Not at first, only after the soviets got involved when the situation against the fascists was getting desperate. They got a couple of good years out of the bargain anyways, which is more than I can say.
Eh ideologues? I wouldn’t say ancaps are ideologues. Passionate perhaps. Sure of themselves, obviously. I think ideologues are in the recent movement of limited-government/‘patriotic’ Glenn Beck watching conservatives. They really don’t understand the realization of what they are stating. I definitely agree with you that people over-generalize socialism. Like did you see the recent Glenn Beck ‘documentary’ talking about ‘progressives’ when all it was really about was marxist theorists. Beck actually thinks progressives are marxists and everyone who is a socialist is a marxist. I want to put my head through the wall when I hear that crap. That is why I took up Nock’s quote in my signature. Americans don’t really have a solid philosophical background. They usually incorrectly give labels.
Well, you don’t have to think critically that way. It’s actually much easier.
Thank you for refuting this, I didn’t have the mental energy after helping my neighbors battle the snow today 
What is much easier?
Not really, even the “anarchist” relations with the pre-war socialists weren’t very peaceful or co-operative. The socialist trade unions would disrupt anarchist strikes and whatnot. Only when the war broke out was there an official pact, yet that didn’t do much at all.
Constructing snappy slogans and branding everything before critically analyzing it. You know “drive-thru politics”. It’s the American way.
Yes, because they had ideological disputes.
Well, they took and held Catalonia for a few years, until the soviet statist puppets, and the fascist statists wiped them all out
That is the entire point, if you have ideological disputes the enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend at all.
Took it for a few years? That was the entire period. There was constant battles between the two groups during that period, and it was largely the “anarchists” who maintained their allies just others infiltrated.
Well, fortunately, we aren’t talking about trusting statists.
“Whoa, that’s cool!”
- Butthead, of Beavis and Butthead
See, I told their heart was in the right place.
Thats right, destroy private property, burn down churches, kill “bosses.” Much better than statists.
If it isn’t my property, my church (shouldn’t have to worry about that one), and I’m not the boss, then they’ve already got a better track record than the state in my book.
You cannot have a “better track record” following an “if.” Of course, theres nothing to be alarmed about, “sure, you burned down my neighbours home but you haven’t marched to mine, so… allies! Crush the state!”
(To be fair, not all anarchists, left or otherwise, are this awful, just too many for my taste.)
And yet you did part of what I was talking about angurse: the moment an alternative viewpoint is brought into question, it is immediately broad-brushed as favoring overt aggression. This is something that ancaps are often guilty of, I.E. defining aggression through the lense of a presupposed property theory, and then accusing anyone with a different property theory of therefore supporting aggression. Similarly, at least as a tendency among “thin” libertarians, anyone that promotes values above and beyond non-aggression is often accused of advocating coercion, when of course this could very well be a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding of the distinction between notions of political justice and more general ethics.
This is a more general philosophical problem with how the non-aggression principle is treated (and, to give an example of this being brought up in your own circles, Gene Callahan, who is by no means a left-anarchist, has made this observation in detail before). In short, practically every political ideology says that it’s against aggression, but what constitutes aggression is inherently dependent on other value-laden notions, which effectively creates a multiplicity of NAPs (even within libertarian philosophy). The most rigid ancap position essentially reduces to a false choice between absolute neo-lockean property rights and being a statist. If that’s taken seriously, traditional individualist anarchism and everything to the left of it must be called “non-anarchist”, which would essentially constitute a dubious ancap monopoly on anarchism as a whole.
Which is why I think productive dialogue with varying anarchist/ minarchists groups ought to start with polycentric law, decentralization, and mutually opposed authorities. I think nothing but good could come out of that recognition. It certainly would be more productive than the combo of starting with a perceived moral high ground and dismisive language.
I’m happy I could help. A few problems though:
I don’t consider myself as an ancap, nor did I actually say that it would necessarily lead to “aggression.” The point was that groups that share a common enemy aren’t necessarily allies. The backdrop of Civil-War era Catalonia was used to simply illustrate the point. Also, I really don’t care to defend why I (a “boss”) shouldn’t be killed, if that means I’m presupposing a property theory oh well.
That isn’t the case here, for multiple reasons.
My own circles? OK? I’m not really sure where the problem is with being wary of bad allies. If allying with the state could help your cause would you do it?
Thats a big “no shit.” We all have different values, another reason why education is key. That hardly means we should be willing to make allies with an “enemy of an enemy” much more common ground is necessary before anyone should be treated as an ally.
Thats funny actually, as the last thing I want is to even be called an “anarchist.”
Apprently Kinsella really doesn’t get Callahan’s point, at least its implications.
I think Bob Murphy summed it up best.
"Guys! Gene, you have been making the same point for two weeks now: “Sometimes libertarians think they can blow people up by saying ‘nonaggression na na na’ and they don’t realize this by itself is a circular argument.”
Stephan, you have been making the same point for two weeks now: “Gene, there is nothing circular about it the way I or Hoppe make the case. We objectively define where property rights come from.”
And I have been making the same point for two weeks now: “Gene, there are plenty of people who generally agree with the initial premises of libertarians, and also think they don’t approve of aggression, who contradict themselves. And there are also people who AGREE that they sometimes support violating property rights for a more important principle.”