Do "Left" Anarchists hate Capitalism or the government more?

Economics Political Theory
1

As I stumble upon websites dedicated to the many variants “left” anarchism, I feel I may have observed the major divide between anarchists with different ideals. It seems like the majority of “left” anarchists see capitalism as a larger threat then the government. I believe they see this because they see capitalism as more authoritarian. Why?

Ironically, they join hands with statist socialists in this stance. Here’s a great example:

http://www.infoshop.org/index.php

You open up this link, you will know of its anticapitalist stance before its anarchist stance.

In this sense I feel only free market anarchists can truly be consistent in putting their discontent with the government first and economics second.

I’m sure there are more tolerant left anarchists out there, but from stumbling upon many sites, it does seem like capitalism the bigger focus. Do you guys get this vibe too?

2

For the most part yes, it is an anti-market stance first and foremost. Policy wise they have a tendency to wish to expand government (such as health care or the environment) so long as it hurts “the right” or markets. The main problem arises from similar terminology and different definitions. This is of course, a broad generalization I made.

3

Well, being a market anarchist, I would say that I’d prefer to life under a statist system with a mostly free market to living in the system than most anarcho-communists envision. The only reason why I would collaborate with the latter would be that I think their system has no chance of happening anyways so that if we ever got rid of governments, the only viable alternative left would be an ancap society

4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&feature=related

I found the answer in the above link. “Left”-wing anarchists (if such a distinction can really be made between all the varieties of anarchists) don’t actually know what they believe. They are the rabble that is stirred up by collectivist organizations, who point a finger and tell them who they should hate that day. In the YouTube video, Yuri Bezmenov describes how 85% of KGB resources were dedicated to inciting “revolution”, not toward actual spying. Though Russia today has surely cut its budget for such tactics, there are plenty of left-wing organizations that adopt the old Soviet model-- organizing anarchy, if you will.

Anarchy with respect to markets is more or less how things should be, and how it was intended to be for America. Anarchy in government is only a temporary condition, ending when someone grabs the reins of power and sets up a new government. The organizers of such movements believe they will be in charge when the smoke has cleared, but their puppet masters who pull the financial strings will never let that happen.

5

To be fair, it is more of a belief that willy nilly privitization only benefits the elites, and would in no way set up the capitalism envisaged by LvMI. A leftist that is an anarchist such as myself (and this is by no means a consensus opinion) think if society doesn’t have some kind of “organizing principle” that any capitalism attempted to be put in place will inevitably lead to some form of corporatism. Actually, many of them see no difference between the two, regretably.

Plus we see healthcare and education as rights to be garaunteed by society, we just dont follow other socialists thinking we should beat the money out of people to pay for it.

A left anarchist sees any attempted monopolization of power as first dangerous, and second as regressive to human progress.

6

Some questions:

How do you define this capitalism that inevitably leads to corporatism? I honestly ask because its hard to know what people refers to when they say capitalism. As a previous left-wing social-democrat myself, I find it funny because it seems to me that social-democracy is the kind face of corporatism, not capitalism. Capitalism is the opposite of corporativism.

How are this “rights” (healthcare, education) supposed to be delivered?

Thanks for the answers in advance.

7

How do you define this capitalism that inevitably leads to corporatism?

Two basic principles; power tends to consolidate, and power tends to corrupt. I say tend to, becuase first, this doesn’t always happen, nor is it always a bad thing. But when taken together, the more power consolidates, the more corruptible its influence. It is in people’s nature to protect their interests, and if the “elites” get too strong, they will protect their benefits even if it is at the behest of everyone else.

How are this “rights” (healthcare, education) supposed to be delivered?

Co-ops, councils, comittees, charities, etc. Government services can still be delivered without a profit motive with no need of a territorial monopoly on violence. I think Universal Healthcare and Education are the next step in our societal evolution. I just think people shold be allowed to opt out if they so choose. Not only because you cant steal the greed, or hate the hate out of somebody, but becuase they may have a better way of delivering these services than the “government.”

