Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Traditional Anarchism

[OctoBox]

An-Archism means (No-Authority) -- It means in essence "self-rule" or "individualism"

Since the discussion of "markets" is inevitable in a discussion of anarchism (or individualism) one must first define who the individual is.

Bakuninism it is the worker

Rothbardianism it is the owner

Misesian Logic it is the consumer

No one argues that it's any other kind of person

In the market-sense -- Consumers pay for everything; and all people are consumers.

Not all are workers-owners

[gugaLiuzzi]

bad audio again!!!

[juliecranford]

I hear nothing but static :(

[XOmniverse]

Something happened to some of my older Youtube videos. I'm not sure what, exactly.

[spillersman]

You raise some interesting points. I am not rigid as to which school I characterise myself and can learn from anarchists of all stripes. I am probably more of a mutualist which tries to balance individualism with collectivism within society. There will be societies within anarchism that will voluntary organize more collectively and some more individualistically. You see that in churches. I do believe in the general values of equality, liberty, anti-authoritarianism, decentralization, etc.

[isweariammad]

this video was so much less loaded with bullshit than the one you were responding to. Well said.

[jackriter]

Instead of Russia vs. Georgia we can have google vs. windows! Sounds great, and if my house is on fire, and I don't have enough money to pay the firemen, what the fuck happens? If I get raped and murdered, who is there to investigate if my family doesn't have the money? Your "Anarcho" Capitalism favors the rich, and to have the rich you muct have the poor.

[dommyxx]

Google is accountable to shareholders, the sate is accountable to no one. Fire cover should be in your insurance policy who provides such services. If you have private security / laws they have an insentive to protect you and to be accountable to protect you as a matter of repuation and duty of care etc etc. The poor would be much better of without the state, trust me. Communist Russia doesn't exactly help the poor either right?

[jackriter]

The poor are much better off without a state, but also without capitalism. My point was that if I can't afford insurance I don't get it, and I would much rather have a state that would at least stop a fire in my house and throwing me into the streets. Also, privatized education would be a disaster, children would suffer later in life because their parents could not afford to get them an education, and they would be impoverished later in life.

[xkeltoix]

very well said

[KenCat1337]

Capitalism requires hierarchy.

Anarchism is against hierarchy.

"Anarcho" Capitalism is an oxymoron.

You are a retarded moron.

[XOmniverse]

The free market (to avoid whatever baggage you attach to the word capitalism) does NOT require ANY social arrangement. You're free to form a non-hierarchical commune, a worker's coop, or just plain live in a cave and live off the land of you want.

[KenCat1337]

Sure, I could go off and live in a cave in TODAY's political system too... Is it logical? of course not.

As time goes on, there is more and more force to get a job and work for someone.

In an "Anarcho" Capitalist society, there would be no restrictions of the corporations and their power!

With privatized companies (what you'd have in an "Anarcho" Capitalist society), they'd only care about their PROFIT. Because of this, their quality would go down.. I'll give an example in my next comment.

[KenCat1337]

An example is health care. When there is profit involved, health care companies stop insuring those who actually NEED help.

They will deny you of insurance if you have a pre-existinig condition, because it would require them to PAY money for something.

This has been proven over, over and over again.

Capitalist corporations just want money.

Anyone with both a brain and a heart can see that "Anarcho" Capitalism is not only an oxymoron, but is unethical and immoral.

[coffeeintheface]

""Capitalist corporations just want money.""

^Speaking of oxymorons...

[juliecranford]

you mean redundancy.

[phrimburger]

@KenCat1337 in our current system corporations wield enormous power through the government. In an anarcho-capitalist society the forces of the free market would keep any corporation from wielding too much power. So what if companies only care about profit? how is that inherently bad? caring about profit allows them to maximize the utility of their customers. Quality would go up not down, you clearly have little understanding of free market economics.

[delboyzgzg]

@KenCat1337 Yes, but if you light up a joint in that cave, you would go to jail...

In anarcho capitalist society there would be no restriction to the power of corporations other than the natural law of supply and demand which doesn't support monopolies. It's not of issue of restricting monopoly anyway, it's an issue of the state passing laws that induce and perpetuate monopoly (whether it's the state's or the companies that bribed it), for example: patenting, copyright & economic game laws.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@KenCat1337

There would be nothing stopping corporations, but also nothing keeping them in power. I recommend you read some leftist market anarchists, like Kevin Carson and Brad Spangler, and stop blaming the market for actually existing capitalism.

