Why Anarchists and "Anarcho"-Capitalists can't be allies

Db0

Can the two camps of anti-statism unite in order to pursue their common goal? No. It is tactically impossible.

Protester throwing Molotov Cocktail at a polic...
Image via Wikipedia

One things that crops up over and over when someone on the libertarian right notices the outright hostility of anarchists when he appropriates the “Anarchist” label for himself is the accusation of “harming the movement” by not being willing to look past differences and work with each other for a stateless society. The argument goes that since both Anarchist and “Anarcho”-Capitalists wish a stateless society but simply with a different mode of production (Socialism VS Capitalism respectively) we have at least one common goal we should be working together for: The abolition of the State.

On first view, this makes a modicum of sense, if we both want a stateless society, and if we are willing to tolerate each others productive organization within their respective areas, then why are we fighting, arguing and criticizing each other when united we could be more formidable in both convincing people and undermining the state?

The answer is simple: Tactics.

It is true that Anarchists wouldn’t try to violently enforce libertarian socialism on other areas and other people. This is simply contrary to the whole theory behind it. As such, it is only to be expected that after a possible revolution, in some parts of the world capitalist relations would remain and some of them might even approach the “Anarcho”-Capitalist model. However a revolution will not happen by itself. The areas which turn Anarchist or “Anarcho”-Capitalist will do so – will move to either stateless direction, by the methods that were used to bring the general populace to the boiling point of revolt.

And these methods are inherently opposite.

Libertarian Socialist of all types (yes, including individualist anti-capitalist anarchists) generally promote all tactics of Direct Action and Mutual Aid. This means that they will be positive to Unions, Strikes, Takeovers, Cooperatives, Mutual Banks, Communes and the like. They will even be the least hostile on state acts giving more power to the working class ((Anarchists do not support using the state to push forth regulations but do not oppose regulations which benefit the working class out of principle. Such regulation, even though flawed, can be the result of direct action or can give some breathing space for the workers to request more and get their hopes up.)) Their arguments on the other hand, will be based on the things which support such paths. That would include stuff like the fact human evolutionary psychology is conductive to Mutual Aid, the validity of the Labour Theory of Value and the consequent exploitation theory, the moral imperative for self-determination and self-management, a hostility against all types of domination and hierarchy and so on.

On the other hand, the “Anarcho”-Capitalist, even though distinctly lacking in tactics, are ideologically opposed to most such measures which would bring a society to a libertarian socialist revolt. They are against unions (at least, most of them are), against expropriation of land and capital by those who work it, consider Cooperatives “ineffective”, vehemently oppose all state acts which increase social security (while being least hostile to state acts which simply protect private property more) etc. Their ideological bases furthermore compels them to acts as apologists to the system through their dismissal of the LTV, the ethical support for the right to Private Property, accumulation and usury, the allowance or even support of hierarchy and domination as long as it’s “voluntary” and so on.

Even what tactics they do have end up being opposite to anarchist principles since they advocate the consolidation of force and judgement to third parties which is a distinctly anti-direct action idea.

All of this should make it obvious that there is an impassable rift between these two movements ((Well one movement and one ideology, as there’s not really any actual movement behind AnCaps)) which prevents both of them from working together to change the system, since they would be simply pulling in opposite directions, countering each other. Much like the practical gap between Private Property and Possession, so does the difference of tactics and theory make co-operation of these two camps impossible.

Sure, if by simply willing it strong it enough, lots of people could magically pop-out a stateless society, then “joining forces” might make sense. But the world is not the magical la-la land. It’s the paths we tread, the methods we espouse and the tactics we use that defines which kind of stateless society we will have in the end.

So please “Anarcho”-Capitalists, Right Libertarians and all other assorted Propertarians, don’t ask us to co-operate and accept your as “fellow Anarchists”. Our possible co-existence in a stateless future is irrelevant when in the real world your whole worldview is counter-productive to what we suggest.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

56 thoughts on “Why Anarchists and "Anarcho"-Capitalists can't be allies”

  1. There's an impassable rift thanks to 'socialists' who have a pavlovian response to the 'capitalist' part of anarcho-capitalism (its misnamed, they are not capitalists) and ancaps who have a similar reaction to socialists.

