If you watch this sense, you will see that it makes much more sense why the early anarchists opposed private property and could not see a non-authoritarian form of private property, especially in countries just rising up out of feudalism. In my mind, this kind of legitimises the view points of many of the earlier social anarchists and also explains the more property leaning stance of American anarchism - namely the individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker.
Putting this into historical perspective, its easier to see now why, with the knowledge we now have of how private property has in fact developed into a highly non-authoritarian system, anarcho-capitalism holds the future for the anarchist movement. We know now, what they knew not before about private property.
P.s. For those who do not know me, despite my username I am an ex-socialist since I did indeed claim myself as a ‘social anarchist’ at one point.
This is a short read about how Roman taxation created the system of feudalism in the first place. The state only uses private property as a means as long as it serves its purpose.
I know, its really weird if you go on to his channel there are now lots of anti-anarchist videos everywhere all of a sudden uploaded from a different user.
I didn’t get to see the video before it got removed, but I get the sense that I agree with anarcho communists. Anything the state does, has the purpose of suppressing innovation to protect the status quo. As such they’re right about the basic function of the state. Ancap and libertarisnism seems to be an outgrowth of that line of thought, just that it added some proper economics. I get the feeling that modern leftists retained their intentions but have with the help of public school indoctrination an opposite-world economics been tricked into supporting the corporate status quo without knowing it. The same is true to a large degree of the mainstream right.
That’s how I would sum up core points of both philosophies in terms of social organization. To me ancap asks more fundamental and relevant question. It could explain why ancoms are mostly flabbergasted when asked what about people that do not agree with their views, because that is not what they are used to think about.
"If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government."
“If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade, or of any concern in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from being always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices which the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.”
I think i somewhat get it, though I did not see the vid. From the comments I think some, from other countries especially, view private property from a feudalistic pov because that is their history. Whereas Americans in general did not start from that point so they tend to have a very different view of private property.
Murray Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty, about the difference between an American view of private property and many in other countries that are starting from a feudal system.
Largely escaping feudalism itself, it is difficult for Americans to take the entire problem seriously. This is particularly true of American laissez-faire economists, who tend to confine their recommendations for the backward countries to preachments about the virtues of the free market. But these preachments naturally fall on deaf ears, because “free market” for American conservatives obviously does not encompass an end to feudalism and land monopoly and the transfer of title to these lands, without compensation, to the peasantry.
Though he added that,
North America’s relative escape from the blight of feudal land and land monopoly was not for lack of trying.
He continues…
The major error of most analyses is to issue either a blanket approval or a blanket condemnation, for the answer depends on the justice of the property title established in each specific case.
Was the property justly acquired or not? Some may have acquired it illigitimately through the former feudal system and others may have done so justly via homesteading. This is where other countries come to the challenge where free markets would benefit if all property was acquired legitimately but it wasn’t. Then what? Again, i have not seen the vid but it would seem that this is where ancom sprang up or simply became more popular. Rather than judging a case by case basis of property acquisition, the ancom wants to abolish all property rights regardless. I think that is what Rothbard was getting at. There was two extremes. The “conservatives” -Deal with free markets now even though much of the property was acquired feudalistically or the ancoms- abolish all property rights. Reality is that it is more complex than that.
Perhaps I was way off base but that is what I gathered.
Anarcho-socialism seems like a contradiction. How would an anarchist support governmental nationalization of private industry when they don’t believe the state should exist in the first place?
Not saying you adhere to it, but socialism, fueled by communistic ideologies, weakens people beyond all other systems. It’s truly evil imo.
In theory, they support local community ownership of localised industry and the promotion of democratic workplaces as opposed to centralised state ownership.
