This conversation took place around Sept. 7th, 2015
Anarcho-capitalism
is a complete oxymoron. Capitalism creates and requires hierarchy.
Anarchy in incompatible with capitalism. It is common sense.
ANON: No,
Neil, that is not "common sense." As I states before, the only integral
part of anarchism is the belief in the abolition of coercive political
states. That is it. You are simply wrong.
Where
do you get your information from, other than Ancap propaganda? All of
the great Anarchist thinkers and philosophers of history have pointed
out the class struggle that is inherent to capitalism. I recommend
reading them. In our monetary system, those with wealth use it to
exploit and control those who do not have. The state uses direct force
to control and the capitalist uses the desperation of the poor. If you
do not have what you need and someone else has more than they need, they
can control you. Where do you think the state gets its power from
anyway? If they did not hold capital, they would have no ability to
control anyone.
http://www.forbes.com/.../sorry-libertarian-anarchists.../
ANON: You
can believe whatever you want, Neil, but that doesn't change the
definition dof the word. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists because they
want to abolish the state. That is the ONLY criterion for being an
anarchist.
Anarchism
- :a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be
unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary
cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
That in no way precludes a capitalist society. I know you don't LIKE that, but the fact remains.
Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/.../daibhidh-anarcho...
ANON: You're
arguing a dictionary definition with what is in reality a blog post?
Come back and post more when you've rejoined us on Planet Earth.
"Anarchy,
anarchism, anarchist a.s.o. mean coordination on equal footing, without
superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and
co-operation without coercion, ideally or practically. "
This situation of people being on equal footing is not
possible in a competitive monetary system, such as capitalism. I would
also add that the competitive aspect of markets eventually lead towards
monopoly, unless there is a state to protect against monopoly, thus
ironically becoming the monopoly in the process. In short, the state is
the end result of the "free market".
ANON: That
is not what ia means, though. Anarchism means what I copied and pasted
FROM THE DICTIONARY. It does not mean what you want it to mean. It has a
definition whether you like it or not.
Also,
the competitive aspect of markets is exactly what PREVENTS monopoly, by
definition. "Monopoly" means no competition in a market on the sales
end, and "monopsony" means no competition in a market on the purchasing
end. They are impossible when competition exists. You're clueless.
"F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
In a word, no....."
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1
I
would also add that many times when someone cannot see how money
facilitates the haves to lord it over the have-nots (hierarchy), it is
often because they can 'afford' not to notice, so to speak. Those in the
well-to-do classes tend to think that capitalism works just fine, because it is in fact working just fine FOR THEM.
"Privilege:when you don't think something is a problem, because it is not a problem for you."
Do
you not understand that a competitive system by its nature will create
winners and losers? Those who are able to game better than others and
accumulate more wealth? They then use that gained advantage in order to
compete more efficiently and gain more advantage still. I have a hard
time not seeing how obvious this is.
ANON: NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF ANARCHISM. You are flinging shit against the wall.
“In modern capitalism economic exploitation rather than political oppression is the real enemy of the people.”
― Emma Goldman
"Capitalism
can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be
'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to make
it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system
of endless growth. "
-Murry Bookchin
In
"Capitalism", wealth is "earned" most often by the act of owning
"capital". In other words, money is made by having money. In turn, this
money can be used to get other people to work for the owner, helping him
collect even more money (capital). The worker
creates value and the owner takes some portion of that value as rent
for the use of his capital (land, factories, money, etc..) This is not
compatible with freedom, equality or anarchism, in any way.
"All
is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work,
they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all,
and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such
vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of
his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for
All!"
-Peter Kropotkin
ANON: And
he is still wrong. Anarchism, BY DEFINITION, = no state. That is it.
You are wrong. I know that is painful to you, but you are literally
arguing against the dictionary.
You don't get to define words to your benefit.
The dictionary definition does not encompass the rich history of anarchist thought, in this case.
ANON: Because
it doesn't have to. It has to provide an objective definition, not a
hagiography of dead anti-capitalists. It is still the definition, and
you need to accept it.
It
would be foolish to confuse the map (dictionary definition) for the
territory (the overwhelming reality of the Anarchist Movement). I am
willing to accept that you are right about the dictionary definition but
I would also add that it has no authority
over the reality of what anarchism is and what it stands for. It is
true that Anarcho-Capitalists believe in "voluntary" interactions, same
as actual anarchists do. The difference is that Ancaps fail to see how
the monetary system causes another, very real form of coercion that does
not come from the state.