I just fear that it is unfortunate that people think these things are privelages. That is very unfortunate to me, and I work daily to convince people otherwise.

8

Also, I see no problem with social democracy. I think people should value and work to upkeep and upgrade society. And I do not think some small minority should hold all the power. I am socialist (small s) and democratic (small d). I do not see social democracy (not capitalized) as incompatible with true capitalism.

9

I agree with this, but I dont see how this is a definition of capitalism or how this is not inherent to any system. I ask for your definition of capitalism because its hard to argue without knowing your definition, and also because I find that socialist have a big problem defining capitalism when I talk about the free market. So I would like to know your definition of capitalism, the characteristics that I can look for in a system to know if it is capitalism or not.

Yes, but how are they going to be delivered? I mean, whether we like it or not, resources and labor, specially specialized labor, are scarce. So how is all this going to be coordinated?

I dont see how and that is why I am asking.

Healthcare or education are not privileges. They are only privileges if the government steals from someone and gives it to you. You are reciving a privilege. But in a free market healthcare or education is not a privilege.

EDIT: Answering to the social-democracy part. Social-democracy is just the kind face of corporativism. The so-called social services gives just enough to people so they dont die while justifying all the abuses and robbery of the corporatist system. Social-democracy is a way of keeping people poor and serving the corporate masters. For me is an evil system because people live a complete lie.

10

I agree with this, but I dont see how this is a definition of capitalism or how this is not inherent to any system.

That is my point tho, it is inherent to any system.

I ask for your definition of capitalism because its hard to argue without knowing your definition, and also because I find that socialist have a big problem defining capitalism when I talk about the free market. So I would like to know your definition of capitalism, the characteristics that I can look for in a system to know if it is capitalism or not.

Free markets; free from state control. I see capitalism as the ability of one man to trade with another without the fear or threat of violence from either party. We have to be careful to differentiate between theoretical constructs and real world applications. It is fallacous to call america at any point in her history, a capitalist nation.

Yes, but how are they going to be delivered? I mean, whether we like it or not, resources and labor, specially specialized labor, are scarce. So how is all this going to be coordinated?

A large part of it is convincing people what is right, and to be more “we” oriented. Me is good and natural, if you didnt me ever, you would die from starvation. We are neither ants nor oragutans, and we have to come to grips with that. So it would be in our best interests, imho, to accept our K selection, and realize the more we provide for each other, the more it provides for ourselves, in the long run. Wealth is not a zero sum game, the more wealth society collects as a whole, the more wealth the elites will collect as well.

I dont see how and that is why I am asking.

I dont claim to have all the answers, far from it. But it would be things like “business A doesn’t contribute to the general fund, we are organizing a mass boycott and protest of business A.” And other traditional charity methods of door to door donation gathering and all that good stuff.

11

Ok. So when you say you are against capitalism, you are saying that you are against trade. When two people arrange an exchange, without violence, that is evil in your view. Do I understand correctly?

You are being fallacious here. But lets go by parts:

  1. So basically you advocate everybody sharing everything and not having any trade or any system of accountability or meritocracy. Dont you think there is problems of limited knowledge to be able to do something like this. This can only work in very small units, like the family and they are a source of fights and hate (among other things).

  2. The fallacious part is that it is not true that the more we provide to the others the more the others provide to me (short or long term). Humans need incentive.

I really think you have the human nature completely backwards. I am going to suppose now, but I think you justify yourself saying that people act like they do now because of capitalism and if there were no capitalism people would be completely different. This is a fantasy and I find its a selfish attitude. For all you know you might be advocating a system that would lead to extreme poverty, or you are failing to push for a realistic alternative to the present system. And all this because having this dream about humans makes you feel good inside. I think yours is an extremely selfish attitude.

Hope you dont mind me being honest with you.

