The anarchist FAQ say we’re not proper anarchist because we only oppose the state.
I thought anarcho-capitalists oppose all form of cocersion?
Sigh Yes, AnCaps oppose all forms of coercion. Anarchist FAQ is just a silly Anarcho-Communist website that argues that employment is coercive because it is “wage slavery.”
lol, im sorry, i should have been more precise in my request. were you giving (i think you were) examples of where you deviate from an-soc’s ?(i.e. what you find intolerable?). the thing i am most interested to hear about is the stuff (aside from aboloshing the state), that you do find tolerable…
Ah, but LS soon BP will charge in here, claim that he only opposes the ‘original’ definition of capitalism (IE state capitalism) and that anything else is merely a debate over ‘semantics’ - his favorite evasion tactic. Like I said earlier, the social anarchists want to have their cake and eat it too; IE, anti-state rhetoric but yet a weak attempt at promoting communism that at first sounds non-coercive.
Indeed, I just don’t know what to believe anymore, sometimes (the now thankfully over inauguration did little to encourage my growing disillusionment).
Lately, I’ve been thinking of following Henri Bergon’s quote a bit more than keeping up with the latest Libertarian & Anarchist Soap Operas
The Chomsky-ites are the real problem, anytime you question the great savior (Chomsky), they start harrassing you. I just got into an arguement with one and it basically ended in a death threat, now while this is uncommon, the majority of Chomskybots will not hesitate to insult, use profanity, tell you that you should have been aborted, or wish death on one of your loved ones, and to make matters worse, the majority of them are in their mid-twenties or older! Somebody should really help out by doing a critique on this guy, I mean I’ve never seen a man get so far with a Ph. D in linguistics! It’s pathetic!
That’s because he does only oppose state capitalism, and anything else is just a debate over semantics(“well, capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production blah blah blah.”
Marxist ends are freedom, peace, and prosperity. They just have really bad ideas on how to achieve those ends.
Yeah, what is Brainpolice’s deal? I mean I like the guy, but he does more criticising than anything else. Is he Agorist, mutualist, or an un-classifiable? I just want to know, so I can understand where he is coming from.
I fully agree. The Chomskyites are a huge problem, since they fall back into state-apologetics.
Incidentally, it was Roderick Long, a left-libertarian, who most recently did a critique of Chomsky.
What I object to is a tendency to conflate Chomskyites with all anarchists who are not ancaps.
To just create some arbitrary blanket category of “anarcho-socialism” that translates to “anything that isn’t anarcho-capitalism, without regaurd for its content” is misleading.
So is your blanket characterizations of Ancaps as the source of this categorization.
I repeat: I have heard many individuals call themselves “anarcho-socialists” and/or “libertarian-socialists” so it obviously isn’t just some categorization by Ancaps. Are you done with your blame game yet?
That’s not what I’m objecting to. I’m objecting to using “anarcho-socialist” as a blanket to term for any anarchist who isn’t an ancap. I think that’s only fair, since one has to actually take the content of people’s idea’s into consideration rather than prejudicially label them and lump them in with others who have positions that differ from theirs.
If you look at any list of the schools of anarchism, you will never find an “anarcho-socialist” part. Things are more specific than that, like anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism. You will likely find an article or section on libertarian socialism, but that isn’t “anarcho-socialism” and it’s a pretty broad term for a number of different groups.
Excuse me for insisting that we accurately define our terms and take the content of people’s ideas into account.
Libertarian socialist is a historical synonym for social anachist. The specific phrase “anarcho-socialist” is much more recent; it emerged 15 or so years ago, and was probably invented by anarcho-capitalists as a blanket term. Some social anarchists will call themselves anarcho-socialists, but it isn’t common.
Right. The vast majority of the time that I’ve ever seen the term used, it was used by ancaps to refer to non-ancaps.
I find the notion of peace and justice tolerable. I find the anti-statism tolerable. I can even sympathize with the anti-authoritarianism (although it seems to me, many just have an oedipus complex).
