Here’s the rest of the converstation i had with him.
I replied:
//i would rather have a tax and spend government than a low tax, fuck the poor government//
so, you’re not an anarchist…
He replied:
…i was just saying that i feel that anarcho-capitalism is quite happy with hideous inequality and i’m not…
I replied:
anarcho capitalists have little to say about inequality correct. Simply because, anarcho-capitalism, is just an economic system of zero state intervention, and private means of production. The goal of anarcho-capitalism, is not to create a social order of homogeneous equality, but a social order that is absent of any state. All of the anarcho capitalists i’m aware of are tolerant toward free-market socialism, charity, etc. Any perceived inequalities in the current mixed economic system, according to the anarcho-capitalist, should not be addressed by the state.
You’re right about that. To claim that one should tolerate all types of anarchism, just because you are an anarchist, makes no sense. Different types of anarchism have opposing views on several issues, and are therefore philosophical enemies. I don’t see how an anarcho-communist, who is anti-private property, could ever be an ally to groups who favor private property.
The problem with Anarcho-Communists is they are by and large interested in true Communism not in true Anarchism. Their first goal has always been the elimination of private ownership. They developed as a respons to Marx, they claimed Marx dilluted his ideology by stating a transition period od state socialism was needed to eventualy enter the period of stateless communism. They wanted the utopian communism of Marx right away, right after the revolution. They in essence present themselves as the one true Communists. Their anarchism is an afterthought, a coincidence they retroactively justify with the silly notion that it is the state that makes private ownership possible. (Being under the impression of the Liberals of their time that argued one of the roles of the state that are legitimate is defense of private property.)
Anarcho-Capitalism on the other hand actualy does primarily revolve around Anarchism and its crusade has always been for liberty, against state coercion and not for some third goal. The Capitalist part of the name is only added to avoid confusion and to assert the fact that in a stateless society there would be nothing to infringe upon the free market and that therefore any stateless society is neccesarily going to be capitalistic by definition.
As I said above - the idea is virtually the same, but the means to reach the end are different. Therefore one has to look at anarcho-communism as just an alternate strategy of communism. This further strengthens the view that libertarians should view the anarcho-communist, not as friend, but a foe.
Actually I’ve found most of the differences to be (1) semantic and (2) a matter of personal preferance. To the extent that it genuinely IS anarchism, yes, you do have to have a limited degree of tolerance for it, otherwise you are going to be asserting your personal preferance as an imperative, and if you try to enforce it then you function as an archon and it is you who has stepped outside of the context of anarchism. If some group of people want to go form a commune and I don’t have to join, yes, I am tolerant of that. I wouldn’t be an anarchist otherwise. So long as they aren’t forcing it on me, go let them live without private property (and in reality, they will actually have some form of private property, despite semantic ambiguities).
To treat anarcho-capitalism as the only legitimate form of anarchism is silly and bigoted, and it ignores history. Anything that is placed after the term “anarcho” is compatible with anarchism to the extent that it is only a personal preferance for how to voluntarily associate or organize. Hence, if it genuinely is ANARCHO (and this means that the anarcho part isn’t just being used as a cover for using one’s personal preferance as an imperative), then it is tolerabe in some sense as just another group within a free society.
Things also aren’t so simple as a dichotomy between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism. I’ve rarely met an actual anarcho-communist. Most of the social anarchist’s I’ve met are not communists, and even have a bit of a hatred for Marx. Most of the social anarchists I know of reject electoral politics and any notion of taking over the state as a pretext to a stateless society. Most of them also reject violent revolution.
Genuine anarcho-communism is only a reflection of some people’s personal preferance to communally organize in a stateless society. That’s it. Nothing about it, as a genuine anarchistic doctrine, is antagnostic with a voluntary society.
But there being a commune is not contrary to capitalism. The commune interacts with outsiders on the principles of capitalism. I as an outsider can not smash down the doors of a commune and demand some of its land or that it takes care of my needs.