    The sooner both sides stop pissing on each other and actually think the better. Both can learn from each other, but I despair of that happening thanks to those who are happiliy entrenched in their little cul-de-sacs, happily ignoring each other except to throw a insults at each other.

    1. Can you please argue why all the arguments I put forward have not shown that the rift is impassable? I just explained in length the reason WHY this is so, you can't just dismiss my arguments by saying “Oh, they're just too stubborn”.

  2. Pingback: Hitting nails on heads « Edinburgh Anarchists
  4. Pingback: Tea-Party Protesters: What is Freedom? « Directionless Bones

  5. I do think you are wrong. Whilst its true that some anarcho-capitalists are not open to working with other anarchists (and vice versa), there is far more scope for cooperation than you will admit.

    Firstly, you claim that an-caps support the capitalist mode of production – this is not necessarily true, it really depends a lot on what you mean by capitalism, and you mean something different to an-caps. No consistent anarcho-'capitalist' would ever oppose a cooperative or other non-hierarchical organisation so long as it was not enforced by violence. Likewise, a consistent anarcho-'capitalist' could not support the current organisation of the economy (if they do, then they're not really ancaps- just as any 'anarchist' who support the Soviet Union after the initial revolution could be truly called an anarchist.

    I really think the problem with your whole reasoning is you take a stereo-typical 'anarcho-capitalist' juvenile who delights in being obnoxious (just as many juvenile 'anarchists' do) rather than looking at the whole continuum.

    An-caps do tend to be wary of unions, but so should any anarchist – unions for the most part today are adjuncts of the state and big business who achieve their ends through the use of force. When you have people bullied for refusing to pay their political levy (because they disagree with the state socialist Labour Party) or closed shops and unions funded and backed by the Soviet Union it tends to put you off unions.
    Such creatures are not compatible with anarchism of any form.
    True, many do tend to lump all unions in with them, but in general you can point this out to ancaps rather than just saying 'they're wrong we won't play with them'.

    You also criticise agorism, but it is simply a means to realise idea which are straight from Tucker. It does not create a monopoly of force, it does not prevent direct action, but it seeks to provide the means for all to protect themselves from the predations of others.

    As for LTV – I know communist-anarchists who do not support it, so that's hardly a clincher. I do admit that the opposition to LTV is often detrimental, but there are problems with classical LTV, and those need to be answered (as Carson attempts to do – quite successfully in my view).

    There are just too many areas where all can work together at the moment – opposition to war, imperialism, the ever expanding state. With a bit of reasoning most an-caps will support the right to unionise, and most support mutual aid (its a non-state, market solution). They will support anyone who is harassed and abused by the police.

    There are differences on property rights, but since they are based in society rather than any natural right its an area for competition between the systems.

    There are of course idiots (I'm sure you've come across idiotic anarchists who you don't want to work with), they are at the margins (but unfortunately vocal), and some you just can't work with, but that's on an individual basis, not a general one.

    Lastly, those who reach out are most likely to be ones you can work with. Rather than simply rejecting all you consider 'anarcho-capitalists' it would pay to listen to them, especially as you are apparently willing to work with those who will work with them. You never know, you might find some converts, or at least allies.

    1. No consistent anarcho-'capitalist' would ever oppose a cooperative or other non-hierarchical organisation so long as it was not enforced by violence. Likewise, a consistent anarcho-'capitalist' could not support the current organisation of the economy

      The problem is about simply opposing cooperatives or supporting the current system. In fact, I never accused them of doing so. Rather the problem is that they do not oppose the capitalist mode of production. They do not oppose all forms of usury (rent, interest and profit). They support the right of domination of the landlord and the capitalist. It's not what they oppose, it's what they don't.

      That they consider cooperatives not as effective as capitalist firms (based on circular reasoning of course) does not help matters much.