Wealth inequality, (which
every capitalist economist agrees is part of capitalism) breeds its own
kind of coercion. This is the thing about capitalism that every
anarchist recognizes, except Anarcho-capitalists. I think it is because
they hope to someday wear the boot, where as the rest of us want there
to be no boot.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. It may be that
ancaps cannot see the built in coercion of the capitalist system,
because they are rarely poor and because of their privilege, they tend
to only see the oppressors, up the chain of command from themselves, the
state. Ancaps would much rather there be no government regulation, so
that they could exploit those below themselves without interference.
"Muh freedom to profit off of those below me". Jealous that the state
has already filled the position of exploiter at the top.
The
cry for a Libertarian society is a cry for the clock of history to be
reset so that "I" may have the chance to be on top this time. Where as
the cry of the Anarchist is to abolish the top. When there is money,
there will always be the bottom, the top and all of the tiers in
between.
ANON: What
you call "overwhelming reality," I call "the mainstream of a school of
thought." Again, you are conflating two different things.
Very interesting excerpt, insightful on the misunderstanding:
"Part
of the problem is that Marxists, like many academics, also tend to
assert that anarchists are simply against the state. It is significant
that both Marxists and "anarcho"-capitalists tend
to define anarchism as purely opposition to government. This is no
co-incidence, as both seek to exclude anarchism from its place in the
wider socialist movement. This makes perfect sense from the Marxist
perspective as it allows them to present their ideology as the only
serious anti-capitalist one around (not to mention associating anarchism
with "anarcho"-capitalism is an excellent way of discrediting our ideas
in the wider radical movement). It should go without saying that this
is an obvious and serious misrepresentation of the anarchist position as
even a superficial glance at anarchist theory and history shows that no
anarchist limited their critique of society simply at the state. So
while academics and Marxists seem aware of the anarchist opposition to
the state, they usually fail to grasp the anarchist critique applies to
all other authoritarian social institutions and how it fits into the
overall anarchist analysis and struggle. They seem to think the
anarchist condemnation of capitalist private property, patriarchy and so
forth are somehow superfluous additions rather than a logical position
which reflects the core of anarchism"
- See more at: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1...
ANON: How
about citing ONE source that doesn't represent your particular and
narrow definition? Your evidence is that a lot of other people seek to
make your definition dominant. Did you ever stop to think that the
Marxists and ancaps might be right? Also, look at the etymology of the
word.
Great analogy, Neil.
"...the map...terrritory" To me there is so much more to understanding
a concept than a dictionary definition. That I believe is just a
starting point.
Why yes, Alicia-Pilar Mogollon.
Wikipedia can be the same way. It is a very useful place to get a
general idea on a subject, but shouldn't be treated as the 'end-all'
authority. In order to actually understand details, it helps to read
books on the subject, preferably written by anarchists. Or FUCK READING
BOOKS LOL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then there was this one posted in an Anarchist group which has a constant stream of arguments between "Anarcho-Capitalists" and what they call "left-anarchists" or "anarcho communists:
Here is my comment on the picture:
I
am guessing that communists hate capitalism for the same reason that
capitalists hate communism. Neither has ever been able to produce the
absence of hierarchy, coercion or exploitation that each claims to get
rid of. In the end both systems create a
small group owning most of the wealth ad power at the expense of the
labor of the majority. One with empty supermarkets, the other with many
who cannot afford what is in the full supermarkets. In practice, both
systems use money, governments, leaders, armies, violence, laws, and
exploitation of the class hierarchy, regardless of their claimed goals,
rhetoric or theories. I think that is why there is a such thing called
"anarchism" which both lost and failed ideologies of capitalism and
communism could learn from. Anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy and
rule, be it from, kings, troops or the wealthy.
The
communist seems to get half the picture, rejecting rule by the rich,
while failing to see that rule by government is still tyranny. The
capitalist also gets half the picture, realizing the evils of
government, while failing to see the inherent tyranny of money and the
class system. An actual anarchist rejects both kinds of tyranny, rather
than switching back and forth between them depending upon which one is
more comfortable due to personal privilege. In practice, both
communists and capitalists fail to ever achieve their own stated goals
of freedom, not so much because of each other, but because of an
inability to see the inherent tyranny in their own systems.