Anarcho-Communists are not opposed to private property of goods, but they are fanaticaly opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Infact if you take Anarcho-Communist creed at face value it is the biggest enemy of a commune imaginable. Since “property is theft” and everyone is entitled to “receive according to his needs” there is absolutely nothing preventing me from forcing communards to hand over some of what they have to me.
And if they initiate force to counter private ownership of the means of production, they aren’t anarcho-communists. If they are anarcho-communists, it reduces to something for them to secede from or compete with.
There is one thing that anarcho-communists hate more than the State, and that is private property. Private property is a reason for them to oppose the State, and may I just point out that that is the direct opposite of my political views, and that of libertarianism.
Anarcho-communism strikes me as profoundly anti-libertarian. Anarcho-communists that I have talked to have supported the confiscation and abolishment of private property, viewing private property as a “crime”. This is just plainly evil.
Anarcho-communism, like all other branches of communism, reviles private property, and is thus an enemy of freedom.
I’m willing to bet that half the people you talked to weren’t actually anarcho-communists, you just slapped that label on them since they weren’t anarcho-capitalists. You seem to create a false dichotomy between ancap and ancom, as if there’s nothing that exists in between the two.
No. This is extemely meaningful, because it shows Anarcho-Capitalism is valid Anarchism. It shows Capitalism is at the very least compatible with a lack of coercion and therefore with anarchy.
No. If they fail to initiate force to counter private ownership of the means of production then they aren’t Anarcho-Communists. There are people that call themselves Anarcho-Communists that would not initiate force against people organised on principles of capitalism, but those people are not Anarcho-Communists. They are betrayers of the cause. Capitalism is exploitation, exploitation is crime. Crime must be stomped down on. They can not allow capitalistic areas to exist because they would come to trade with non-capitalistic areas and would therefore be engaging in capitalism and exploiting them.
Anarcho-Communism is not Anarchism. The only way Anarcho-Communists can truly be Anarchists is if they betray their Communism. While on the other hand an Anarcho-Capitalism needs to betray nothing. That tells me someone is in the wrong and someone is in the right.
To a degree, yes. My position is that noone actually absolutely opposes private property in the general sense that libertarians refer to it. People can claim to oppose private property until they are blue in the face, but the truth is that they support some form of it in one way or another. Unless they are willing to give up the clothes on their very back, they support private property to some degree.
Not really, it boils down to your semantic fondness for the word “capitalism”; a fondness I don’t happen to share. You can call a voluntary worker’s collective “capitalist” if you want, but such labels are irrelevant really at such a point.
This is incorrect. If they initiate force, they aren’t anarcho-anythings. People who advocate initiating force and the state in the name of anarcho-anything or anarcho-nothings. If someone is genuinely an anarcho-something, they don’t do that. Don’t confuse the statists who have hijacked anarcho-movements with the anarcho-movement as such per se.
I’m sorry, this claim is no more reasonable and no less hopelessly partisan than those who say “anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. the only way anarcho-capitalists can truly be anarchists is if they betray their capitalism and reject private property”. If it’s voluntary, it’s anarchism, simple as that. People are way too hung up on their personal preferances and their semantic labels.
I find that to be arbitrary as well, but the fact is that what they call “posessions” is private property, and therefore they don’t entirely oppose private property.
Why wouldn’t they be anarcho-communists? They, like other communists, want to abolish private property, and view the State as the upholder of the ”injustice” of private property, but have a different strategy than other communists. They just had other means to reach the end-goal of communism, namely a stateless and classless society. And it wasn’t I who gave them the label of anarcho-communists; it was what they called themselves.
The idea of “to each according to his ability; to each according to his need” implies that no genuine right to property exists, since the needs of others goes before anything else. And this principle is a basic principle of communism; anarcho-communism or any other. This in fact makes the claim that they “don’t entirely oppose private property” an illusory principle, since no genuine respect for private property actually exists.