I think this is a topic that needs to be further developed. I have seen this article on the irrationality of Anarcho-Communism, but I think that there needs to be something more comprehensive. I think an Austrian analysis of the CNT-FAI in Spain would be very helpful in this regard.
I know it might be a waste of time because the people here could put their time to much better use fighting statist ideologies, but Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Mutualists, and Geo-anarchists are still annoying as hell to deal with on the internet and ignoring them is rather difficult.
I have also thought about this. Anarcho Socialists think they can dodge the calculation problem because their Socialism is bottom up and not central planning. It has to be either shown that a) this isnt true or b) it would have to collapse into central planning.
(I have mainly Anarcho Communists in mind, probably also some Anarcho Syndicalists)
You may be correct, however, anarcho-capitalism must accept voluntary socialist/communist societies, otherwise it is logically inconsistent; not allowing people to form voluntary societies, or to own the factories in which they work (etc.) is equivalent to a war on certain plants or the killing of homosexuals i.e. it rejects decisions made by the individual in favour of another individual or group’s subjective views. Subjective value is the essence of libertarianism and Austrian economics.
Clearly, I am an AnCap, and would personally rather not live in a commune, freely-associated or otherwise. However, I would never take away anyone’s right to form a voluntary society should they wish to (so long as, of course, they don’t violate anyone’s individual sovereignty etc.), and consider this idea necessarily consistent with an anarchist political philosophy.
That’s probably the fundamental flaw in anarcho-socialism - there simply aren’t many people who are inclined to see giving up their private property as “acting in their best interest”, thus people would be disinclined to freely choosing that option. Therefore, to prevent anarcho-socialism from simply becoming anarcho-capitalism, force is almost certainly required - thus making it simply state socialism, rather than anarcho-socialism.
There is no such thing as “anarcho-socialism”. Noone uses the term “anarcho-socialist” to describe themselves, it is little more than a term that AnCaps tend to use to sweepingly categorize all anarchists who are not AnCaps. AnCaps also tend to misunderstand the distinctions between different anarchistic schools of thought, and hence conflate anarcho-communism with the entire anarchist left and isolate market anarchism from its more socialistic relationship to individualist anarchism.
Yes, there are libertarian socialists, but “anarcho-socialist” is not common terminology. Just about the only times that I have ever seen that term used, it was used as a deroggatory term for any anarchist who is not an AnCap.
I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction against AnCaps, I used to be one until I realized that it’s just a private state.
I used to have the same knee-jerk reaction to non-capitalist anarchists that many of you do, until I took the time to comprehend all of the positions. It became clear that, while there are some intolerant and misguided individuals on the anarchist left, many of the ancaps mostly have no understanding of anarchism as a more broadly anti-authoritarian movement and its history.
Pray tell, what exactly is the difference between these two?
And yes, I have explicitly heard people refer to themselves as “anarcho-socialist.”
Really? It seems like you are always on some sort of reverse witch-hunt complaining and trying to point out about how Ancaps conflate this or make blanket generalizations about that, etc.
You seem to me to spend more time on here pointing your finger at what “sins” Ancaps are engaging than focusing on much of anything else!
True. And since humans are hierarchical animals, the anarchists can only remain true to their creed by calling for the permanent levelling of organic society. Just like their Marxist brothers-, excuse me, persons-in-arms.
As near as I can tell, it really is semantics and outcomes. Anarcho-socialists have a different view of capital than Anarcho-capitalists. Some Anarcho-Socialists are even for a Labour Theory of Value (see Parecon).
Again, I think it’s semantics and outcomes. Both believe in voluntary states, but how they get there and what they will look like is the difference. I think both sides feign tolerance but really only see validity in their own model.
Personally, I only identify Anarcho-Capitalist because I want to stress where I ground my views on human action and economics. A good portion of what the Anarcho-Socialists are for is totally tolerable by me, unfortunately on matters of property, I think that they drift too far from a fundamentally rational base.
I think we (laymen) can do this. I would hope that Walter Block, Peter Klein et al don’t waste any more time debating corporations with Dilbert Long. It is fun when Kinsella goes after Kevin Carson, but only because Carson’s gang of e-disciples are sure to crash the party.
Most of these people are fring-ish kooks, and will always be so. There is a reason why AnCaps and so-called right libertarians or paleo libertarians are on TV, getting their books read, publishing, create scholarship. One has to be a successful entrepreneur to be successful in the market economy, and AnCaps by definition are the entrepreneurial branch of libertarianism.
Recently on FSK’s blog, he decided to use Google Adsense. People complained in the comments that Google will use the ads to track them and their behaviour. I pointed out that FSK (and Carson) are already on the Blogger platform (owned by Google), and big bad Google already sees everyone who comes and goes from their blogs, and logs that data. A guy like Carson, supposedly anti-state and anti-corporation, relies on a free blog that facilitates Google’s data mining (which is resold to other corporations via the Adwords interface - other face of Adsense). Now don’t get me wrong, FSK holds similar views to Carson, the difference is, FSK is trying to get off the Blogger platform and even strike out on his own path as an agorist software developer, and Carson is the lead ideologue of the modern Mutualist movement.
Take a good look around Mises.org. The YouTube Channel, the syndication of all site content. The growing and massive media library. Look at LewRockwell.com, and the ability to not only do podcasts, but attract notable and significant people to participate. It’s not a coincidence who is winning the battle of ideas, and who is promoting the next wave of intellectual scholarship and advancement of libertarian ideas. In fact, it’s not even close.
Socialists lack entrepreneurship by definition (diminishment of a profit motive). Socialism + Reality = Disappointment.
Yes, I was not expecting Walter Block to waste his time writing on this crap, because he has much better things to do. I just want a comprehensive platfrm to shut these internet annoyances up. You bring up an excellent point about the quality of sites of this faction verses the collectivist crap. Mises.org and lewrockwell.com have excellent content and much better delivery. Compare mises.org with Anarchist FAQ. Mises.org has a massive amount of literature and media while Anarchist FAQ can’t even afford to get it’s own domain and get off geocities.
Homesteading away their tools or machinery they operate from the business owner(s).
Workers receiving “full value” of their production (wages+expenses+profit) as capital/capitalists are made obsolete.
Some support violence and/or vandalism of corporate property, which is not seen as legitimate, but rather state created.
The end of private ownership of the means of production.
This is some, not all anarcho-socialists. As BP put it into his Noam Chomsky video,
I would say that Noam Chomsky is a Marxist. He is still falling back on the Marxist logic that if we should use the state to eliminate capital and then the state will wither away. This is an incredibly stupid strategy that has been proven not to work time and time again. “Genuine Anarchists” (scare quotes mine - LS) on the other hand tend to think that if we eliminate the state, capital will wither away.
While Marxists and Anarchists generally tend to agree on the ultimate ends they seek, their strategies are polar opposites.
I don’t agree to Marxist ends. Apparently I am not a genuine anarchist.