OK, I see some real hatred being spilt on these forums for the left. I understand feeling nauseated when discussing the statist left (and you’d figure the statist right would be equally as reviled, although I don’t think that’s the case), but why hate the anarcho-left? What about “live and let live” or “let the market determine the winners”? If they aren’t trying to seize your stuff for the “people”, and you aren’t trying to seize their stuff for yourself, then what’s the problem? The market would clearly determine an idealogical “winner” (if any).
I think this is why Rothbard was looking to get his message out to anti-establishment leftists of his time. There are lots of folks out there now, hell, probably more than in Rothbard’s time! Why don’t we try cooperating towards common ends (namely the abolition of the state) rather than bickering about property!
Well, I suppose that’s true, but there would still be a distinction between collectivist groups, and individualist groups (if that isn’t an oxymoron). You can fault them for sloppy semantics.
I think it all depends on where someone has their priorties in their philosophy/aesthetic, and that would include ancaps, when considering a potential for not getting irked. That said, it is not uncommon for me to find the an-left quite tolerable / pleasent to be around / worth listening to
This is a false depiction of the ‘anarcho-left’. If they would respect property and choice, then they wouldn’t be the ‘anarcho-left’, they would just be anarcho-capitalists.
Well, I suppose I could see what you are saying from the point of an idealogue (good and bad, black or white, etc.) and it seems you’ve got the blinders fastened fairly snug.
But what’s a greater threat to your liberty right now? The fact that a few, decentralized lefty tribes won’t respect your property in a hypothetical future? Or that the terrible mechanations of the state threaten your property now?
I must agree with . Seeing a potential ally in anarcho-communists was the only non-questionable (form my point of view) tactical decision that Rothbard ever made.
These guys hold an impossible position, but still they are anarchists: they wouldn’t resort to a State without loosing support. What would happen with any “democratically owned” plant, as per ancom theory, is simply that it would go bankrupt, and the whole movement with it. Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy.
anarchists struggle for credibility. most people that don’t reject anarchy out of hand, need to understand economics sufficiently to comprehend that anarchy would bring prosperity. ‘anarcho’-‘communists’ greatly undermine this.
True. But I don’t’ advocate making joint speeches, or conferences, or that kind of thing. And of course, every AE should always speak the truth about any mater when asked, and never subdue what he knows to be true to some strange tactic.
All I’m saying (and perhaps Jackson will agree) is that we need to stop battering them. Live them alone, and they’ll do more good than harm to the cause. We’ve got far bigger fish to fry, I’m afraid.
People who are anti-property are not allies against the state. They want a state, just a different kind.
"Destruction is a statist measure; it is fundamental to government. So what are the black-clad youngsters so filled with hatred and so prone to destroy? They call themselves anarchists, but they are the embodiment of the statist principle: “do as I say–or else.” The masked hordes rioting the streets calling for anarchy want power; they want the power to do as they please, and they want the power to separate action from responsibility. They want the freedom to act–without consequence. They demand respect from others in the sense of fear, obedience and subjection rather than appreciation and admiration; they want to be the state and control its powers.
They are indeed the opposite of any conceivable part of the anarchist tradition, but use the label to place responsibility of their deeds on others. They blame anarchism for their actions, while demanding the powers of the state to mold society into their view of utopia. The riots are not a call for freedom; it is a call for another kind of government. Anarchism, on the other hand, is the absence of government."
So to answer your question, on what’s a bigger threat. I think that would be a false dichotomy because I don’t see left-anarchists furthering our cause in any way whatsoever. Our cause is difficult and requires an unbelievably studied and well-understood position in philosophy, economics and morality. I don’t think the left-anarchists have any of that. And because they don’t, I think they just hurt our cause, in the way Per described above.
Because the right of private property is one of the lynch pins of libertarianism, and regular anarchists dont believe such a thing exists. Without it, libertarianism has zero foundation. If man cannot buy and organize his property as he sees fit, then we do not have freedom - we have chaos. The anarchists will not usually play this battle, “Oh its OK in an ancap world if we have our own anarchists (sic) communes?”. No, they will nearly always make a variation of the argument that the capitalists will set up their own private fiefdoms (meaning they will use their own property as they like).
Basically that is like arguing commies should be our natural ally because they ostensibly seek to demolish the state.
The anarcho-left is a huge mishmash of very different ideas. Most of them completely statist and misguided.
Totalitarian direct democracy for instance is a popular idea among anarcho-leftist and it is by far the most horrible form of rule concivable.
There are other notions that the the Anarchist Federation shouldn’t meddle too much, just control all trade between communes …
Many claim that using force to prevent ownership of land is perfectly ok and some of these lunatics even form political parties (quoting Proudhon stating that parties are abominations in the party agenda) and unfortunately they don’t do this as a joke.
There are few anarcho-leftists that are agreeable and want a society in which it would be perfectly possible to live as anarcho-capitalist. They want proper anarchism and that people should voluntarily choose to share stuff and generally behave as hippies. That view is ok but there are very few anarcho-leftist I have come across that have this non-statist idea. The rest are statist.
Hey man, I don’t go around telling other people how to live. And if everyone isn’t already a natty right NAP-bot, then we must be able to choose to affirm or ignore ideologies.
They just need to put a good spin on it. I’m sure people are much comfortable with “libertarian” than “anarcho-capitalist” (which is probably why Rothbard hijacked it from the anarcho-left in the first place). So, they need a cutesy name that reminds people of freedom, like I dunno, maybe “liberal democrats” or the “Free People’s Front”. Y’know, something sexy!
Yeah, I still don’t get why the right to property is so vital. Haven’t you ever heard of a gun? You don’t want someone screwing with your property, defend it! Maybe get together with some buddies, with a mutual defense contract or something. I think it’s called a “town”.
I think that is what I’m arguing, just not the ones who are trying to use the state to demolish itself.
Well then tell 'em “I’ll see you after the state topples from the sights of my 30/06 but 'till then, let’s bring it down” or something else tough sounding. Maybe they will value their lives over matyrdom for the proles, or maybe not, in which case you’d better be a good shot.
