No, your post is invalid because you are trying to portray us as supporting the political left when we are talking about the anarchist left. This is because you repeatedly use the term “left” as a package deal term that forces one to include contemporary liberals or state-socialists in with the definition while essentially ignoring the anti-statist traditions within the “left”.
In contrast, you seem to be using this inherently statist definition of the “left” in order to truck is into forgetting that the modern “right” are likewise statist scum. You mischaracterize our position in order to make us appear as supporting state-socialists when that is not the point at all.
Ok, the anarchist left is simply an extreme version of the political left; while the political left seeks to use the state to rob others’ of their property and time, the anarchist left takes it upon themselves.
It is not accurate to portray the entirety of the traditional anarchist movement as supporting violence as a means to their ends. That ignores those who do not support violence as a means, actual voluntary socialists and anarcho-pacifists. Such a characterization is precisely the state propaganda that has been used to discredit the anarchist movement since the 19th century.
Now I do not deny that there are some bafoons out there who fly the black flag and who seem to think that anarchism is an excuse for eco-terrorism or chaos and violence, but that is merely a result of culture mimicking the statist characterization of anarchists, not a manifestation of serious anarchism.
First of all, the history of the term is not relevant when describing current supporters (see? My spam is valid). Second, just do a google search for left anarchist (or leftist anarchist, etc.) and it’s clear they aren’t capitalists, despite what you’d like us to believe; they’re exactly as I described. Remember, words only act as labels; you can personally define a word any which way you want, but that doesn’t mean that others’ mean the same thing when they use that word; it certainly doesn’t mean that that other self-described leftist anarchists aren’t what I described.
I’m not even talking about the history of the term. In either case, there are current anarchists who hold views that are essentially identical to historical anarchists. So it is not entirely irrelevant in that sense. Anarchism is first and foremost a philosophy from the 19th century. All anarchists, market anarchists included, incorporate elements from these 19th century ideas.
I never claimed that they are capitalists. I don’t use “capitalism” as my criteria. Furthermore, there would be no need for terms such as “anarchist left” if it were not for the rise of a so-called “anarchist right”. To most anarchists, the term “anarchist left” would seem redundant in the first place and the idea that there’s an anarchist “right” seems absurd.
I reject the way in which you frame this debate.
Maybe you should stop thinking in terms of labels and start thinking in terms of ideas. Because you essentially are rejecting things out of hand if they match or don’t match a particular label such as “capitalist” or “left”.
How is that relevant to what’s at question? What’s at question is what ideas the people in question have! The fact that such people may be from a century or so ago is irrelevant to the fundamental issue here. You are basically accusing the anarchist movement as a whole of supporting violence. This is countered by a long tradition of non-violence and pacifism within anarchist philosophy and advocacy - which prevails to this day. It’s not merely some forgotten relic that all anarchists have forgotten about.
Many anarchists are proponents of civil disobedience as a strategy. Agorism, for example, is merely a market anarchist strategy for civil disobedience. If you asked most contemporary anarchists if they support violent revolution, I think you’d be surprised that many of them don’t. Those that do advocate throwing molotov cocktails into a starbucks are only vagrants who are giving anarchism a bad name. Don’t let them tar your image of anarchism as a whole.
I’ll help you out and give as modern an example as possible: Brainpolice calls himself a leftist anarchist and he is an anarcho-capitalist libertarian.
That doesn’t mean that most other self-described leftist anarchists are anarcho-capitalist, and it definitely doesn’t mean that libertarians should ally with them; just do a Google search! It’s made for this sort of thing!
Again with this “capitalism,” bollix. I have a real problem with using the word capitalism and Anarchism together. I agree with the Social Anarchists, it is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is Mercantilism (Merchant Capitalism) - always has been, always will be.
No, I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I reject the term capitalism as an anti-concept and package deal term. I disagree with many anarcho-capitalists in terms of both philosophical foundations and strategy. My views are what would be considered somewhere a bit to “the left” of the views of most anarcho-capitalists. I oppose corporations. I’m much more open to the possibility of voluntary socialist organization than most anarcho-capitalists are. I am an admirer or Proudhon and to a lesser extent Bakunin. I find many anarcho-capitalists to be still too attached to American conservatism. I don’t consider paleoconservatives to be allies. In terms of cultural or more personal concerns, I am what would be considered a “leftist” (I support multiculturalism, oppose racism, oppose nationalism, encourage illegal immigration, support abortion, oppose religion, am critical of the family structure, etc.).
People who describe themselves as “capitalist” all vary in what they mean by it, sometimes conciously and sometimes not. Conservatives often describe themselves as “capitalist”, but the system they support is essentially a mixed economy or corporatism. In the eyes of many people, “capitalism” is what we currently have. If I describe myself as a “capitalist” in contemporary political discourse, I am basically misleading most people about what I believe - I would be painting myself as something I am not, I.E. a conservative or corporatist. That’s part of why I reject use of the term.
I never stated that anarcho-capitalists qua anarcho-capitalist hold racist views. But I definitely would claim that some do, and that some are most definitely closet monarchists and closet conservatives, just like I claim that some social anarchists are most definitely closet state-socialists. That particular problem goes both ways.
“Anarcho-capitalist” is a term coined by Murray Rothbard to describe the political philosophy that he developed, which at first was basically individualist anarchism with the modification of a subjective theory of value and a theory of time preferance. However, as the movement started to grow and involve itself in contemporary politics, it has absorbed various elements from all across the political spectrum and has fractured into different factions so that the label “anarcho-capitalist” can no longer be used to describe a singular philosophy. Some people who used to refer to themselves with the term have rejected it. Some have developed the philosophy past Rothbard, in both good and bad directions. Some “anarcho-capitalists” think that they can get away with defending currently existing political borders! Agorism split off into its own camp over the question of strategy. Some are very cozy with social anarchists (like Roderick Long) while others are very cozy with paleoconservatives and white nationalists (like Hans Hoppe). So it seems too diverse to describe a single philosophy at this point.
The word has very little functionality for me at this point.
You got me! You make an excellent point about the word “capitalist”; I’m not being consistent at all with what I’ve just been saying! Neither are you, to be honest; we both took the previous position of the other.
You are absolutely correct to distance yourself from the term “capitalist” due to contemporary supporters; why you won’t do the same to leftist anarchism is beyond me.
As for your rejection of the term “anarcho-capitalists”:
While I believe the vast-majority of self-described anarcho-capitalists truly are in favor of non-aggression (unlike the vast majority of self-described leftist anarchists; a quick Google search will verify), I respect your decision to distance yourself from the term.
The point I was making still stands: labels are defined by their current usage. I’m not sure why you reject “anarcho-capitalist” but not “leftist anarchist”.
You could look it up in a dictionary…but of course lexicographers tend to be descriptivists rather than prescriptivists, and disagree with Niccolò. Clearly the definitions of words do change over time. Even whatever you’re calling “the original definition” is probably going to have some older source from which it has changed in meaning.