    2. As for LTV – I know communist-anarchists who do not support it, so that's hardly a clincher. I do admit that the opposition to LTV is often detrimental, but there are problems with classical LTV, and those need to be answered (as Carson attempts to do – quite successfully in my view).

      I actually don't think Carson's attempt is so great as it ended up using Misean Axioms for it (which I consider flawed) but it was nevertheless a step in the right direction. Still, while not all Anarchists accept the LTV, they do not ideologically feel the need to argue against it and they generally support its conclusions (ie worker exploitation) even though they do not really have a reasoning behind it.

      While there are generally Anarchists of various types that may not support some other Anarchist tactics, they generally have the same general worldview so as to be at least tolerating to them as part of the greater struggle. So for example a Communist might not support Syndicalism, but he will not actively oppose unions. A Syndicalist might think that Mutual Banks are not enough, but will not oppose the mutualist setting them up. An Inidividualist might consider that Capitalism might be still reformed, but I doubt he'll scab at a worker's strike or attempt at takeover.

      The problem with AnCaps, is that they actively support acts and ideologies which are in their majority opposite to Anarchism.

    3. I really think the problem with your whole reasoning is you take a stereo-typical 'anarcho-capitalist' juvenile who delights in being obnoxious (just as many juvenile 'anarchists' do) rather than looking at the whole continuum.

      I really do not. I've had discussions with more intellectual supporters of such systems (Such as R. Long) as well as with the Misoid hordes. The issue is not simply the attitude (although that plays a part and one needs to struggle very much to look beyond the elitism and sexism too many of those "juvenile hordes" display) but rather the deeper arguments that they support. For example, the one time that I attempted to counter Hoppe's refutation of the exploitation theory, I ended up being swamped with Misoids and all of them managed to add weight the point I'm making above.

    4. I really think the problem with your whole reasoning is you take a stereo-typical 'anarcho-capitalist' juvenile who delights in being obnoxious (just as many juvenile 'anarchists' do) rather than looking at the whole continuum.

      I really do not. I've had discussions with more intellectual supporters of such systems (Such as R. Long) as well as with the Misoid hordes. The issue is not simply the attitude (although that plays a part and one needs to struggle very much to look beyond the elitism and sexism too many of those "juvenile hordes" display) but rather the deeper arguments that they support. For example, the one time that I attempted to counter Hoppe's refutation of the exploitation theory, I ended up being swamped with Misoids and all of them managed to add weight the point I'm making above.

    5. An-caps do tend to be wary of unions, but so should any anarchist[…]True, many do tend to lump all unions in with them, but in general you can point this out to ancaps rather than just saying 'they're wrong we won't play with them'.

      I've discussed the issue with AnCaps before and the problem is that they oppose unions for different reasons. The problem is that while they do not generally care about the hierarchical nature of trade unions (much like they do not care about the hierarchical nature of the capitalist firm) they do care about the economic results of all kinds of unionism. Specifically, since they deny the class-separation, they consider that workers and capitalists are cooperating and unions are hurting this. They think that unions are counter productive to the worker's wellfare as they will "reduce the available positions by making companies less competitive".

      In short, those who oppose unions, do so for economic reasons, while anarchists who do it, oppose them for libertarian reasons. It's wrong to conflate the two aspects as simply "opposing unions" much like it's wrong to conflate the two movements as simply "opposing the state."

    6. You also criticise agorism, but it is simply a means to realise idea which are straight from Tucker. It does not create a monopoly of force, it does not prevent direct action, but it seeks to provide the means for all to protect themselves from the predations of others.

      I criticize because Agorism it is based on free market principles that can only work in a fantastical society. The reason why I mention that it is opposed to direct action is that when you depend on private defense companies to protect your interests, you can't be considered to be acting directly on this aspect.

    7. There are just too many areas where all can work together at the moment – opposition to war, imperialism, the ever expanding state.

