claiming to be Anarchists, he's spin in his grave.

Pure totalitarian utilitarian despotism (logically derived from "ends do justify means")

So, you're assuming that despots are only Utilitarians? They cannot be Deontological, or Virtue Ethicists?

There is no logical middle position.

Sure there is. You just don't understand enough about logic or social psychology. Or any, for that matter.

Also, Lubbock, good luck in here. The Anarchist and Libertarian Forums are pretty much only for Right Anarchists and their hanger-ons. No one else is welcome. You'd be better off asking in the Socialism forum.

[grassroots1]

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?

I've on and off considered myself a libertarian socialist, which I guess could be considered a form of anarchism. So here we go...

1) Capitalism tends toward concentration of wealth and therefore without a functioning democratic system can lead to tyranny over the lives of working people. I think a good example of this in today's world is the USA where corporations have had a great deal of influence over media and the political process. Also the Gilded Age in American history when companies had a great deal more influence over the lives of working people than they do today. But capitalism exists in authoritarian and non-authoritarian states.*
2) It depends what kind of anarchism we're talking about, I guess. It's certainly not incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, but with my ideal of libertarian socialism, I see a network of syndicates, councils, etc. coordinating production using means of production that are collectively owned. This doesn't mean some forms of business, ownership, and barter can't exist on the small scale, but in the larger sense yes capitalism is incompatible with that system.
3) Not if they were unable to gain ownership of the means of production.
4) In the sense that they oppose the state in most of its forms, except the most crucial: upholding the right to property.
5) I think they're highly ideological people who mostly aren't aware of the potential effects of the things they promote. But I think that the libertarian ideology itself has so much weight and resources behind it because, yes, it plays into the hands of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this society.

*Today's China is a good example of free market competition existing in a non-democratic society.

[lubbockjoe]

I went through what I would consider something of an "anarchist" period. I would say that in terms of hierarchy, capitalism is indeed incompatible with anarchism. My eventual conclusion, however, was that anarchism by itself has its own issues — mainly, that it is self-contradictory. The only way to have an anarchist society larger than a handful of people is with voting, and at the end of the day, creating a hierarchy to run it. I remain sympathetic to many of the goals of (social) anarchy, but it just kinda falls off the wagon once you start considering how things would actually get done. If anything, at least SS's philosophy is less internally prone to contradictions.

I don't believe anarchism is viable in this world. Any one who believes a stateless society can exist in a world of state sanctioned capitalist piranhas is at least misinformed. That's why I was puzzled when I met people here on PoFo talking about their hypothetical anarcho-capitalist societies as if they had it all figured out right there in their own heads.

I identify with anarchism because I'm mistrusting of humans with authority. However, authority does have a place in society but should be limited to minimize the effects of human corruption by 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' [ancaps don't like those terms].

Also, Lubbock, good luck in here. The Anarchist and Libertarian Forums are pretty much only for Right Anarchists and their hanger-ons. No one else is welcome. You'd be better off asking in the Socialism forum.

I am a lefty but I have no agenda with respect to my posts in this forum unlike our capitalist, I mean ancap friends.

A right anarchist… that sounds like a round square to me.
_______________________________________________________________________
Thanks for your response grassroots, when I have more time, I'd like to respond.

[SecretSquirrel]

how are you an anarchist if you oppose an economic system based on voluntary contractual agreement rather than central government fiat?

how?

[Wolfman]

how are you an not anarchist if you oppose an economic system based on voluntary contractual agreement rather than central government fiat?

The underlined is what I think you meant.

Regardless, the reason is that Left wing anarchists realize there will still be a form of government. Right Anarchists (especially An Caps) seem to think that when the company providing your groceries, owns your roads, and is your police force it will somehow not be a government. That's the problem: there will be a government, it'll just be Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and GE.

[Lightman]

The left/right anarchist word games grow irritating.

The left anarchists coined the term; to say they are not anarchists is thus prima facie moronic.

Yet, language evolves. The term anarchist has been applied to the extreme libertarian right - English lacks an academy to regulate usage. Etc.

[lubbockjoe]

how are you an anarchist if you oppose an economic system based on voluntary contractual agreement rather than central government fiat?

how?

