Different forms of anarchy

[Nate K]

For what reason are there different variations of anarchism if none of them involve government? Most political philosophies revolve around what the role of government is, but what is the purpose of different versions of a philosophy if none of them involve government? Are they all just "suggestions"?

For instance, what's the difference between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists.. the REAL difference? In the absence of the state, there is noone to force you to do anything, therefore what is the purpose of these branching philosophies?

[Conza88]

For what reason are there different variations of anarchism if none of them involve government? Most political philosophies revolve around what the role of government is, but what is the purpose of different versions of a philosophy if none of them involve government? Are they all just "suggestions"?

For instance, what's the difference between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists.. the REAL difference? In the absence of the state, there is noone to force you to do anything, therefore what is the purpose of these branching philosophies?

The difference between anarcho-CAPITALISM and anarcho-COMMUNISM (socialism) is remarkable.

Anarcho-Commune (ism) think... tribes; like the aboriginals, or amazon tribes..

No state + no private property. They remained that way; living in the dirt, nomading - for 40,000 years..

Why innovate when you have no ownership of the device, no possibly incentive or profit?

Anarcho-CAPITALISM.. :)

No state or government intervention... nothing to hamper the free market. There is respect for private property rights... free market in money, defence, education.. :eek: everything...

Civilization is built on the foundation of private property. Those that want to abolish private property - unknowingly want to regress civilization..

Massive difference..

[Nate K]

so what would happen if we suddenly had anarchy and there would obviously be capitalists and communists, it's not like everyone would think the same.. some would respect property, others wouldn't.

How would that play out?

[BuddyRey]

Anarcho-Collectivism isn't really Anarchism at all, as many schools of it call for coerced collectivization, meaning there has to be a government involved, meaning the entire Anarchy concept gets thrown out entirely.

Many Anarcho-Collectivist theorists have interesting things to say, and intriguing concepts to explore, but to me, it seems like a total cop-out "Anarchism-lite", which very often leads to even more tyrannical governments than existed before the various overthrows in the countries in which they have occured. Collectivistic Anarchism, in my mind at least, is a completely inconsistent and oxymoronic concept.

Voluntary collectivism is another story all together. Voluntary Anarcho-Collectivism can exist inside of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, but not the other way around.

[Nate K]

Anarcho-Collectivism isn't really Anarchism at all, as many schools of it call for coerced collectivization, meaning there has to be a government involved, meaning the entire Anarchy concept gets thrown out entirely.

Many Anarcho-Collectivist theorists have interesting things to say, and intriguing concepts to explore, but to me, it seems like a total cop-out "Anarchism-lite", which very often leads to even more tyrannical governments than existed before the various overthrows in the countries in which they have occured. Collectivistic Anarchism, in my mind at least, is a completely inconsistent and oxymoronic concept.

Voluntary collectivism is another story all together. Voluntary Anarcho-Collectivism can exist inside of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, but not the other way around.

that's what i figured, i don't understand why the voluntary collectivists don't seem to get that.

[Conza88]

so what would happen if we suddenly had anarchy and there would obviously be capitalists and communists, it's not like everyone would think the same.. some would respect property, others wouldn't.

How would that play out?

Well, you kind of have to ask - how would anarchy have been achieved? No state or government has ever given up its power voluntary..

This may help you out...

The Anarchists - Robert LeFevre (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/143.mp3)

The Communists - Robert LeFevre (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/145.mp3)

Anarchists make the mistake of thinking that people will give up their private property once the state is gone... they believe capitalism is heirachical and that it is a "ruler".

Anarchists don't believe anarcho-capitalism exists; i.e it is an oxymoron.

Traditionally anarchists are socialists... they believe the state is founded to protect private property (which it was)... they thus see the existence of the state, and all this "evil" and "wrongs" in the world. They believe it is because the state exists.

Communists pretty much take the same line.. they will try take it by force though.

[krazy kaju]

Free market anarchists are ultimately the only real anarchists, because they're the only ones who believe in the complete abolition of coercion, and therefore, the complete abolition of any kind of political entity/government.

Anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communists, and others still believe in some method of political organization, usually via worker-operated businesses. They also envision that these political organizations would outlaw the use of private property as capital and completely abolish money (both ridiculous ideas).

[Nate K]

thanks conza


Free market anarchists are ultimately the only real anarchists, because they're the only ones who believe in the complete abolition of coercion, and therefore, the complete abolition of any kind of political entity/government.

Anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communists, and others still believe in some method of political organization, usually via worker-operated businesses. They also envision that these political organizations would outlaw the use of private property as capital and completely abolish money (both ridiculous ideas).

so you could say ancaps are "principled anarchists"?

[krazy kaju]

so you could say ancaps are "principled anarchists"?

Yes, because anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism are the only forms of anarchism that truly have "no rulers." Advocating anarchy and advocating some form of political organization is contradictory and a sign of serious cognitive dissonance, IMO. You can't say that you believe that private ownership of the means of production should be banned AND that there should be no government or that money should be illegal AND that there should be no government.

[Nate K]

Yes, because anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism are the only forms of anarchism that truly have "no rulers." Advocating anarchy and advocating some form of political organization is contradictory and a sign of serious cognitive dissonance, IMO. You can't say that you believe that private ownership of the means of production should be banned AND that there should be no government or that money should be illegal AND that there should be no government.

makes sense to me, some of the guys on politicalcrossfire.com oughtta read that.

[Conza88]

makes sense to me, some of the guys on politicalcrossfire.com oughtta read that.

lol.... they it comes down to the oldschool anarchists (traditionally socialist) not being able to get over the fact that businesses are not and cannot be coercive...

They are socialists, who think they've figured it out.. but they really have no idea.

Both groups think they are the only "real" anarchists..

I came from the other side pretty much.. there is a right and wrong. They fail... :)

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

This is why I'm hesitant to call myself an anarchist. The scene is marred by handwringing leftists who've been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine, and seem to believe that a free society would allow you to get something for nothing. One person even tried telling me that anarchy means free education and healthcare. Oook.

Sadly, the majority of left-wing anarchists seem to just be Maoists, who would happily drag people who happen to have more money and education than they do into the streets, beat them to death, and then claim they've liberated themselves.

[krazy kaju]

makes sense to me, some of the guys on politicalcrossfire.com oughtta read that.

I know what you mean. I'm tired of the "capitalists are really rulers" argument I get all the time from anarcho-syndicalists. Since when is voluntary association being ruled? :confused:

[Nate K]

This is why I'm hesitant to call myself an anarchist. The scene is marred by handwringing leftists who've been listening to too much Rage Against The Machine, and seem to believe that a free society would allow you to get something for nothing. One person even tried telling me that anarchy means free education and healthcare. Oook.

Sadly, the majority of left-wing anarchists seem to just be Maoists, who would happily drag people who happen to have more money and education than they do into the streets, beat them to death, and then claim they've liberated themselves.

amen

[Conza88]

That was a great summation Kaju :)

I'm fairly tired of it, but I haven't experienced it too much... What would be the usual things brought up? And what'd be the best rebuttals against it.. I guess if you have any "previous examples of you vs someone" that'd be awesome.. if not, oh well :)

[krazy kaju]

That was a great summation Kaju :)

I'm fairly tired of it, but I haven't experienced it too much... What would be the usual things brought up? And what'd be the best rebuttals against it.. I guess if you have any "previous examples of you vs someone" that'd be awesome.. if not, oh well :)

I've debated people on numerous forums before, but I don't have any of the conversations saved. Left wing anarchists (with the exception of some mutualists) will always argue that the capitalist-worker relationship is a ruler-ruled relationship. This is just wrong. It is not difficult for a worker to become a capitalist himself. All one has to do is buy some measly stock, which might cost $2 (if you're buying Ford, that is). Or you can work, rent a cheap place to live, and make cheap things and sell them online (people do that all the time). The leftist claim of wage slavery can only be true if it is truly impossible to become a capitalist in some form if you're a wage earner. This is false.

A somewhat easier refutation is just to say that selling your labor doesn't really make you exploited. It is at all times a purely voluntary association. There is nothing stopping you from moving away and homesteading some abandoned land.

In either case, the preposterous notion that money and private ownership of capital need to be abolished is, well... preposterous. Doing so requires force/coercion and a political organization just like the state. This also clearly violates the natural rights of human beings. If humans own themselves, then they own their labor. If humans own their labor, then anything they mix their labor with is owned by them, unless they contract out their labor. This is an entirely valid and sound argument. One would have to deny one's own self ownership to deny this argument.

Also, you might want to use basic utilitarian arguments about ancap vs. anarchocommunism and whatnot. Like, "private ownership of the means of production and the existence of money would be necessary for an efficient economy able of allocating resources to meet the needs of people." You know, the basic Misesian anti-socialist argument. Then point out how free market anarchism would benefit everyone, including the poor.