      The problem is how they will oppose it. They will oppose the "ever expanding state" by opposing social safety measures which increase worker's safety (universal healthcare, social welfare etc) while Anarchist will oppose the "ever expanding state" by opposing increasing support for private property (ie increasing police force) and the like. So the two camps will be pulling at different loose strings of the state while hoping the other aspect of the state remains as strong as possible before the final collapse. So the AnCaps will hope to reduce the state to a simple protector of private property before (somehow) dissolving it, while the AnSocs will hope to weaken the state's support for PP and tolerate its acts to support the public until such times as they empowered public can revolt.

      Then there's the aspect of how the state is going to be discarded, something to which only Agorism has a possible tactic which I consider as flawed as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ideas of Marxist-Leninists.

    8. There are differences on property rights, but since they are based in society rather than any natural right its an area for competition between the systems.

      And this is why this is not an important factor in explaining why AnCaps and AnSocs can't be allies. Rather it's the way we can even reach the stage where "competition between the systems" might even be an option. In short, how to reach a stateless society.

    9. Lastly, those who reach out are most likely to be ones you can work with. Rather than simply rejecting all you consider 'anarcho-capitalists' it would pay to listen to them, especially as you are apparently willing to work with those who will work with them. You never know, you might find some converts, or at least allies.

      If you think that the above post was made half-arsedly based on anecdotal experience with one or two AnCaps online you are wrong. The reason why I've written the above is because I've discussed with dozens of them, always starting out by listening to them and making a civilized conversation, but very soon the irreconcilable differences between our tactics and theories always made themselves obvious. Barring the odd supporter of unionism rights (as long as they don't don't interfere with the PP rights of the capitalist of course), I have always seen the mostly same arguments.

  6. Non-violence and non-coercion ARE the tactics of anarcho-capitalists, so to say they are without tactics is like saying a Molotov cocktail is the only viable tactic. Capitalism has been defined so many ways through history, as has socialism. Corporatism and statism are the real enemies. To box it into a form like this is absurd.

    One finally realizes that he/she cannot *ever* control the actions of others, and should not try, but should only become an example of peace and cooperation with like-minded individuals. It is only then that he/she becomes an anarchist. Those who seek to control others are, by their very natures, corrupt – whether it be through exploitation, violence, or coercion. Replacing one form of "state" with another is ridiculous. If you feel threatened by coercion, won't you defend yourself? Free-market and mutual respect for autonomy is the only path to voluntary cooperative socialism, and it's evolving one small area at a time. People are getting the message. Change yourself, not others. Coercive collectivism is constraint. Mutualism or bust!!

    1. […]blah blah coercion blah blah collectivism blah. Mutualism or bust!!

      Dude, my comments are not your personal soapbox. Go get your own blog.

    2. Non-violence and non-coercion ARE the tactics of anarcho-capitalists

      No sorry, these are not tactics. They are ethical rules but not tactics. Syndicalism, Mutual Banking and yes, even Agorism are tactics but claiming that those two are is like saying that Pacifism of Utilitarianism is a tactic.

  7. Non-violence and non-coercion ARE the tactics of anarcho-capitalists, so to say they are without tactics is like saying a Molotov cocktail is the only viable tactic. Capitalism has been defined so many ways through history, as has socialism. Corporatism and statism are the real enemies. To box it into a form like this is absurd.

    One finally realizes that he/she cannot *ever* control the actions of others, and should not try, but should only become an example of peace and cooperation with like-minded individuals. It is only then that he/she becomes an anarchist. Those who seek to control others are, by their very natures, corrupt – whether it be through exploitation, violence, or coercion. Replacing one form of "state" with another is ridiculous. If you feel threatened by coercion, won't you defend yourself? Free-market and mutual respect for autonomy is the only path to voluntary cooperative socialism, and it's evolving one small area at a time. People are getting the message. Change yourself, not others. Coercive collectivism is constraint. Mutualism or bust!!

  8. "Dude," I already have one. If you want to broadcast without input, then go work for the media, or turn your comments off. Otherwise, only people like you are clearly the reason 'anarcho-fascists' and 'all-other-anarchists' can't be allies. If you know what's best for me because my revolution is inferior, then by all means, please feel free to impose. I'll continue to govern myself, regardless.

