Brad Spangler: anarcho-capitalism is socialism!

[Noor]

Not surprised-- that's Spangler. He also argues that Proudhon's cooperatives and Kropotkin's communes are examples of ancap-style privatization. He basically thinks that if ancaps change a couple of their labels, they're the same as libsocs.

I've been using the term anti-state capitalism for ancap, although capitalism is statism. I just haven't been able to think of a better term.

[Noleaders]

For the sake of intellectual honesty:

To understand this bizarre quote you need to see it in the context of the various discussions it arose from.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3126717042
http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/393
http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473
http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/596

I have a strong feeling stems from Carson's words,

The term "capitalism" is commonly used, especially on the libertarian right, simply to refer to an economic system based primarily on markets and private property.* There is no harm in this; many intellectually honest libertarians (e.g. the Nockians and the Rothbardian Left) distinguish clearly between their "free market capitalism" (much of which is amenable to the free market socialism of Benjamin Tucker)*2, and the "actually existing capitalism" of today's corporate economy. But that is not the meaning of capitalism as the classical socialists used the word. As we have already seen, Thomas Hodgskin used the term "capitalism" to refer, not to a free market, but to a statist system of class rule in which owners of capital were privileged in a manner analogous to the status of landlords under feudalism. For Marx, free markets and private property were not sufficient conditions of capitalism. For example, an economic system in which artisans and peasants owned their means of production and exchanged their labor-products in a free market would not be "capitalism." Capitalism was a system in which markets and private property not only existed, but in which workers did not own the means of production and were forced instead to sell their labor for wages.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, not just because of the ethical opposition to capitalism but because most*3 of it is literally a logical contradiction as i think Carson has shown pretty conclusively. See for instance the various responses to him in a mutualist symposium the mises institute did a while back http://blog.mises.org/archives/004869.asp.
The intelligent responses (Murphy and Long) were very mild critiques and agreed Carson had shown a lot of insight. The ridiculous strawmen (Block, Reisman and to a slightly lesser extent Rothbard) and Carson's rejoinders are further illustrative of this. Possibly the worst damage "anarcho"-capitalism has done is create the idea that it is a relevent concern.

A notable exception to this is property rights ie possession vs absentee ownership which is of course an important issue. If this is the defining feature then maybe it should be called anti-state lockeanism? If we must spend so much time critiquing ancaps we should spend more time on this and their own inconsistencies rather than just screaming "your not a real anarchist!!!!" at them.
However I at least think its encouraging that some Rothbardians are taking these ideas seriously, at least they are starting to get it. Instead of waging war why not convert them?

Being an ex-ancap I can safely say the endless crusading does very little that could be deemed constructive. In fact this just made the transition unnecessarily difficult.

*Of course if we use this definition then proudhon would be a capitalist (cos by the same common definition his possession is just another form of property) which is a silly line of thought.

*2 This, i believe, is what Brad Spangler is on about

*3 Im emphasising this just to pre-empt anyone desperate to point out capitalist property and employment relationships could still exist. Though even if lockean standards remained i think the workers would still have far greater access to the resources required to end capitalism via which they would also have far greater bargaining power in the labor market should they choose to stay. Could be better but its a start.

[Guest]

I've been using the term anti-state capitalism for ancap, although capitalism is statism. I just haven't been able to think of a better term.

'private-state capitalism'! it acknowledges that capitalism requires a state of some kind, whether called one or not, to enforce the private property on which capitalism depends. it also concedes that 'an'-caps oppose the present, 'public-state' system. (granted, it does so in a way that's guaranteed to enrage them; but anarchists are enraged by the term 'an'-cap, so it seems fair.)

priv-cap!

[Noleaders]

I've been using the term anti-state capitalism for ancap, although capitalism is statism. I just haven't been able to think of a better term.

'private-state capitalism'! it acknowledges that capitalism requires a state of some kind, whether called one or not, to enforce the private property on which capitalism depends. it also concedes that 'an'-caps oppose the present, 'public-state' system. (granted, it does so in a way that's guaranteed to enrage them; but anarchists are enraged by the term 'an'-cap, so it seems fair.)

priv-cap!

