[Fraqtive42]

For the purposes of this thread, I will use 'left' and 'right' strictly as economic terms, defined in the Political Compass. This is the best and least muddled definition, after all.


I have never met an economically 'center-left/center-right/centrist' anarchist. All of the anarchists that I know fall into one of these two categories: far-left and far-right. You have the anarcho-communists, anarcha-feminists, etc. on one side, and you have the anarcho-capitalists on the other. The former all fall into the same far-left category, but with different extended insights, or modifications, to the base ideology. The line that draws this distinction seems to be the distinction between anti-proprietarian and pro-proprietarian ideologies. The former are against personal property and fall into the far-left, while the latter are for personal property and fall into the far-right category. It seems that these two categories are the only ones that support a non-coercive society. Is this the truth, i.e. can there exist a 'true' (non-coercive) anarchist that rests somewhere between the far-left and far-right domain?

This also raises another interesting question. Anarcho-primitivists, supportive of a non-coercive society (as far as I know), are critical of leftist movements as found both in wikipedia and Kasczynski's manifesto. Would this make them ultimately fall into the far-right category (anarcho-capitalists with some primitivist modifications)? Or are they critical of leftist ideology, despite being far-left? Since they approve of the non-capitalist, anarcho-communist hunter-gatherer society, the latter option might be more accurate (albeit ironic). Perhaps they are not anarchists in the true sense, or perhaps they are somewhere in between far-left and far-right.

[Phred]

It seems that these two categories are the only ones that support a non-coercive society.

Actually, only the An-Caps support a non-coercive society. The Left-Anarchists are quite adamant that they will seize the property of anyone trying to make their living in a Capitalist manner, and punish those apostates who dared trade voluntarily amongst themselves. They also won't allow anyone to possess their own stuff - all must be shared communally. Penalty for not sharing? Coercion of one form or another, including forcible removal from the borders of the Anarchist lands.


Phred

[Fraqtive42]

Actually, only the An-Caps support a non-coercive society. The Left-Anarchists are quite adamant that they will seize the property of anyone trying to make their living in a Capitalist manner, and punish those apostates who dared trade voluntarily amongst themselves. They also won't allow anyone to possess their own stuff - all must be shared communally. Penalty for not sharing? Coercion of one form or another, including forcible removal from the borders of the Anarchist lands.


Phred

It seems that left and right anarchists have two different definitions of liberty. The former is being free from all forms of subordination, while the latter is being free from all forms of aggression, defined as property violation. I think that different forms of left-anarchy all have different methods of property sharing, so it all depends. I just recently met a Geolibertarian online, who had a definition of property according to the Lockean proviso. I think that non-proprietarians advocate a society where property cannot be obtained to the detriment of others, not just that property cannot be obtained period.

[Kman]

I think that non-proprietarians advocate a society where property cannot be obtained to the detriment of others

Define what ''detriment of others'' refers to specifically, what kind of construction or building of things is considering ''detrimental''?

[grassroots1]

Monopoly is detrimental to everyone in a society except for the monopolists, isn't it? That's an extreme example.

[Fraqtive42]

Define what ''detriment of others'' refers to specifically, what kind of construction or building of things is considering ''detrimental''?

Generally, I would define it as when somebody is possessing something that could be used to help someone in danger, i.e. an impoverished person. If somebody takes a drink of water from a lake it is fine, but if he drinks the whole lake without letting anybody else take a sip, it is to the detriment of others. John Locke explains this, to some extent:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

[Kman]

Generally, I would define it as when somebody is possessing something that could be used to help someone in danger, i.e. an impoverished person.

When is someone in danger of being poor?

[Fraqtive42]

When is someone in danger of being poor?

When someone has taken from society to the point where it interferes with the well-being of others, is my best guess for the definition.

[SecretSquirrel]

Collectivist anarchists are fooling themselves, but they're welcome to running a collectivist society in what you call a "right-anarchist" world

Meanwhile, they'd round up and shoot any "right anarchists" if the collectivist "left-anarchists" were the predominant group

Draw your own conclusions

[ralfy]

Inevitable given the global problems that we currently face.

[anarchist6]

Collectivist anarchists are fooling themselves, but they're welcome to running a collectivist society in what you call a "right-anarchist" world

Meanwhile, they'd round up and shoot any "right anarchists" if the collectivist "left-anarchists" were the predominant group

Draw your own conclusions

Not all left anarchists, i wouldn't in fact i'd fight for the ancaps right to set up capitalism.

[Sceptic]

The former are against personal property and fall into the far-left, while the latter are for personal property and fall into the far-right category.

No, it is private property, not personal property, they oppose.

One would be entitled to his own personal possessions (transportable goods) in a left-anarchist world but private property (landed/nontransportable capital or land) would be submitted to non-hierarchical operation (such as in a co-operative) and ownership by the collective (in name). Essentially, a small shopkeeper would be the only person involved in the managment of his respective business but if he expanded the size of firm to a supermarket, the labourers would also have to be invited, otherwise the relationship is hierarchical (in which the capitalist is dominant and the labourers are submissive).

It is prudent to note that there is a difference between left-anarchists who see this as the most desirable outcome but demonstrate preference for this being the result of voluntary community organisation and left-anarchists who see this as the most desirable outcome and are willing to use coercion in order to realise their vision. Really and truly, whether the former can be described as 'left' is debatable.