[Samer1988]

Capitalism requires one thing:

Voluntary human association. Capitalism also encourages competition which almost always leads to cheaper good with a higher quality. If you can show me one instance of any other system doing this I would be impressed. There's no exception.

Capitalism is the freest economic system known to mankind.

[gtbob12]

Non-capitalist economics requires control

Anarchism is against control

??????

Of course, anarchy would probably mean that one is responsible for keeping his own property private without appealing to the law (lest he be a fool and a coward), but certain capitalist principles are actually required for anarchy.

[dommyxx]

It's people like you who run the state. Anarchism is not anti-hierachy at all... It's just anti-establishment (meaning the state). The state is run through voilence and the threat of violence, that's what anarchism is trying to remove.

[anifreek]

Okay, you guys really need to read some capitalist literature ie bakunin, proudhon, chomsky, stirner, kropotkin, and others.

If you had any understanding of anarchism, you would know that we are not only against government, but against authority.

[anifreek]

for this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state

[anifreek]

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]

[anifreek]

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

[anifreek]

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.

Okay... thats over with now xD, I really hate youtube's character limit on comments ^_^

[VanDoodah]

Social anarchism is a dead movement. It died in Spain.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is getting stronger and stronger.

[WSidis]

There's no money in social anarchism...

[ClassicRock8]

but true libertarianism is Libertarian socialism, a combination of Anarchy and socialism

[landofthefreemyass]

Well put.

[Dunbar0740]

@VanDoodah, well, the anarcho-capitalists would have to function in a society without property rights - I don't see hoiw their version of capitalism can work in this environment. Government exisits, essentially, to protect property, without Government to "enforce" property rights, property becomes meaningless. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

[VanDoodah]

@Dunbar0740 I agree. I was somewhat naive when I posted my original comment.

[buddyfreakinholly]

Well said!

[Livingfishguy]

The problem with communism and socialism is that by definition there has to be some sort of "central planning" which decides who gets what, which is not anarchist at all.

Anarchy and communism/socialism don't mix!

[RebelWithoutASauce]

They mixed quite well during the Spanish revolution.

[subach]

I think the point that should be made here is that in an anarcho-capitalist society you would have a choice on whether you participate in an hierarchical system, because hierarchical system will always develop no matter what you do.

[subach]

I think the point that should be made here is that in an anarcho-capitalist society you would have a choice on whether you participate in an hierarchical system, because hierarchical system will always develop no matter what you do.

[kidpens]

If you have enough apples, then why do you need more apples?

[XOmniverse]

Why does need enter into it at all?

[Livingfishguy]

what if there wasn't enough apples?

What if there were only enough apples to sustain one person?

If you were to divide the apples amongst two people they would both starve.

Therefore competition is inevitable, and in fact necessary in order to survive.

[Hannibalde2de]

i dont like his voice, but he's right. =D

[CorrosionX3]

The real question is how do you prevent someone from engaging in capitalist behavior in an "anarcho-syndicalsit" society? Surely a man must be able to own means of production, or else it's communism all over again.

[ANARCHYdashTVdotCOM]

Burn it into your brain: anarchy is nothing more, than the right to be left alone, to govern yourself. All this collectivism moral capitalism, or how an anarchist society would work bullshit has nothing to do with anarchy. Anarchism is about the individual deciding how he wants to live without interference from anybody else, and without interfereing with anybody else.

[anarcrustie]

uhhhh... not necessarily?

[RoseWhiteRoseRed]

the proletariat owns the rights to their goods

if everyone has the same goal it wouldn't even have to go there

you have it pretty right

the term anarcho-capitalism angers me to no end

[lukeev]

why? how would we innovate otherwise? the problem with capitalism is state intervention, not the free market. anarcho-capitalism is not so distant from 'pure' anarchy at all, it's just a misunderstanding of language and definition.

[nazibreaker]

and ofc i didnt say anarcho-capitalists say anarchy is chaos  i said the people as whole first say anarchy is chaos then reshape anarchy as anarcho-capitalism with a good purpose ... to divide her .. every true anarchist is against capitalism there is no anarcho-capitalism anarchy its not a competition way of economy its all by joined hands

[nazibreaker]

ANARCHY will be always people ideology and colectivist. dont listen those emty words of anarcho-capitalism and free market is capitalist propaganda that is burguose shit... first they tell anarchy is chaos then they tell anarcho-capitalism fuck of capitalism private property money must be destroyed all must be colectivist property no man can do something all by hes alone then if the job is social then the goods form the job are social we all made this world it shoud belong to us all

[XOmniverse]

(1) I know of no market anarchists who say "anarchy is chaos." They almost always say the opposite, though.