I never said I am an anarchist because I believe anarchism is impractical. However, I completely identify with the anarchist principle of distrust of humans with authority.

Ancap nonsense about volunteerism and non-aggression is empty jargon. When the bill comes due, capitalists [ancaps] will resort to aggression [force] to ensure they get paid.

[SecretSquirrel]

Ancap nonsense about volunteerism and non-aggression is empty jargon. When the bill comes due, capitalists [ancaps] will resort to aggression [force] to ensure they get paid.

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? You completely bypass the ideology and make an unfounded attack on the practitioner (which even if was somehow true would have no bearing on the ideology itself)?

You don't see how moronic your attempt at an argument is?

[lubbockjoe]

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?

How could you adhere to your beliefs? You don’t live in an ancap society.

You completely bypass the ideology and make an unfounded attack on the practitioner (which even if was somehow true would have no bearing on the ideology itself)?

You are not a practioner, you are a fanciful theorist.

Ancap nonsense about volunteerism and non-aggression is empty jargon. When the bill comes due, ancaps will resort to aggression [force] to ensure they get paid.

Do you agree or disagree?

[lubbockjoe]

1) Is capitalism authoritarian?
Capitalism tends toward concentration of wealth and therefore without a functioning democratic system can lead to tyranny over the lives of working people. I think a good example of this in today's world is the USA where corporations have had a great deal of influence over media and the political process. Also the Gilded Age in American history when companies had a great deal more influence over the lives of working people than they do today. But capitalism exists in authoritarian and non-authoritarian states.* *Today's China is a good example of free market competition existing in a non-democratic society.

But China is authoritarian. In which non-authoritarian state(s) does capitalism exist?

2) Do you view capitalism as compatible with anarchism? Why or why not?
It depends what kind of anarchism we're talking about, I guess. It's certainly not incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, but with my ideal of libertarian socialism, I see a network of syndicates, councils, etc. coordinating production using means of production that are collectively owned. This doesn't mean some forms of business, ownership, and barter can't exist on the small scale, but in the larger sense yes capitalism is incompatible with that system.

It depends what kind of anarchism we're talking about, I guess. It's certainly not incompatible with anarcho-capitalism...
... in the larger sense yes capitalism is incompatible with that system.

I'm uncertain about [in what sense] you believe anarchism is compatible/incompatible with capitalism. Could you please clarify?

3) Do you believe ancaps would be an exploitive force in an anarchistic society?
Not if they were unable to gain ownership of the means of production.

If ancaps could not gain ownership of the means of production they would not be ancaps. Or am I missing something?

4) In what sense are ancaps anarchists?
In the sense that they oppose the state in most of its forms, except the most crucial: upholding the right to property.

Don't property "rights" loose all meaning if no coercive force is associated? Doesn't this nullify ancrap talk about opposition to coercive force?

5) I think they're highly ideological people who mostly aren't aware of the potential effects of the things they promote. But I think that the libertarian ideology itself has so much weight and resources behind it because, yes, it plays into the hands of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this society.

Agreed.
___________________________________________________________

Anarcho-capitalism equals unchecked capitalistic power

___________________________________________________________

[grassroots1]

But China is authoritarian. In which non-authoritarian state(s) does capitalism exist?

Well America is less authoritarian than China, and capitalism exists here. It's just checked by our democratic system. I mean, would you call Western European social democracies "socialist?" I personally wouldn't, they are mixed systems. Not capitalist in the sense that ancaps would like to see and not socialist in the sense that some socialists would like to see.

I'm uncertain about [in what sense] you believe anarchism is compatible/incompatible with capitalism. Could you please clarify?

Libertarian socialism is an ideology that suggests that there could be democratic control over collectively owned means of production. In that type of system, there is no room for private ownership of the means of production, and therefore capitalism is basically incompatible with that system. Except, as I said, on the smallest scale.

Anarcho-capitalism purports to be a form of anarchism and incorporates private ownership of the means of production, which means not only is it compatible with capitalism but it suggests that the market is what we should rely on to serve all of society's needs.

If ancaps could not gain ownership of the means of production they would not be ancaps. Or am I missing something?

They could hold the ideology but be unable to act on it. There are many different conceptions of left anarchist societies. Most do involve some form of organization, as Wolfman said. In those societies, presumably ancaps would not pose any kind of threat, or the threat that they did pose would already have been dealt with during the change of social and economic relations that took place in order to establish that system.