Ansoc chicks are pretty cool. Sorta like nurture-rebel on steroids.
Ok, I was reaching a little. There isn’t a whole lot of “there”, “there”. I’d like to try to get along with everyone, and as long as they don’t mess with my property, I think it is possible. If they think they are going to homestead my capital goods, I will fight them.
Oh so you predicated this whole line of discussion on building a strawman? As far as I can tell no one here “labelled everyone here who isn’t an Ancap” an Anarcho-socialist. It was you who brought this up, claiming that is the source of this label, when it is very clear to me that there are those who describe themselves as such.
Ok, once again, how would “libertarian socialism” and “anarcho-socialism” be different at all in ideology, specifically? Both call for the abolishment of the state and both advocate essentially a socialist economic model.
Also, what about those individuals that do support all forms of collective anarchism (syndicalists, collectivists, etc)? Couldn’t they be properly described as “anarcho-socialists?”
Wombie, I like you. Don’t make shit up if you don’t know.
Indeed.
Nice. Frankly, I am tired of the soap operas, but encouraged that there are a few new voices who are willing to push back against some of the anti-Austrian, anti-ancap BS floating around here.
No. That’s glossing over it. What a Marxist defines as freedom, or peace or prosperity, is not the same as my definition. The means, obviously are total bullshit. But the ends are not common. I don’t want to live in an egalitarian society. I have no interest in proportionality, in subjectivity or any other Dilbert comic strip fantasies. I want to own and maintain some land, live a simple life, and try to be happy. I don’t need a commune or a worker council telling me what I can and cannot do. I don’t need anyone or anyones trying to plan how I contribute to the greater good.
And I don’t want any poor SOB sneaking into my yard at night to steal my lawn mower, because I am a capitalist pig for owning a means of production.
Marxists, I will be happy to yield the entire planet to you and your screwed up, ignorant and childish schemes, as soon space travel is a reality. I don’t have to be on terra firma to live how I want to live.
That does seem to be when and how the term emerged; check the alt.anarchism archive if you don’t believe me. Heck, go on Libcom or Infoshop and ask. I’m sure someone remembers first seeing it. The term is only used online; I haven’t seen any social anarchist literature that uses the term. I actually have yet to see a serious social anarchist use it to describe themself. Plently of forum trolls who just read some Chomsky and learned about those evil an-caps, but no one seriously involved in the movement.
Well, blame the chomskyites. They are wrong often enough, the blame can be placed on them and not look to foolish even if it is wrong.
But don’t pin it on ancaps. If not for you, BP and occasionally Juan, these conversations wouldn’t even go on here. Contrary to the fact that Ansocs hang from the testicles of Ancaps all day long, we don’t really give a crap about Ansocs, most Ancaps are focused on two things. Profit, and fighting the state. A bunch of fringe kooks with their fantastic ideas about utopian societies and egalitarian outcomes barely register on anyone’s radar.
It’s like that stupid right-left debate. There is a group that calls itself left, then labels everyone else vulgar, and constantly calls them right wingers (I can dig up more fallacious BS from BP’s videos to support this sort of strawmanning). Meanwhile these people on the so-called right couldn’t give a crap. They are writing books, and giving interviews. They are translating libertarian texts into multiple languages and republishing them. They are giving a free blog on a high traffic site to anyone who wants one. They aren’t scratching their nuts looking to pick a fight with people who are within a couple degrees of them ideologically.
They certainly aren’t letting such discussions detract from condemning and confronting the state.
I have read all kinds of crazy shit from left-libs about how Ron Paul is this, and Ron Paul is that. Well Ron Paul actually reaches people. He actually publishes books that are pro-liberty and anti-state. He somehow survives in the intestine of leviathan, and finds a way to give the state indigestion now and again with his speeches and legislative edits. He’s not sitting around plotting an intellectual ambush of Noam Chomsky. He’s not furiously scribbling out frantic letters to Kevin Carson. He’s a MFing big game hunter.
So whatever, I’m cranky and I am going to sleep. Congrats on your engagement btw.