Anarcho-Socialists

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

I’m not defending anarchism without property rights, I’m defending anarchism period. You’re clinging in a partisan way to a particular manifestation of anarchism. And just because people don’t prefer the same methods of organization as you do does not mean that they are necessarily defying property rights. You’re conflating your personal preferances with anarchism as such.

No, I’m saying anarchism without property rights is incoherent. You’re not really refuting that you’re just playing your usual games of writing a lot of nonsense and obfuscating the truth, needless to say it’s most boring.

This has nothing to do with organisation. It has to do with accepting private property, something your comrades don’t do. Hence, it only follows that their “anarchism” is incoherent.

@Brainpolice

That wasn’t my arguement. My arguement is that anarchism as a whole cannot be subsumed under “anarcho-capitalism” because in actual fact “anarcho-anything” is subsummed under anarchism by the very nature of it.

You miss the point. Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.

@Brainpolice

This is quite simple, and there are no reasons to oppose this other than partisan attachments to the word “capitalism” and a personal preferance for the things associated with “capitalism”

Or, because capitalism means private property, funnily enough like anarchism.In any case read a free society would be a capitalist one, with privately owned means of production and wage labour.

@Brainpolice

Well, for one thing, anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t exist without the tradition of individualist anarchism, which wouldn’t exist without mutualism, which (here comes the sound of nails on the chalkboard) wouldn’t exist without socialism.

Nonsense, that’s just how things have gone historically.