9 ms·

I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated argu

by ethana 13y ago

I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.

collyw 13y ago
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Thanks. Anarchists need to come together to champion the real political spectrum we all care about; authoritarianism versus libertarianism. I think many anarchists get caught up in high level theory when really, the best thing we could do would be to organize and communicate towards common goals.
  - rmchugh 13y ago
    if you think etymology is more important than the historical tradition, then anarchism might as well be anarcho-capitalism, Stirnerism, Zen Buddhism or whatever else you can imagine. If you want to define anarchism as a political tradition, than it cannot be anything other than a libertarian current within the greater workers' movement that reached its peak together with syndicalism in the early part of the 20th century. http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-revolutionary-class-politics-of-anarchism-and-syndicalism-%E2%80%94-book-excerpt/ http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-r...
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Individualist anarchism is still anti-capitalist.
  - collyw 13y ago
    http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secF1.html http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secF1.html "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition
    - mike_esspe 13y ago
      So his claim is that anarchism = absence of government + no rent and profit. It's not a common definition nowadays. By the way anarcho-capitalism is compatible top down with other form of more strict anarchism. You can make a voluntary anarcho-communistic society inside anarcho-capitalistic society.
tokenizer 13y ago
Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?), and then proceed to debate the finer points of collectivism versus individualism (right and left). Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on. That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk. This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be impossible because of the golden mean...
- seabee 13y ago
  > authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?) Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    But still a thousand times better than the traditional left right divide that most of the populace stops learning at.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cotton?!" - the correct answer is: "who fucking cares? Slavery is immoral and needs to stop." Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.
ravingraven 13y ago
Allow me to disagree. Therms and ideologies do not only describe what someone works towards but also how he does so. In the case of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism both are very different. A striking difference is how each one of those ideologies views open markets. Quoting from the wikipedia article on anarcho-communism:
- icebraining 13y ago
  You lost the quote ;)
aluhut 13y ago
If humanity could understand Anarchism, it would allow all those guys to live in their own utopias. But well..it seems it is easier to fight about stuff that is so far away from the main and basic points that it all seems like just another invention of the financial system to control through endless diversity. "Controlled Chaos". I would love to hear R.A.Wilson on this. The "anarchist anarchists" I know concentrate on education, patience and gathering&storage of information. Many of them decided that it needs to get a lot worse before relevant masses of people become so desperate that they will accept such a different way to think. They belive in a "true anarchist revolution" because it would not devour its own children but allow them to play their games as long as they like and let them stop or leave when they have enough.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Anarchists are not confused. "Anarcho"-capitalists are just not anarchists. Anarchism is anti-property, anti-capitalist, and anti-state. If your proposal is to replace the rule of the state with a purified rule of property and capital, you are not an anarchist.
- polshaw 13y ago
  Anarchism is against private property, not personal property. It has no issue owning your own house, car, laptop, etc etc. That is yours and does not belong to the state, or 'everyone', or anyone else. It just does not want rent seeking; owning other peoples' homes and means of production, or hoarding otherwise (eg owning vast tracts of land you do not use). So for example a factory should be owned by it's workers.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    True true! I've mostly just heard it phrased with your personal stuff as "possessions" versus rentiering as "property".
  - jaekwon 13y ago
    As I understand it, anarcho-socialism is against private (and especially corporate) "property" enforced by a state government in favor of personal "property". What "property" means in anarcho-socialism is still muddy to me. Anarco-capitalism is for "property" if you can defend it, even if it is more than say what a typical person needs for a normal life. Anarco-capitalism would also be for "property" owned by distributed-autonomous-corporations. The only thing that can be ascribed to Anarchism, is the dethronement of a central "state". What you described is Anarcho-socialism.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  Anarchism is anti-state. Anarcho-socialism is also anti-property, given some muddy definition of property. Your statement is typical from anarcho-socialists who want to squat on the word "anarchism" while failing to define what property should be granted to an individual (call it possession if you wish), how to reach consensus about it, how to enforce it without a higher authority, and what to do about the higher authority that naturally arises in such a state of chaos. At least anarcho-capitalists have an out when it comes to defining property... it's whatever you can afford to defend, probably through third parties that offer defense as as contract. I'll keep saying this until I'm convinced otherwise: What is needed is something between anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism that both sides can agree upon, but such a thing cannot happen unless everybody looks further into the future, understanding that there are aspects of humanity & private trade that are both needed for us to prosper. Squatting on the word "Anarchism" or calling one side or the other confused doesn't help either cause. They're both two ends of a spectrum and the reason why we have the spread is because we don't understand how to bridge the gap, or we don't yet understand that neither end points alone will go very far.

by ethana 13y ago

collyw 13y ago

anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.