  9. If you want to comment, then say something constructive or engaging. If you're simply going to post propaganda for mutualism or whatever the fuck you're for, I'll keep making fun of you.

    As for revolution, don't make me laugh. The state is going to walk all over your non-aggression and the capitalist bosses are going to wipe their ass with your non-coercion as they allow the invisible hand to bend you over.

  10. I don't completely disagree with what you have to say about the rift. Revolution is the only honorable war. But I can't a wage war on behalf of another person who's not willing to fight because he's complacent, because if there's only a tiny and ineffective margin in a revolution and it chooses to alienate itself from any type of inclusiveness, then it doesn't matter what the ideals are because it has no power. You need numbers before you can fight, or otherwise it doesn't sustain itself and the state just pops back up again. The state is never smashed because the state is human-created. Look at what happened to Crass. They said they believed that with the support they were receiving from the public at the time, it would've caused hundreds of smaller operations to pop up everywhere. To this day, they're the only one, and it was a huge disappointment. Unfortunately, small revolutions are just as bad as no revolution at all.

    1. A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

      –Engels

      1. Classic Authoritarian Marxist twisting of words and concepts in order to excuse their own actions via equivocation.

  11. You can't just forget that our environment and the status of the capitalist system plays a very large role in all the success of our movement. The last 30 years have been fuelled on economic boom after boom combined with neoliberalism which put down the working class to a ridiculous amount. When that didn't work, people were simply bribed with credit and the spoils of imperialism. It's no wonder that things were not going our way. Of course this was unsustainable and we're starting to see the result of this mega-bust right now. So yeah, things weren't going so well for libertarian socialists lately but hopefully, this will change.

    That of course doesn't change the fact that we are not for all or nothing. We take what we can get and we engage in direct action foremost to improve our own lives. It's simply that if enough people do it as well, we'll have us a revolution.

    I'm not however sure what all this has to do with the post above.

    1. You're right, up until now nobody was willing to make concessions in their bullshit 'quality of life' to care. The reason I had mentioned the benefits of mutualism is because that can be a means to a revolution even if it doesn't produce a complete revolution in itself. (Not anarcho-capitalism so much, which doesn't really deal with the possibility of revolution.) It's like a war on two fronts. If mutualism can introduce people to a new way of looking at things, they'll be more willing to question the shit the state or mega-companies are putting before them, and more willing to get their hands dirty when the time comes. Then, when a true revolution comes, you'll be prepared to outnumber the oppressors with like-minded supporters and even if they don't all believe the exact same thing, they'll still be willing to fight against a common enemy. If mutualism is an insidious means to garner support for a larger idea, and if some but not all mutualists understand that, then so be it.

    2. I have to say this is one aspect of the AFAQ that I find… difficult to believe. The way the writers put it, the 60s and 70s had "capitalism on its knees" with people in America ready to stand up and overthrow the class system, workers ready to seize the means of production, etc. Marx predicted that capitalist societies would polarize into rich and poor and then revolution would have to occur or else people would just starve or die. But since starvation seems unlikely in the US, I don't see "revolution" happening there. If your theory about bourgeois nations is right then maybe in 30 or 100 or 500 years, but not today.

      1. Are you sure you're replying to the correct comment?

        Anyway, it's not that Capitalism was on it knees on the 60s and 70s but due to the high employment worker could demand for far more worse as they did not fear getting fired. The events of that period (such as the French near revolution in '68 or the very active unions) are undeniable but this does not mean that the working class was going consciously for a revolution.

        As for the bourgeois nations, the point is not that the US proletariat will rise up, but that the proletariat of other countries will, which will leave the US without any productive capacity since it has it all outsourced now. If this happens, which does not seem so outlandish now that we're in a global capitalist crisis, US is very likely to face starvation along with general chaos. Even capitalist economists (the same ones who predicted accurately the fall of USSR) have started forecasting such events as near as 2012.

