Crap Anarchism

[i used to lurk]

Just so everyone knows where I’m coming from, I’m an anarchist more or less of the mutualist variety.

My view of egotist anarchists is that they are want-a-be thugs looking for an excuse to be thuggish. I say want-a-be thugs because real thugs don’t need an excuse they just do.

My view of anarcho-capitalists is that they fantasize about being the next captains of industry while blaming society for their lack of success. They are destine to a life of menial work.

[|Y|]

Some of them are intelligent and do indeed have a higher status on the economic capitalist ladder, though. And it may be for that reason why they ascribe so fully to the ideas of the theory.

Unfortunately most are in the Ayn Rand Objectivist camp more than anything else, which is where their annoying behavior really derives.

If I believed in monetary exchange I would probably be a mutualist or (Tuckerian) individualist, lord knows during my stint at Anti-state.com I spent most of my time defending Tucker's stuff.

[Selkie]

I agree, there are some intellectual ancaps I've been seeing on forums but they seem to me to basically just want more capitalism and less economic control (ie money has more power, yuck), but of course I could be wrong...

[Zazaban]

My view of egotist anarchists is that they are want-a-be thugs looking for an excuse to be thuggish. I say want-a-be thugs because real thugs don’t need an excuse they just do.

I can vouch for that not being true.

[AndyMalroes]

I don't think this should even be under criticisms on anarchy as anarcho-capitalism is not anarchistic at all and they deserve a good kick in the arse for such a stupid idea.

[Yarrow]

who cares how crap you think their theories are? i bet we could pick enough holes in yours to pass traffic. or mine, for that matter. anarchy needs some intensive work. any thoughts?

[ambi]

anarchy needs some intensive work. any thoughts?

duuuude... vegan potluck?

[Francois Tremblay]

This is exactly why I remained a capitalist for so long- because Anarchists like you seem hell-bent on alienating people. If you all tried to communicate the worldview of Anarchism more persuasively, deconstruct the "ideal capitalism" presented by the Objectivists and the Miseans, instead of ranting against capitalists, you'd get a lot more people listening to you.

Swearing at people that they are not "real" anything will only make them hate you, like I hated Anarchists.

[Zazaban]

I don't think this should even be under criticisms on anarchy as anarcho-capitalism is not anarchistic at all and they deserve a good kick in the arse for such a stupid idea.

Egoist anarchism has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism whatsoever.

[Yarrow]

who are you talking about franco?

he raises an interesting point tho- if a certain 'team'/ideology is unappealing to you, will you stay with the lesser evil? what does it take for someone to strike out on their own?

as for the thug thing, many anarchists are male. males have a tendency to be more aggressive than la femme, and personally i agree with standing up for your beliefs. you can tell me violence is wrong, then you can eat your carrots. if you see my meaning.

[Francois Tremblay]

"you can tell me violence is wrong, then you can eat your carrots. if you see my meaning"

I have no idea what that means. Are you implying that violence is NOT wrong?

My only point is that I think it is obvious that if a group of people treat you generally like shit, you're not gonna be interested in joining them. And this is a rational thing to do: when people treat you like shit, they don't give you the information you need to understand and agree with their position. So why join them on the basis of incomplete information?

[Yarrow]

violence is not wrong, it is a natural act. i guess would would not call the effects of a supernova on its surroundings violence, but what about a lion eating an antelope? every carrot you've seen is most likely alive, awaiting the spring so it can start growing again. is it violent to eat it? your answer could make you a fruitarian (only eating the ready and available foods) or it could make you realise that violence, even killing, is an act that has created our soil, our ecosystems and our evolution.

altho, your point about groups makes me laugh when i think about skinheads. they've got quite a good recruiting mechanism, AND they've offensive to people outside of their strata. it works because of a belief (or stance) that they want to help, and an intimidatory attitude.

[Francois Tremblay]

"violence is not wrong, it is a natural act. i guess would would not call the effects of a supernova on its surroundings violence, but what about a lion eating an antelope? every carrot you've seen is most likely alive, awaiting the spring so it can start growing again. is it violent to eat it? your answer could make you a fruitarian (only eating the ready and available foods) or it could make you realise that violence, even killing, is an act that has created our soil, our ecosystems and our evolution."

There is a difference in kind between a lion eating an antelope, a man eating a carrot, and a man shooting another. In the first case, we're talking about a mostly deterministic being following evolutionary imperatives. In the second case, we're talking about a human being harvesting a resource (i.e. something that is not a social agent). In the third case, we're talking about a human being freely, consciously and deliberately using coercion on another human being.

Men shooting each other, waging war, genocide, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, policemen beating up pregnant women, skinheads killing a black man, are not representatives of "an act that has created our soil, our ecosystems and our evolution." They are not "natural acts." They are not endemic to human organization or encoded in our genes.


"altho, your point about groups makes me laugh when i think about skinheads. they've got quite a good recruiting mechanism, AND they've offensive to people outside of their strata. it works because of a belief (or stance) that they want to help, and an intimidatory attitude."

And you think this is a productive attitude for Anarchist groups to adopt? To recruit people on the basis of intimidation? Seriously?

[Yarrow]

i think most all social measures that can be applied to humans work as well for other animals. we can be spiteful, manipulative, two faced. if war is not a product of nature, from whence did it spring?

and my point about the boneheads refers to this:

I think it is obvious that if a group of people treat you generally like shit, you're not gonna be interested in joining them. And this is a rational thing to do: when people treat you like shit, they don't give you the information you need to understand and agree with their position. So why join them on the basis of incomplete information?

i don't agree with the ethics of their tactic, but i cannot deny it's efficiency. or rather, its convenience.

[Francois Tremblay]

War is a product of the thirst for power that comes with government coercion, not of human nature. For one thing, you can't finance war without a monopoly on force, whether it's tribal or national. It's a purely artificial construct.