Don't property "rights" loose all meaning if no coercive force is associated? Doesn't this nullify ancrap talk about opposition to coercive force?

I believe it does. Ancaps and libertarians assign far too little significance to economic power and the ugly potential of concentration of wealth, especially in a society where that power can't be checked through democratic channels. Presumably in an anarcho-capitalist society firms would have their own security and police forces (call them "armies" if you like) that exist to defend their own property. In my mind this would result in a society that embodies lawlessness, warlordism, and a lack of control by the common person over his or her destiny.

[Suska]

You heard it here first folks. There is no such thing as Anarchism. Only SecretSquirrelism. Join hands and praise the Squirrel that will set us all free.

[Melodramatic]

I tend to consider myself an anarchist, but usually the term libertarian socialist perfectly sufficient. There might be some variation between the two, but I find it usually irrelevant. These are pretty general questions, and it seems others have done A better job supporting my stance than I, but I shall do my best.

I can agree with anarchist distrust of humans with authority.

I find that I do not distrust authority, as much as I distrust authority as it exists in our reality. Can hierarchy and democracy exist at the same time? yes, but only either one will truly exist. Either hierarchy will be made right with democracy, or (more commonly) democracy will be made fake so the hierarchy will exist as we define it today. In that sense I believe anarchists do not seek to abolish the state as much as they seek to force it to become something that we would not call a state.

1) Is capitalism authoritarian?

Capitalism gives people the continual ability to control others, using the natural scarcity of resources otherwise (or rather meanwhile) creating such scarcity. The capitalist economy is a economic form of fascism, enabling the few to rule. The horrors of capitalism are countless, especially what is needed to preserve it and what it does to society, and I shall not count them for you now .

2) Do you view capitalism as compatible with anarchism? Why or why not?

Yes and no.

No in the sense that they are inherently contrasted, anarchism is the rule of the people. To allow any a smaller capitalism to exist would be a betrayal of one's peers and breaking the most basic principles of anarchism (solidarity, community), so other than truly the most minor forms I cannot see a type of capitalism that would be ok.

Yes in the sense that anarchism is not merely a state of existence, but a political perceptive. Change cannot be sudden, the revolution is a long process and violence is only relevant when the most basic freedoms are taken away, not when the public is just ignorant (like it is now).

We must always be true to our principles, always try to shape our reality to the extent of our ability and always continue to struggle. You can compromise your reality, try to do the best you can in accordance to it, but never your ideals, so even if capitalism will exist in reality it will not exist in anarchism, as the anarchists will keep trying to awaken their brothers to resist it. In a way the anarchist moment should not be dependent on any political revolution at all, it must be true to itself independent of reality, while working within it (more of a general statement than an anarchist one, I guess).

3) Do you believe ancaps would be an exploitive force in an anarchistic society?

If we let them be, than yes. They are no different form the capitalists of today (perhaps worse in some sense), and, like said capitalists, no different than the state. Anarchism seeks to abolish private capital, and any body that wishes to preserve it is inheritance contradicted to anarchism.

4) In what sense are ancaps anarchists?

They wish to abolish the existing political power (the state), but they want to create a economical power (the capitalists) that will function in a similar way, minus the little democracy left. That's the absurdity of the title. The real problem with the political power, the reason the construct is in a "proprietor" relation with society is the economical power. So rather than giving the control back to the people, it takes it form them completely.

5) Are ancaps really capitalists in disguise?

If so it is a really lame disguise.

I would never use force to get my way and I could not possibly care less what other people do as long as they stay out of my business.

I'm not big on violence myself, but that's just a wee bit disguising. A society of people who don't care about each other... fun.

Snorting piles of drugs? Not my business

Its nice to hear you care.

Owning a billion Glocks and AKs and a tank on cinderblocks in your backyard? cool

Now that's just silly.

Holding an opinion I disagree with? You're wrong, but I don't even care

All hail the gods of apathy and nihilism

Kantian ethics (where the ends do not justify the means, but where positive duty exists)

I would like to hear about that sometime . My knowledge of philosophy is embarrassingly small, but my father once explained to me some basic Kant and I base much of my theory on it.