        1. This is interesting! I wrote about it recently and its consequence to us. It's happening already. I believe a while back Ethiopia demanded ownership in its production of coffee for Starbucks. Granted, Starbucks folded at the behest of many US supporters under the guise of "fair trade," but I can't help to see it as merely a method of temporary appeasement. I can only imagine what will happen when we have no money, no manufacturing base, and no more countries to supply us with cheap stuff. Talk about a 'wringing-out of excess.'

  12. I'm pretty much in agreement with your here Jamie. I do think mutualism is a wonderful complement to syndicalism, especially when both camps show solidarity to each other.

  14. I visited your site to challenge you to learn about 'contiguous dimensional worlds' and how they show Christian belief and its command to love to be understandable, logical and evidenced in a technical sense. But your site uses vulgarities and slogans indicative of anger and not of reasonable thinking. ''Techie Worlds', available at Amazon.com, explains this concept in detail. But some sites like yours are set up to attack the computers of those who wish to comment, so I will hit delete and shut down my system as quickly as possible.
    GeorgeRic

  15. I have been in many atheist blogs recently, and find in many of them that my computer will not leave them. So as I explained to you, I leave a simple message that anger, foul language, shouting are indicative of people who are NOT involved in logical discussion…. so I crash my computer to keep it from getting virused.
    In such circumstance I can only hint that Techie Worlds (available from Amazon) puts a whole new view and patttern of thinking about the atheist/Christian discussion. Techie Worlds presents a view that explains how God has built the worlds. That view makes it more reasonable to be Christian than for any other world interpretation.
    I hope I did not offend you, but to do my work I need working computer.
    GoergeRic

    1. Ok you're obviously a spammer but I'm wondering now what you gain from this since you don't get any links in your comments. Be aware, I'll be junking anything else as irrelevant you try to post.

  16. Pingback: A Right-Libertarian primer to Libertarian Socialism | A Division by Zer0

  17. ‘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!”

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    1. 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.

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

  22. The funny thing is, these propertarians don't realize that Marxists make the same argument, but with another thing that anarchists oppose: capitalism. Using propertarian logic, we should ally ourselves with Marxist political parties too! We both share the same goal, right?

  23. A lot of other sources tried to explain why anarcho-capitalists and anarchists can’t be allies in terms of “Rothbard said that, while Proudhon said something else…”

    Thanks for putting your explanation in terms of real world actions and effects, I think I get it a lot better now.

  24. One of the reasons solidarity is great, is that it is not permanent, and actually is not intrinsically tied to tactics or ideology really. We choose whom to work with, and can support others as fellow beings, comrades, siblings or even “enemies”, (or all of those things). Just because we wouldn’t support, lets say nazis, as nazis, meaning politically, ethically, etc. Does that mean we should reject them as, community members, or living entities? Even if we do, it helps to recognize that they are living entities like us, and perhaps relate to their own condition. I have always been against “separatism” but been wary of supporting any revolution that will slaughter any group when they become inconvenient or threatening, or no longer useful. I have extended that now in that I support no revolution, but permanent revolution, though I prefer the words insurrection, or liberation. What happens when we step out of our broken cages on leashes of our own construction? Whatever process our movement is to be must function inside and out to both destroy and build, or else we will replicate the imprint of our cages and walls and chains everywhere. Perhaps this is the attraction of “anarcho”-capitalism, a comfortable transition from one set of chains to another, (perhaps fluffy handcuffs and a cell with a view?) Think about this, in prisoner exchanges during early american colonizing, indigenous captives would run to their families, where as “settlers” would have to be tied and forcibly taken. Since our understand of social and psychological systems is relevant mainly to cultural context, things like Stockholm’s syndrome might not exist in other cultures, or rather culture untouched by this civilization. Beyond the assumption that the native life was likely a lot nicer, what if, because of the oppressive nature of our culture, when captive, even in less then healthy circumstances, we become attached to our captors, because they act simply as a “replacement master,” a more obvious oppressor. Perhaps our cultures understanding of family, and society are tainted, if not based in bondage, coercion, oppression and exploitation. Have you ever met a misogynistic anarchist? Or how about an authoritarian anarchist? It’s ok! I mean it’s not really ok, but lets recognize it. In a way anarcho-capitalist and nazi’s are upfront with their hierarchies and rigid oppressive ideas, while many anarchist pretend they have overcome them, thereby empowering and continuing them like zombie-elephant-skeletons in our emotional storage.
    First I will acknowledge its there.
    “Hello”
    Then there is the moment where I must decide whether to kill it and eat its heart or let it live and run free into someone else’s closet or better, back to wherever it belongs.