Priv-cap it is then. We may have had our "differences" but i can appreciate a sound bit of logic when i see it, so well done and keep it up - maybe we'll be able to have a civil discussion one day...

[Noor]

http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1458

That's his latest...

[patrickhenry]

He openly admits he's a propertarian. I don't know why he wants to promote a-hole-cap as socialism? If he wants to be anarcho-socialist then give up your propertarian ways.

[Noor]

I just had a very long (like 75 posts or so) Facebook argument with him over that post... I'll archive it somewhere.

His basic argument is that ansocs are against State-privileged property, not the non-State ancap property, and thus ancaps are socialist in that they oppose State privileges as well.

[patrickhenry]

state property(land) or a-hole-cap property(land) whats the difference? without the state capitalism will fall. no longer will people want to be wage slaves. his theory is flawed.

[shawnpwilbur]

without the state capitalism will fall. no longer will people want to be wage slaves. his theory is flawed.

Actually, that's pretty much Brad's theory.

[patrickhenry]

So,eventually anarcho-cap will eventually phase into some form of anarcho-socialism. Even if this is what he's aiming at why even support propertarianism i.e. land ownership and not means of labor. Unless he feels like some mutualists who see evolution as the better way then revolution? Is that his goal?

[shawnpwilbur]

So, eventually anarcho-cap will eventually phase into some form of anarcho-socialism. Even if this is what he's aiming at why even support propertarianism i.e. land ownership and not means of labor. Unless he feels like some mutualists who see evolution as the better way then revolution? Is that his goal?

Brad's a serious agorist, and explicitly buys into a lot of SEK3's revolutionary transitional plan. When he talks about being "redder" than Proudhon and Tucker, it's because he is a revolutionary.

As for the defense of property, I think Proudhon made an interesting argument in his work that, while something much like communism is the goal, the road to that goal may go through a universalization of proprietorship and a period, or recurring aspect, where we really focus on individual interests on the way to a really anarchistic form of association. Proudhon, although he never pulled together all of the elements of his critique of property, was really good at identifying the ways that property as an institution could simultaneously pull towards and against the association of free equals. Brad would obviously understand the issues a little differently, but I suspect, based on past association, that he might be pretty sympathetic to the Proudhonian approach.

Certain kinds of an-capitalism will, of course, not phase into anything most of us would recognize as either socialism or anarchism -- and the agorists certainly work overtime finding the most radical readings of folks like Rothbard. But anti-propertarian critique seems to me to go far out of its way to ignore the elements of property theory that are friendlier to mainstream anarchist positions. I wonder if folks like Francois and Noor might make more headway against the an-caps who probably won't phase by emphasizing the actual social limits built right into Roman and Lockean property.

[thelastindividual]

At the risk of being unpopular I'm going to go ahead and agree with shawn. Just because Spangler is a propertarian, doesn't mean he isn't sincere.

[patrickhenry]

I never said spangler wasn't sincere. I'm sure he is. I just think some of his theory is flawed. I don't know much about agorism but I'm pretty sure they promote black markets which puzzles me just because without capitalism there are no black markets. I guess I will go read on agorism now.

[shawnpwilbur]

I never said spangler wasn't sincere. I'm sure he is. I just think some of his theory is flawed. I don't know much about agorism but I'm pretty sure they promote black markets which puzzles me just because without capitalism there are no black markets. I guess I will go read on agorism now.

Promotion of black markets is the transitional strategy. The illegalist bank robber depends on capitalism too, in the short run.

[Guest]

well i hope that fucking idiot is happy, because he just single-handedly drove me to totalitarianism. fuckit. i'm fucking done with this fucking anarcho-sophistry. there's no room for wordplay and factionalist debate within totalitarianism; if it exists, i want it controlled by the state, preferably represented by one all-powerful individual. oh and i want it to be global. galactic. universal! no escape clauses for you science buffs with your rocket ships to anarcho-andromeda.

wow i feel so relieved! this should be fun.