A different anarchist FAQ

[shawnpwilbur]

Seriously, though, you've been rampaging around, mostly sowing confusion and increasing misunderstandings between market and non-market anarchists, and it's become clear you don't have much of any clue what you're talking about.

On the things that matter to me most, I know exactly what I'm talking about. The squabbles between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists don't concern me too much.

Well, Howard, you have demonstrated that you don't know much about the issues that you are attempting to confront us with. Based on your own criteria, for example, it seems clear that none of the actual anarchist thinkers or traditions "concern you too much."

Why would your comments or "agreement" matter, when you so clearly are not really even in the conversation?

[Howard509]

Well, Howard, you have demonstrated that you don't know much about the issues that you are attempting to confront us with. Based on your own criteria, for example, it seems clear that none of the actual anarchist thinkers or traditions "concern you too much."

On the issues that matter most, in opposing the state as institutional violence, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists agree. It's unfortunate when they cannot see this, and turn against each other rather than their common enemy, the state.

[shawnpwilbur]

Well, Howard, you have demonstrated that you don't know much about the issues that you are attempting to confront us with. Based on your own criteria, for example, it seems clear that none of the actual anarchist thinkers or traditions "concern you too much."

On the issues that matter most, in opposing the state as institutional violence, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists agree. It's unfortunate when they cannot see this, and turn against each other rather than their common enemy, the state.

Well, we are certainly fortunate to have you here to assert that so boldly. It would be more convincing, I imagine, if your sense of our agreement was based on some more serious knowledge of our beliefs. The various schools certainly could agree, I'm sure. But wishing will not make it so. And you don't actually seem very interested in working towards understanding across schools.

A Unity Troll is a strange beast, but not, apparently, an impossible one...

[Guest]

On the issues that matter most, in opposing the state as institutional violence, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists agree.

The capitalist state is run by capitalists. Tear it down without simultaneously tearing them down, and another one will pop up, and we'll be playing whack-a-mole for eternity.

It's unfortunate when they cannot see this, and turn against each other rather than their common enemy, the state.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bullshit phrase. The enemy of my enemy might be my enemy as well. And in this case, he is. I really don't understand how you expect anarchists to fight alongside capitalists, who are their eternal enemies. Just because there's a faction of capitalists who oppose the current state and wish to privatize it doesn't make them allies of anarchists.

[Howard509]

It would be more convincing, I imagine, if your sense of our agreement was based on some more serious knowledge of our beliefs.

It's unfortunate that you don't find that it's from a serious knowledge of anarchist beliefs. The factionalism between market anarchists and social anarchists is an unfortunate obstacle to anarchism having any real impact on society as a movement.

Capitalism in the sense of wealth accumulation as a result of oppressive and exploitative wage slavery must be abandoned. The enormous differences between the wealthy and the poor do not only cause tensions in society or personal harm to those exploited, but is essentially unjust. Most, if not all, property of today is generated and amassed through the use of force. This cannot be accepted, and no anarchists accept this state of inequality and injustice.
As a matter of fact, anarcho-capitalists share this view with other anarchists. Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.” [3] The starting point of Rothbard’s argumentation is every man’s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors. Even the statist capitalist libertarian Robert Nozick claimed contemporary property was unjustly accrued and that a free society, to him a “minimalist state,” needs to make up with this injustice. [4]
Thus it seems anarcho-capitalists agree with Proudhon in that “property is theft,” where it is acquired in an illegitimate manner. But they also agree with Proudhon in that “property is liberty” [5] in the sense that without property, i.e. being robbed of the fruits of one’s actions, one is a slave. Anarcho-capitalists thus advocate the freedom of a stateless society, where each individual has the sovereign right to his body and labor and through this right can pursue his or her own definition of happiness.
As we can see, the exploitative, force- and rule-based system of capitalism is not championed by any anarchists, not even the anarcho-capitalists. The critique directed from the leftist camps of anarchism towards anarcho-capitalism is therefore misplaced, inaccurate and rather ignorant. To refute the ideas and values of a philosophical movement one will have to use their definitions, or the critique will be virtually worthless.
http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anar ... talism.htm

[Guest]

Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.”

He made a lot of grand declarations based on nonsense, yes.

[Howard509]

Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.”

He made a lot of grand declarations based on nonsense, yes.

Yes, thank you very much for ignoring the common agreement of market anarchists and social anarchists on the issues that matter most.

[shawnpwilbur]

It would be more convincing, I imagine, if your sense of our agreement was based on some more serious knowledge of our beliefs.

It's unfortunate that you don't find that it's from a serious knowledge of anarchist beliefs. The factionalism between market anarchists and social anarchists is an unfortunate obstacle to anarchism having any real impact on society as a movement.

