Therein lies the beauty of anarchy, if you think someone is misguided, avoid them! No need to convert if you are already free from the state. Who the hell cares what others think? The pretention of both parties is to automatically assume ideological superiority. Let the market decide!
Not all parties believe in letting the market decide.
Than to Hell with them!
There goes some of the anarcho-left, right, as well as some egoism.
Influencing my reaction, or on their way to Hell?
The former.
Hmm, am I that transparent? I guess it follows my political progression fairly well:
Social Democrat
Left Libertarian
Left/Right Anarchist (small collectives competing on a free market. What do you call that?)
Egoist
Aspire to meditate my way into ego dissolution, removing the illusory boundry of subject and observer, and settling into non-dualistic primordial consciousness, essentially the “creative nothing” Stirner sites in his book as his origin, or Dzogchen, as the Buddhists say.
The few anarchists that one could consider “leftoid” that one should have any respect for, are the ones that manage to balance the reluctant need for survival in current state-society, while being an advocate for their beliefs & working within society to change it.
One that comes to mind (despite disagreeing with many things on) is Bob Black, who is also a laywer, although technically he is classified as a ‘post-left anarchist’. Interestingly enough, Boochkin chided (indirectly) post-left anarchism as another example of lifestyle anarchism, & the disagreement between the two are fairly well documented.
More on topic, I generally despise the anarcho-left for their self-righteous morality & lack of understanding economics or history., both of which reinforce their skewed views & attitudes towards everyone else.
I mostly despise them for deriving & in a lot of cases, ripping off of, Marxism, as an inspiration for ethics, views, etc., when they would be far better off deriving their inspiration from Kevin Carson.
Well, I know what I’m reading after Human Action.
I don’t care about the history of the libertarian movement. The anarcho-left chooses to ignore economics, and obfuscates history. Their doctrine is entirely nonsensical. When they can show that their dreams are not mere hallucinations then maybe they will be taken seriously.
This almost reads as a non-point, aside from subtle advertising on who might have the real “answer”, & who doesn’t.
The same can be said of any sort of group, provided they don’t agree with the views of the person saying ‘x’ group are “ideologues”, that “don’t understand the history of libertarian & anarchistic thought very well”, etc.
I’m sure all the -ist’s & -ism’s in the world have their own frustrations that rest of us are seemingly against them just out of spite for having the “correct” answers.
It may be possible that the mutualist conception of property rights is superior economically/sociologically to traditional property rights. That is the argument that needs to be had, not some absurd ideological debate. This is what I find annoying in general about left anarchists. They are way into that stuff. The way that they try to mix ideas is also creepy to me.
+1 on bold.
I love it when a thread comes together.
Can you point out how you disagree with the general anarcho-capitalist’s ethical conclusions? And possibly try to keep it clear and understandable.
I’m not saying become one. There is one big thing all anarchists believe:
The state needs to go.
You know the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. While we dither about the minutae of who is “right” and who is “wrong”, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the state and the statists, chuckle to themselves and open up another banana.
Right! So let’s bring down the state, and let the market settle the score, once and for all!
Doesn’t apply. Many anarchists are opposed to individualism and property all together. The Spanish “anarchists” were allies with the communists as well and look how that turned out.
I got that, but that doesn’t mean they are anti-state. And the Spanish Anarchy was overun by the Stalinists as the Anarchists were shot. i don’t know if that really applies.
The communists and the “anarchists” had an alliance, the communists regularly shot and killed the “anarchists.”
If the above is any indication, chances are it won’t be entirely clear & understandable, not when he is making generalizations about the forum to in an attempt to make his views & opinions more effective.