Comments on: Why Anarchists and “Anarcho”-Capitalists can’t be allies

By: PlasticLiving

PlasticLiving — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:34:01 +0000

"Even what tactics they do have.."

Foot it mouth… should keep reading

By: db0

db0 — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:33:55 +0000

Look at the sentence "Even what tactics they do have". See where it links to…

By: PlasticLiving

PlasticLiving — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:31:38 +0000

To Comment on "On the other hand, the “Anarcho”-Capitalist, even though distinctly lacking in tactics". You might not agree with Anarcho-Capitalism, but they do have tactics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

By: vaguelyhumanoid

vaguelyhumanoid — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:49:50 +0000

I think you misunderstood agorism and should look into it more. Otherwise, you make good points.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:34:30 +0000

It depends on how far to the left you actually are. For example, I don't see any large incompatibilities with mutualists although I consider that its unlikely their tactics can actually bring down the state (but I'm willing to be surprised). However I don't see how I can ally with people who support wage-slavery. That is, people who will argue that being a boss or a landlord is not bad and thus directly oppose my arguments that it is. How can I ally with someone who will actively agitate against the tactics I suggest (such as take-overs, wildcat strikes, direct bottom-up democracy etc) and thus prevent any chance for real change from happening?

So I see the ALL as both enemies and allies, although although much closer of the latter than right-libertarians of course. Given the wide array of perspectives within the ALL, I can't label everyone with one broad stroke so I give final appraisal on a per-person/per-theory basis.

By: Roderick T. Long

Roderick T. Long — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:33:43 +0000

My question is, what about us? From your point of view, are we potential allies or hopeless enemies -- and more importantly, why?

By: Roderick T. Long

Roderick T. Long — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:33:43 +0000

My question is, what about us? From your point of view, are we potential allies or hopeless enemies -- and more importantly, why?

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:07:44 +0000

It's not clear embracing violence will help defeat the state – witness the failure of the many assassinations that anarchists carried out 100 years ago to effect any social change. In any event the state is virtually by definition the best-funded and most professional violence users on the planet. Trying to beat them with sheer manpower and brute force is in effect playing by their rules in a no-win scenario. Of course pacifism won't work either… it's not about violence or non-violence, but about what people believe. As long as people believe that the state is good then it will continue, at least for the foreseeable future.

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:48:15 +0000

Anarchists were never pacifists but we're not explicitly violent either. We suggest a different ethical perspective on social structures, one which would make wage-labour, rent and interest illegitimate. Once we get a critical mass of people behind this perspective, we only use violence as self-defence against those who wish to enforce the previous system on us.

Don't make me laught about the pre-1920s capitalism being free. If anything, people back then were far worse than we ever were and this is the reasons why you have a string of socialist revolutions.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:07:59 +0000

‘anarchists’ won’t accomplish anything until they reject anti-violence — the sheer force of violence that the state possesses and is willing to use makes this a truth… as for having the impassing rift — capitalism in it’s true sense (ie: pre 1920s) is more ‘free’ than the socialist sense will EVER be — so anyone that wants to argue that should fess up immediately by saying — “hey everyone! I’m a fucking commie!”