Howard, I hate to have to put it this way, but... noting that you are trolling and muddying the waters does not indicate any lack of concern over anarchist unity on my part. You are not reducing factionalism by mechanically posting material that you don't even understand, and then telling people what you think they believe about it (or resorting to lame comments about "jealousy.")

Solid history and theory, addressed in open discussion, will help with anarchist unity, and clear goals and well-planned activism will determine the movement's impact.

[Guest]

Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.”

He made a lot of grand declarations based on nonsense, yes.

Yes, thank you very much for ignoring the common agreement of market anarchists and social anarchists on the issues that matter most.

What common agreement? I don't agree to nonsense. "Natural rights" are nonsense; wishful thinking; ad hocism.

Let me explain to you how the mind of a "natural rights theorist" operates: He begins with a conception of the world as he wants it to be. He suspends that Utopian Ideal from a skyhook, then hastily cobbles together a ramshackle scaffolding down to the ground. Where he ultimately meets the ground is of little concern to him, as long as he can point to an apparent connection to reality when arguing for his Utopian Ideal.

What he should do, is build a crane, from the ground up, starting with a solid foundation in reality. He can have a vague ideal in mind, and seek to build his crane in a shape that will reach it; but if that's not possible, given the conditions of reality, then he should be satisfied if he can end up somewhere near his ideal.

Those of us who live in reality, and accept that rights are social constructs, build cranes, not skyhooks. We accept that we may never reach Utopia, and we're not willing to abandon reality to delude ourselves (or others) into believing that Utopia is realizable.

[Noleaders]

Capitalism in the sense of wealth accumulation as a result of oppressive and exploitative wage slavery must be abandoned. The enormous differences between the wealthy and the poor do not only cause tensions in society or personal harm to those exploited, but is essentially unjust. Most, if not all, property of today is generated and amassed through the use of force. This cannot be accepted, and no anarchists accept this state of inequality and injustice.
As a matter of fact, anarcho-capitalists share this view with other anarchists. Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot of time and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of “natural rights.” [3] The starting point of Rothbard’s argumentation is every man’s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors. Even the statist capitalist libertarian Robert Nozick claimed contemporary property was unjustly accrued and that a free society, to him a “minimalist state,” needs to make up with this injustice. [4]
Thus it seems anarcho-capitalists agree with Proudhon in that “property is theft,” where it is acquired in an illegitimate manner. But they also agree with Proudhon in that “property is liberty” [5] in the sense that without property, i.e. being robbed of the fruits of one’s actions, one is a slave. Anarcho-capitalists thus advocate the freedom of a stateless society, where each individual has the sovereign right to his body and labor and through this right can pursue his or her own definition of happiness.
As we can see, the exploitative, force- and rule-based system of capitalism is not championed by any anarchists, not even the anarcho-capitalists. The critique directed from the leftist camps of anarchism towards anarcho-capitalism is therefore misplaced, inaccurate and rather ignorant. To refute the ideas and values of a philosophical movement one will have to use their definitions, or the critique will be virtually worthless.
http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anar ... talism.htm

Thats a pretty rare brand of anarcho-capitalist though you have to admit.

[Howard509]

What common agreement?

Social anarchists and market anarchists agree that the state is an institution of coercion and violence that must be abolished for society to be moral and for man to be free. Is this not enough?

[Howard509]

Thats a pretty rare brand of anarcho-capitalist though you have to admit.

Please elaborate.

Murray Rothbard: Anti-Capitalist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0

[Noleaders]

Thats a pretty rare brand of anarcho-capitalist though you have to admit.

Please elaborate.

Murray Rothbard: Anti-Capitalist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0

What do you mean elaborate, what more is there to say? The sort of person who believes workers and consumers are exploited in todays world very rarely call themselves capitalist, thats almost a tautology.

[Howard509]

Thats a pretty rare brand of anarcho-capitalist though you have to admit.

Please elaborate.

Murray Rothbard: Anti-Capitalist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0

What do you mean elaborate, what more is there to say? The sort of person who believes workers and consumers are exploited in todays world very rarely call themselves capitalist, thats almost a tautology.

There is a difference between "capitalism," as the term is commonly understood and anarcho-capitalism.

[Noleaders]

Please elaborate.

Murray Rothbard: Anti-Capitalist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0

What do you mean elaborate, what more is there to say? The sort of person who believes workers and consumers are exploited in todays world very rarely call themselves capitalist, thats almost a tautology.

There is a difference between "capitalism," as the term is commonly understood and anarcho-capitalism.

I know. That doesnt change the fact that its rare to find an ancap that thinks this way, i would argue the ones who do need to come up with a better label.