3 ms·

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. You can't have an absence of power heirarchy when some people are filthy rich and others are starving to death.

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. You can't have an absence of power heirarchy when some people are filthy rich and others are starving to death. It's called "libertarianism" (and why libertarians try to co-opt the anarcho prefix is beyond me, it's not as if it wins you popularity points). Usually this stems from an arbitrary distinction between oppression of "the government" and oppression by a private party. When you make the (absurd) assumption that oppression can only come from the government, sure, it makes sense. However... well, it's an absurd assumption. At the end of the day, oppression is oppression (and the distinction between government and private enterprise gets awfully fuzzy in the kinds of worlds these so-called "anarcho-capitalists" envision anyway. If the police and the military are corporations, what's the difference?). Libertarians (or "anarcho-capitalists") tend to put themselves in the rich person's shoes, so they glaze over the oppression part. Nobody is oppressing /them/ because in their ideal world they are, of course, filthy rich. They have only considered half of the equation... In short, "It's okay for me to stomp on another's face as long as the government doesn't stomp on mine" is not anarchism in virtually every other sort of serious anarchist's view (and, IMO, is hardly an admirable world view regardless...).

johnnybgoode 17y ago
I take it you're an anarchist? This is what the non-capitalist anarchist criticism of anarcho-capitalism usually sounds like. I'd love to discuss this in detail, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for HN. Let me know if you happen to be interested in discussing this further at some point.
- drobilla 17y ago
  I am. I almost didn't go there because, yes, this isn't really HN material, but you did ask :) We could discuss it further I suppose, but it's somewhat dull well-treaded material IMO. Anything about the definition of anarchism is up for debate of course, but completely un-checked capitalism certainly does not inherently result in a society that fits the criteria. What could possibly be anarchistic about a society full of wage slaves? That's certainly one likely outcome of such a society (note I'm not saying it /would be/ the outcome). Corporations can - and do - coerce every bit as much as the state does, if not more. If you're an anarchist and not a socialist, fine. The term "individualist" works well. It's not the ideas of free markets and commerce, it's the /term/ capitalist. The word itself is pejorative. Anarchism is traditionally a leftist movement that came from the same kind of time and place as communism - "capitalists", the class, are the enemy, and exploit by definition. In the world of political discourse in which anarchism lives, If you call yourself a capitalist, you are essentially saying "I exploit others who actually do work as my source of income". You are NOT saying "I think free economic exchange is a good idea", which is probably what you actually mean to say. If you want to have serious discussion with anarchists, you can't call yourself a capitalist. All you will get is endless tirades about why you are not an anarchist, like this one. You might as well show up at a hard right think tank and call yourself a libertarian-stalinist.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Thanks for the response. As you pointed out, much of the disagreement is over the terms being used. The term "anarcho-capitalism" brings to mind some kind of fascist world ruled by big corporations, and this is not what self-described anarcho-capitalists envision at all. They are opposed to all forms of coercion. Most corporations, if not all, are of course tied to the State in some way. You also hinted at the acceptance of individualist anarchists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but anarchists have no problem with the coexistence of different communities, each with their own flavor of anarchism. The difference between anarcho-"capitalists" and other individualist anarchists is not very large, and is one of degree. Once individualist anarchists are accepted, only semantic issues prevent the acknowledgment of these other anarchists. But I agree with you that it's a big source of confusion for them to call themselves capitalists. It also doesn't help that some of them describe themselves as being right-wingers.

johnnybgoode 17y ago

I take it you're an anarchist? This is what the non-capitalist anarchist criticism of anarcho-capitalism usually sounds like. I'd love to discuss this in detail, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for HN. Let me know if you happen to be interested in discussing this further at some point.

drobilla 17y ago
I am. I almost didn't go there because, yes, this isn't really HN material, but you did ask :) We could discuss it further I suppose, but it's somewhat dull well-treaded material IMO. Anything about the definition of anarchism is up for debate of course, but completely un-checked capitalism certainly does not inherently result in a society that fits the criteria. What could possibly be anarchistic about a society full of wage slaves? That's certainly one likely outcome of such a society (note I'm not saying it /would be/ the outcome). Corporations can - and do - coerce every bit as much as the state does, if not more. If you're an anarchist and not a socialist, fine. The term "individualist" works well. It's not the ideas of free markets and commerce, it's the /term/ capitalist. The word itself is pejorative. Anarchism is traditionally a leftist movement that came from the same kind of time and place as communism - "capitalists", the class, are the enemy, and exploit by definition. In the world of political discourse in which anarchism lives, If you call yourself a capitalist, you are essentially saying "I exploit others who actually do work as my source of income". You are NOT saying "I think free economic exchange is a good idea", which is probably what you actually mean to say. If you want to have serious discussion with anarchists, you can't call yourself a capitalist. All you will get is endless tirades about why you are not an anarchist, like this one. You might as well show up at a hard right think tank and call yourself a libertarian-stalinist.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Thanks for the response. As you pointed out, much of the disagreement is over the terms being used. The term "anarcho-capitalism" brings to mind some kind of fascist world ruled by big corporations, and this is not what self-described anarcho-capitalists envision at all. They are opposed to all forms of coercion. Most corporations, if not all, are of course tied to the State in some way. You also hinted at the acceptance of individualist anarchists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but anarchists have no problem with the coexistence of different communities, each with their own flavor of anarchism. The difference between anarcho-"capitalists" and other individualist anarchists is not very large, and is one of degree. Once individualist anarchists are accepted, only semantic issues prevent the acknowledgment of these other anarchists. But I agree with you that it's a big source of confusion for them to call themselves capitalists. It also doesn't help that some of them describe themselves as being right-wingers.