lubbockjoe wrote: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?
houndred wrote: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.