It seems that these two categories are the only ones that support a non-coercive society. Is this the truth, i.e. can there exist a 'true' (non-coercive) anarchist that rests somewhere between the far-left and far-right domain?

Yes, there exists a middle ground: mutualism.

Anarcho-primitivists, supportive of a non-coercive society (as far as I know), are critical of leftist movements as found both in wikipedia and Kasczynski's manifesto. Would this make them ultimately fall into the far-right category (anarcho-capitalists with some primitivist modifications)?

No, anarcho-primitivists are far-left but differ from other leftists because they see technological advancement as being to the detriment to human civilisation (to varying degrees). Some anarcho-primitivists are willing to destroy the world's technology with force in order to return humanity into a hunter-gatherer state.

Anarcho-communists actually see technological advancement as having a positive impact on human society, in fact they envision that non-hierarchical organisation would promote innovation. They have nothing against technology itself, seing it as a force for good, but also promote the view that it is used as an instrument of oppression by the ruling class under capitalism. The hunter-gatherer state is undesirable.

Anarcho-capitalists, like all promoters of capitalism, also see technological advancement as having a positive impact on human society. However it is capitalism that they envisage is most likely to promote innovation.

[SecretSquirrel]

Not all left anarchists, i wouldn't in fact i'd fight for the ancaps right to set up capitalism.

Being willing to fight to defend the right for people to engage in free enterprise anarchism makes you a free enterprise anarchist, friend.

[anarchist6]

Being willing to fight to defend the right for people to engage in free enterprise anarchism makes you a free enterprise anarchist, friend.[/quote]

I would also set up a co-op farm, that would feed the people in the farm. I am a left anarchist i won't compete on the free market, i'll just allow it to exist, as i have faith in my ideas and believe they can prosper on a free market of ideas, i believe it you think your idea can't compete with capitalism (which is so easy) then your idea sucks.

[Daktoria]

This also raises another interesting question. Anarcho-primitivists, supportive of a non-coercive society (as far as I know), are critical of leftist movements as found both in wikipedia and Kasczynski's manifesto. Would this make them ultimately fall into the far-right category (anarcho-capitalists with some primitivist modifications)? Or are they critical of leftist ideology, despite being far-left? Since they approve of the non-capitalist, anarcho-communist hunter-gatherer society, the latter option might be more accurate (albeit ironic). Perhaps they are not anarchists in the true sense, or perhaps they are somewhere in between far-left and far-right.

Your coyness about primitivism demonstrates why left anarchists are untrustworthy; anarcho-capitalists are not unabombers.

Put it this way. Profit = free time, free time to be spent in artistic endeavors.

Left anarchism doesn't care about this. It doesn't care about how some people are talented at industrial organization, and the talented expect to profit from industrial organization in order to relax.

Instead, left anarchism is fundamentally culturally biased, expecting people to synthesize art as they go along in the production process.

Anarcho-capitalists would LOVE to do this instead of sequentially going back and forth between industry and art, but we're bad at it, and in an anarcho-communist society, those who are bad at synthesis get treated as inferior.

This isn't to say anarcho-capitalists are bad at art, but we need time EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to art in order to excel at it.

[Eran]

I would also set up a co-op farm, that would feed the people in the farm. I am a left anarchist i won't compete on the free market, i'll just allow it to exist, as i have faith in my ideas and believe they can prosper on a free market of ideas, i believe it you think your idea can't compete with capitalism (which is so easy) then your idea sucks.

I know of no anarcho-capitalist that has any objection whatsoever to people setting up co-ops, and limiting their dealings with the rest of the market to only other co-ops (or in any other way).
In other words, anarcho-capitalism allows within it any form of societal/economic organization, provided only that such organization is voluntary, not based on coercion.

[Fraqtive42]

In other words, anarcho-capitalism allows within it any form of societal/economic organization, provided only that such organization is voluntary, not based on coercion.

But then what is to stop an anarcho-capitalist society from converting into another form of anarchist organization such as mutualism, libertarian socialism, etc.? (this is not a criticism of anarcho-capitalism solely, but a criticism of any society based upon voluntary cooperation)

Also Sceptic, thank you for the post. It was very informative.

[Kman]

But then what is to stop an anarcho-capitalist society from converting into another form of anarchist organization such as mutualism, libertarian socialism, etc.?

In such a society I will not be free to start my own business on my own land, fake anarchists will invade my land and tell me what to do and not do IE it has absolutely nothing to do with anarchy, it is complete and utter tyranny and enslavement.

[Sceptic]

In such a society I will not be free to start my own business on my own land, fake anarchists will invade my land and tell me what to do and not do IE it has absolutely nothing to do with anarchy, it is complete and utter tyranny and enslavement.

Tyranny is good

Anarchy=lame

[Fraqtive42]

In such a society I will not be free to start my own business on my own land, fake anarchists will invade my land and tell me what to do and not do IE it has absolutely nothing to do with anarchy, it is complete and utter tyranny and enslavement.

No, I'm talking about libertarian socialists who support society being organized on a voluntary basis (not those who want to achieve it via coercion, and I don't approve of that either).