mike_esspe 13y ago
If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Thanks. Anarchists need to come together to champion the real political spectrum we all care about; authoritarianism versus libertarianism. I think many anarchists get caught up in high level theory when really, the best thing we could do would be to organize and communicate towards common goals.
- rmchugh 13y ago
  if you think etymology is more important than the historical tradition, then anarchism might as well be anarcho-capitalism, Stirnerism, Zen Buddhism or whatever else you can imagine. If you want to define anarchism as a political tradition, than it cannot be anything other than a libertarian current within the greater workers' movement that reached its peak together with syndicalism in the early part of the 20th century. http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-revolutionary-class-politics-of-anarchism-and-syndicalism-%E2%80%94-book-excerpt/ http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/black-flame-the-r...
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Individualist anarchism is still anti-capitalist.
- collyw 13y ago
  http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secF1.html http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secF1.html "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition
  - mike_esspe 13y ago
    So his claim is that anarchism = absence of government + no rent and profit. It's not a common definition nowadays. By the way anarcho-capitalism is compatible top down with other form of more strict anarchism. You can make a voluntary anarcho-communistic society inside anarcho-capitalistic society.

tokenizer 13y ago

Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?), and then proceed to debate the finer points of collectivism versus individualism (right and left). Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on. That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk. This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be impossible because of the golden mean...

seabee 13y ago
> authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?) Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
- tokenizer 13y ago
  But still a thousand times better than the traditional left right divide that most of the populace stops learning at.
anoncowherd 13y ago
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cotton?!" - the correct answer is: "who fucking cares? Slavery is immoral and needs to stop." Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.

ravingraven 13y ago

Allow me to disagree. Therms and ideologies do not only describe what someone works towards but also how he does so. In the case of anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism both are very different. A striking difference is how each one of those ideologies views open markets. Quoting from the wikipedia article on anarcho-communism:

icebraining 13y ago
You lost the quote ;)

aluhut 13y ago

If humanity could understand Anarchism, it would allow all those guys to live in their own utopias. But well..it seems it is easier to fight about stuff that is so far away from the main and basic points that it all seems like just another invention of the financial system to control through endless diversity. "Controlled Chaos". I would love to hear R.A.Wilson on this. The "anarchist anarchists" I know concentrate on education, patience and gathering&storage of information. Many of them decided that it needs to get a lot worse before relevant masses of people become so desperate that they will accept such a different way to think. They belive in a "true anarchist revolution" because it would not devour its own children but allow them to play their games as long as they like and let them stop or leave when they have enough.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Anarchists are not confused. "Anarcho"-capitalists are just not anarchists. Anarchism is anti-property, anti-capitalist, and anti-state. If your proposal is to replace the rule of the state with a purified rule of property and capital, you are not an anarchist.

polshaw 13y ago
Anarchism is against private property, not personal property. It has no issue owning your own house, car, laptop, etc etc. That is yours and does not belong to the state, or 'everyone', or anyone else. It just does not want rent seeking; owning other peoples' homes and means of production, or hoarding otherwise (eg owning vast tracts of land you do not use). So for example a factory should be owned by it's workers.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  True true! I've mostly just heard it phrased with your personal stuff as "possessions" versus rentiering as "property".
- jaekwon 13y ago
  As I understand it, anarcho-socialism is against private (and especially corporate) "property" enforced by a state government in favor of personal "property". What "property" means in anarcho-socialism is still muddy to me. Anarco-capitalism is for "property" if you can defend it, even if it is more than say what a typical person needs for a normal life. Anarco-capitalism would also be for "property" owned by distributed-autonomous-corporations. The only thing that can be ascribed to Anarchism, is the dethronement of a central "state". What you described is Anarcho-socialism.
jaekwon 13y ago
Anarchism is anti-state. Anarcho-socialism is also anti-property, given some muddy definition of property. Your statement is typical from anarcho-socialists who want to squat on the word "anarchism" while failing to define what property should be granted to an individual (call it possession if you wish), how to reach consensus about it, how to enforce it without a higher authority, and what to do about the higher authority that naturally arises in such a state of chaos. At least anarcho-capitalists have an out when it comes to defining property... it's whatever you can afford to defend, probably through third parties that offer defense as as contract. I'll keep saying this until I'm convinced otherwise: What is needed is something between anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism that both sides can agree upon, but such a thing cannot happen unless everybody looks further into the future, understanding that there are aspects of humanity & private trade that are both needed for us to prosper. Squatting on the word "Anarchism" or calling one side or the other confused doesn't help either cause. They're both two ends of a spectrum and the reason why we have the spread is because we don't understand how to bridge the gap, or we don't yet understand that neither end points alone will go very far.