How are you going to protest a business if you oppose trade? In your world a business (or proctive unit) would not be able to sell anything, just share.

12

Ok. So when you say you are against capitalism, you are saying that you are against trade. When two people arrange an exchange, without violence, that is evil in your view. Do I understand correctly?

WHOA?! When did I ever say I was against capitalism. I said most left anarchists see no difference between it and corporatism, fortunately I do. Im all about trade, is trade that drives human progress.

So basically you advocate everybody sharing everything and not having any trade or any system of accountability or meritocracy. Dont you think there is problems of limited knowledge to be able to do something like this. This can only work in very small units, like the family and they are a source of fights and hate (among other things).

You have me all wrong friend. I would respond to this, but I can’t as it is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

I really think you have the human nature completely backwards. I am going to suppose now, but I think you justify yourself saying that people act like they do now because of capitalism and if there were no capitalism people would be completely different. This is a fantasy and I find its a selfish attitude. For all you know you might be advocating a system that would lead to extreme poverty, or you are failing to push for a realistic alternative to the present system. And all this because having this dream about humans makes you feel good inside. I think yours is an extremely selfish attitude.

First, just what is this “human nature” you claim to have mastered?

Second, “for all you know…” as you said, I could say the same to you. Or anybody for that matter; it is called the problem of unintended consequence, and a foundation of AE if I understand it correctly. WHatever people think may happen is not neccesarily what will happen. If this were not true a planned economy would pose no problems.

Third, don’t act like you know me. I am sorry you think it is selfish to provide shelter for the homeless, that is your problem not mine. So let us not engage in ad hominems and baseless personal attacks. That would be no different than the politicains in Washington.

Hope you dont mind me being honest with you

You’re not. So, no I don’t mind. I do mind you being un-honest with me (I wouldnt say dishonest, as I am not sure you understood my position correctly)

How are you going to protest a business if you oppose trade? In your world a business (or proctive unit) would not be able to sell anything, just share.

Once again, swing and a miss.

13

Ok. I see I got you wrong. I hope you dont mind me asking again, because I am curious about your position.

So you are not against the free market and voluntary trade among people. So you are not against capitalism? (I really dont care abut the names, I dont mind calling myself anti-capitalist or capitalist, I am for the free market, put it the name you want).

If you are against capitalism (ignore otherwise), what defines capitalism apart from voluntary trade and that you dont like?

And in case you are in favor of it, in a system of voluntary trade, how are you going to provide healthcare and education as a right?

14

If you are against capitalism (ignore otherwise), what defines capitalism apart from voluntary trade and that you dont like?

Once again, not against capitalism if you’re talking about people “owning” and trading things. I am against the state propping up and bailing out corporations; privatize the profits, socialize the losses, not a fan. I am against most subsidies to anything other than small family businesses/farms (and I am against forcing people to subsidize them, but not against them getting subsidies). I am against businesses using the state to supress labor movements and collective bargaining, if that is what the people desire the company can either satisfy the consumer, or go out of businesses (it’s quite simple really lol). I am against the FED as I think its manipulation of the money market does nothing but siphon money out of the people’s hands, and into large businesses.

I think the state was largely created by economic interests for the benefit of ecomic interests (you can take that as you want, but welfare is an economic interest whether it is for business or poor people), going as far back as ancient Sumer or Naqqada III period in Egypt. “We need more land for our crops, so our children can prosper. We shall conquer that other town.” It’s much more subtle than that, of course. But you get the gist.

And in case you are in favor of it, in a system of voluntary trade, how are you going to provide healthcare and education as a right?

Councils, co-ops, charities, boycotts, protests, strikes… people’s movements. It is largely convincing people to be more charitable for charitable’s sake, regardless of personal bias. If you feel you have “more” than you "need," why not give a little back to the community. These are subjective concepts, and I cannot force you. But I would ask that you “see the light,” whatever that means.

