Horseshoe idea and Petty Differences

[rynoxian]

Hello, new to the forum and I get the feeling I won't get many friends here based on my views, as I am not what many of you would call and anarchist. I consider myself one, as anarchy to me means absence of the state, not absence of coercion, violence, capitalism, etc. Perhaps, emergentism better describes me. But I digress, this post is about the horseshoe idea.

My understanding (and I am by no means an expert) is that Left = Group oriented while Right = individual oriented

From what I've seen/thought about, there is very little difference between left leaning people and right-leaning people in two scenarios. In totalitarian societies, both the Fascists and the Communists seem to comit genocide for the "good of the people." There aren't many differences between totalitarian societies, yet they'll hate eachother simply because they disagree with how to be totalitarian.

I see similar things with anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. A majority of ancaps and ancoms are against enforced authority, and find unreasonable (in my opinion) arguments against eachother. The idea that a stateless society would not accept commonly owned areas or privately owned areas is flawed. Both would likely exist at the same time. The "exploitations" of a corporations would be reduced without a state. For a variety of reasons: 1. No government protection to hurt competators, or ensure an unsuccessful business model continues. and 2. With commonly-owned companies where workers distribute payment evenly, it would be very difficult for a privately-owned corporation to convince people to work for them without seriously increasing worker's wages/working conditions/benefits.

Yet both have their greivences with each other. Ancoms claim that capitalism would simply provide the exploitation of the state using a market and that the poor would not be treated fairly. This could happen. Ancaps claim that anarcho-communists often act authoritarianly. This could happen.

In my opinion, the key to these two scenarios not happening comes in two steps.
1. The idea of being allowed to leave society
2. The idea of pacifism is strongly valued by society

With these two values, the differences between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism becomes almost as petty the differences between Fascism and State Communism.

Just stating a few of my thoughts while trying to push down the barrier between the different factions of anarchists.

[Guest]

My understanding (and I am by no means an expert) is that Left = Group oriented while Right = individual oriented

that's not how i see it. but communism and fascism (left/right) are forms of collectivism, where individuals are subsumed by the state.

when it comes to ancaps, there's a problem. their whole idea revolves around private property (most importantly, land), but their notion of what that really is isnt rooted in reality. there has never, ever, ever, ever, ever been such a thing as private property for the common person; it's always, always, always been the realm of sovereigns, be they kings and queens, communist states, or "democratic republics" (lmfao). anyone researching the title of their "owned" home in, say, california, might notice two things: 1) you don't own shit; you have "title" which means you can charge rent while still being on the hook for tribute to the sovereign (aka taxes) and 2) if you go back far enough, you find that the land was propertized *poof* out of non-propertyhood by a sovereign - specifically the king of spain.

which brings us to the larger point. it really doesnt matter what your politics are or what your vision for the future is; the situation is absolutely, completely hopeless *unless* people of *all* political stripes realize that the planet is being run by a plutocracy which is orchestrating much of what passes for "politics" in the world. unless we unite and overthrow the "men behind the curtain" absolutely nothing will ever change. (yes, i understand that most people have an immediate, incredibly stupid, knee-jerk reaction to what i just said, but it's fucking true anyway...)

[K=x'uksami]

If by horseshoe theory, you mean they converge, I would have to disagree. For one they have their roots in completely different and indeed conflicting traditions. Anarcho-communism arose from the socialist movement, alongside Marxism and other anti-capitalist theories. Anarcho-capitalism developed out of "libertarian" or laissez faire capitalist ideas taken to the extreme. While both reject the state, they do so for very different reasons and advocate very different alternatives to it. In addition, the two have very different ideals and visions of what constitutes a just society. Compare the Nietzschean individualism of Ayn Rand (though not strictly anarcho-capitalist) with the radical socialism of anarchists in the Spanish civil war in the 30s.

My understanding (and I am by no means an expert) is that Left = Group oriented while Right = individual oriented

I think that oversimplifies things and ignores the bigger picture. Plenty of anarchists have defended individual ownership while belonging to the left nonetheless. Proudhon, often considered the first full-fledged anarchist, supported a system of ownership by individuals and coöperative firms. Yet he belongs to the socialist perspective because he opposed capitalism as hierarchical and exploitive. In my opinion, the real difference between left and right lies more in general attitudes toward human nature and ethics. In this case, a lot of it boils down to whether you favor a more equal society (left wing) or consider some form of hierarchy nature and positive (right wing).

[rynoxian]

I understand their roots are in completely different movements. I meant the reality of them would likely converge, but reasons for getting there are different. While the two do differ upon what is or is not "just." As I understand: the basic issue they both agree upon non-aggresssion (to an extant, capitalists might defend property and communist might defend society, just a few examples). Without violence to keep people in line, both capitalism and communism would likely coexist, and be changed by eachother to something more or less the same.

For example: A communist society that uses labor cards is just another form of trading.
Communist societies that don't have enough resources to be self-sufficiant/want products they can't produce, will NEED to trade in one way or another. Most ancaps I've seen would consider any form of trading: capitalism.

In a capitalist society, nothing would stop collectively owned firms from being created. If the business split the profits evenly among all workers, it would be easy to imagine that working for that firm would provide a higher pay. In order to attract workers, the private firm would likely have to match if not raise the wage of it's workers, to the cost of the executive.

Honestly, and it might just be me, but if the world filled with nothing but ancaps and ancoms, and there were no state, I don't think society would look too different between the two types of settlements. Whether it's everyone working together willingly, or everyone working together for their own self-interest. There might be a few differences, I imagine the quality of life for an ancap society will be somewhat hierarchical (but not nearly as much as it is today, and it would be easier to switch social classes), and would focus a lot on service and technology. I imagine an ancom society to be a bit more agricultural/industry based and social classes would be purely based on how respected a person is. Just my bit of thinking. And I am by no means a prophet (nor an expert on anarcho-communism ).

[K=x'uksami]

For example: A communist society that uses labor cards is just another form of trading.
Communist societies that don't have enough resources to be self-sufficiant/want products they can't produce, will NEED to trade in one way or another. Most ancaps I've seen would consider any form of trading: capitalism.

Then you're getting into differences of word usage. Most anarcho-communists and other socialists would reject the claim that any form of trade or market equals capitalism. Instead they argue that essence of capitalism lies in wage labor and the power difference between worker and capitalist. In fact a great many socialists have considered the market perfectly compatible with socialism. Proudhon, one of the originators of anarchism, wrote a famous critique of capitalism while nonetheless supporting the market. For that matter, a lot of people claimed by anarcho-capitalists, like Benjamin Tucker, actually criticized capitalism along very similar lines.

I think your larger point, though, about capitalism and communism blurring together, may have something to it. Someone in another thread argued that pure anarchy (and presumably communism as well) is impossible because categories in real life are porous and ambiguous. By that standard, even the most ardently socialist commune will have some level of trade and commodity production at some level. Just as any avowedly capitalist society today still has public spaces maintained through taxation and so forth.