  25. I dont know about other Ancaps, but i will speak for myself.
    > They are against unions
    No I am not. People should be free to form collectives. Ancaps are not anti-collective. They are against forced collectives. Which is why I dismiss Ancom not on the basis of NAP, but on the bases of economics. Communes are perfectly welcome in a free market. I also think they will provide efficient competition (between competing communes).
    > against expropriation of land and capital by those who work it
    State has allowed cronies to accumulate wealth and land inappropriately. We are both against them. But we see state as the enabler of such a crime. You somehow see private property as the enabler. It is just different perspectives. Although i will point out that a lot of private property we have today is protected by the state. If a private property needs state coercion (financed by taxation) to maintain it doesnt belong to you. But we are against blatantly evicting land owners just because they are against your ideology (thus breaking NAP). Many of these private property owners dont get state help to protect their land. They are good people. But leaving what is “good” in the hands of the collective (majority) is just mob rule. Hence our discontent with collective anarchism.
    > consider Cooperatives “ineffective”
    Cooperatives are a very good way to give competition to the state monopoly. They can also be very effective in a Free Market giving competition to big corporations. But the decision to join a cooperative should be voluntary and personal. It should be a personal business decision. I feel they are effective, others may not. Personal choice is what is important.
    > vehemently oppose all state acts which increase social security (while
    being least hostile to state acts which simply protect private property
    more)
    I am equally hostile to both. I dont consider property protected by tax dollars to be private property but a state sanctioned cronyism.
    Give us some credit. We are ANARCHO-capitalists, why would we want state to ensure property rights.
    > their dismissal of the LTV
    We dismiss LTV, so what? We are not forcing you to not believe in it. We just ask that you let us value what we consider as a value to us. But we will fight any attempt to force LTV concept into our economy by state (which is what happened in communist states, but i know ancoms oppose that too so i will not beat you for it).
    > ethical support for the right to Private Property
    Right? There is no such thing as “rights”. There are only privileges granted to you by the state that they can take away anytime. Which is why I believe that state cant give you any rights but only give you privileges for your compliance.
    A society that does not respect each other’s private property is bound to fail. But we, by no means, want “rights” from the state. We dont want state to exist.

    Now about Libertarian Socialists:
    > They will even be the least hostile on state acts giving more power to the working class
    Most of the time what you get is:
    – Minimum wage which leads to unemployment.
    – Working hours which leads to less productivity -> less pay.
    – Corporate Tax -> which is basically tax on employees. Corporates dont pay taxes they push it down on employees.
    – Forced medical coverage etc -> what you get is one size fit all solution. These forced perks are taken out of wages, i would rather i get all of it as money and decide my own coverage.
    Your supposed “least hostility” (support) does more harm to the working class than any good. State (monopoly of corporates) will never empower the working class (uneducated in economics), there are always hidden costs and “conditions applied”.

    1. Also about state supported unions. We are wary of them, so should you be.
      If state is providing support to the unions, they are expecting something in return. It like making a deal with the devil.
      You cant call yourself Anarchist and support the idea of “State support to unions”. Most of the time we end up with union leaders who impose their will on the workers using state sanctioned coercion.

  26. And lastly, the reason why there isn’t much movement behind AnCaps is because its a younger philosophy than other strands of Anarchism. Agorism is one way to practice it. And if you say it doesnt work, i will point out that Silk Road founder was a Rothbardian and what he was practicing was very much Agorism. I wouldn’t say he failed even though he was caught. There will be many online drug markets that will spring up.

Comments are closed.