15

I can agree with all this. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. Its just that whenever I debate people that use rethoric similar to yours they try to use the high moral ground all the time to hide their fallacies, so I try to jump in there before to avoid it.

Thanks for your time.

16

Haha. Ya, it’s not bad to try take the moral high ground. I’m just not so ignorant to think that morality is anything but a subjective concept. I just feel good when I do charitable things, I have recieved much from charitable people. You never know where the next inventor of some great science or technology will come from. Many, but not all, people tend to work harder and avoid addictions and vices, when they are stable in the household, and instability in the household is largely an economic issue. The evidence to me, points to charity, materially, in knowledge, or spiritually = progress.

17

First, capitalism does not have to lead to corporatism. As Milton Friedman has said repeatedly, when government gets to big, business takes it over. If government would stay small, corporations then would have no interest in lobbying the government, since they would not benefit if the state can’t impose excessive regulation on their competitors.

Second, you can debate all day long about what constitutes a privilege, but education and health care are not rights. Once you define them as rights, then the state must mandate that everyone must have them at all costs, and will never allow anyone to opt out of paying for them. That’s why the Amish still pay into Social Security. They have to keep the Ponzi scheme going, or it collapses.

18

First, it’s ok to use capitalism to mean free markets, but when you’re reading outside of your circle, you have to understand that the readily-understood meaning is different. To most on the left, ‘capitalism’ means, as it did for Marx, corporatism. It doesn’t mean free markets; it means something like what we have in this country. Second, a left-anarchist is likely to favor, say, state-provided healthcare because it’s a stop-gap measure until we address corporatism. The government creates economic inequality and high costs for, say, medicine, so severe that a large portion of the population is left without access to healthcare. The left-anarchist believes it is a form of redistributive justice for those who got rich through subisides and privilege to have money taken from them to provide healthcare to the victims of these policies. Ultimately, they’d like access to be made possible by the end of the state, hence of privilege and subdization. Until then, they advocate correcting the situation.

19

Well spoken Jalen, I think that about sums it up. Now, onto more pertinent criticisms;

As Milton Friedman has said repeatedly, when government gets to big, business takes it over. If government would stay small, corporations then would have no interest in lobbying the government, since they would not benefit if the state can’t impose excessive regulation on their competitors.

I would fully agree. But you do not address the root issue on why governments get so big. You can say social welfare programs, but that does not match up with history. Government was allowed to get so big in this country because of the central bank. Roosevelt would have never pushed through the New Deal without its support. And who created the central bank and for what reasons? Big business, for big business did.

A left anarchist would counter Friedman’s point by saying when business gets too big, it drags government along to hold its hand for it.

Second, you can debate all day long about what constitutes a privilege, but education and health care are not rights.

You claim to know what are rights, and what are not? Rights are whatever I (the individual) say it is, I just have to have enough people to agree with me. Rights are social constructs, made by persons. Any discussion of natural rights is silly because according to nature, I have the right to murder anyone who gets in my way.

You will not easily convince a leftist that people should not have the right to universal healthcare and education. And if we needed the state to protect rights (lol what a fallacy to begin with, people protect rights) an-cap wouldn’t be viable either.

Once you define them as rights, then the state must mandate that everyone must have them at all costs, and will never allow anyone to opt out of paying for them

So, property rights require the state to mandate them?

20

I certainly agree that central banks are a root cause of the problem. When you can create money out of nothing, then charge interest on that money, you’d want government to borrow as much as possible. Whether expansion of government means war or the welfare state, the central bank cares little. What matters to them is what builds public debt the fastest.

A right, however, is not just whatever someone declares to be a right. A person cannot be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. To protect such rights is why governments are set up in the first place, however badly they may do so. A right cannot involve me claiming the right to another’s property-- money– simply because I cannot afford schooling or health coverage. An individual’s rights to property, life, and liberty, benefit all and cost no one.