(2) Nobody made the world, but the world is made useful by the application of the human mind to reshaping the world. That part of the world you reshape and imprint with your personality is an extension of yourself and therefore your property.

[nazibreaker]

1 of all world that u live in idiot u take it to direct the civilization is made by joined force ,labor of all every bridge every factory, every house, so it shoud belong to us all.. no man can do something by hes own .. there is no such thing as individual product so u cant say this is mine,cause it is not

[nazibreaker]

anarchism cant be mixed with capitalism and thats final ... anarchism is forever against capitalism,state and class antagonism ,hierarchy or domination ...no material privilege to anyone u want it u have to work it .. no lazyness tolerated in anarchism while in capitalism someone sits on ur back shitheads he does not involve into the production .. capitalism=roberry=war=imperia­lism=nazism=class supermacy=profit=egoism anarchy and capitalism is like GANDI AND BUSH

[irkone]

Anarchism is not a synonym of pacifism. If a profiteer harms others through a monopoly on apples - effectively forcing people to spend their time working in order to survive while the apple tree is easily accessible to all - then the others will, if necessary, forcefully remove the violator of their principle rights of freedom to the shared tree. The state would ONLY be required to protect this profiteer's individual rights to a "free market" and private property.

[irkone]

If private property were to be allowed in this utopian society, it should be a fixed amount. Otherwise one who exhausts their soil through improper farming methods and accumulates a surplus can trade in their food/goods in exchange for more private property and so forth. In effect, they would become a wealthy landowner - protected by the state who they employ in order to protect their assets while the poor masses become tenants.

[mak2675]

Anarcho-capitalism is REALISTIC and conceivable. In a utopian, sharing society it requires that you cannot pursue ambitions to gain beyond your means so you lose all incentive, and if you are lazy - what incentive do you have? Thats the problem - syndicalism contradicts itself as soon as someone doesn't WANT to get involved. Neat thing is that in anarcho-capitalism, you CAN have syndicalism as long as its within your owned property - you can form a shared society within a domain.

[mak2675]

However, it doesn't work vice-versa because when the anarcho-capitalists refuse to get involved in anarcho-syndicalism, the syndicalist society becomes destabilized and ceases. Is my logic making sense? So what we have is a picture of an impossible world if we extend anarcho-collectivism. Sure it COULD be desirable if it were possible, but it being attainable is exactly what i disagree with.

[joesub007]

In a simple 1 fruit economy:

I pick 10 apples you pick 12 apples therefore you should be employed as an apple picker and I should be homeless because you're more efficient. The boss that hires you and fires me is initiating force. Coercion is implied for the protection of private property and the maximization of efficiency in accumulating it.

What's wrong with this picture?

[passerby23]

This is a faulty analogy:

1) The boss is the owner of the apple business, so he's free to do as he pleases with it, including firing you, so long as he's not aggressing against you;

2) Why is firing an act of force? There is nothing coercive about it. You are being dismissed from a position. Consider, also, the possibility that what was agreed upon in your contract with the employer was a clause that stated the lease efficient apple picker be subject to dismissal. Nothing wrong here.

[joesub007]

Sure, but the boss is also a part of society which depends on armed force in enforcing his "rights" as a property owner. He'll need to find the right balance between carrots in the form of wages for the workers and sticks in the form of prisons and police for the people fired and left without a means of legal activity for survival.

Do you think individual private owners are that farsighted in this balancing of threats and rewards? Or do you think the more likely outcome is barbarism?

[passerby23]

You're making tremendous jumps in logic, i.e. that being fired will invariably lead to crime. What about voluntary charity for the unemployed? What about spousal or family support? What about finding another job? Plus, wouldn't firings be just as prevalent in any anarcho-socialist or statist system? I don't see barbarism as a likely outcome at all. I see the exact opposite. What incentive does the business owner have for firing good workers? He wants to make money too.

[joesub007]

Further, it doesn't even make sense in terms of rewarding productivity, but it all seems like a arbitrary scheme to threaten people into enriching the business owner because in terms of quantity of work both person CAN be rewarded in a way that correlates with their labor output. If any particular unit of product corresponds to the market price then a unit produced corresponds to a unit of wage, so even from an efficiency perspective the argument falls apart.

[passerby23]

Any business owner who resorts to threatening people to enrich himself would surely fail in short measure to say nothing of committing extortion. Labor output, while respected and needed, cannot be a sole determinant for worker wage. If one is hard working, but can't perform the assigned job worth a lick, then ultimately the business will fail and no one gets paid. You're also oversimplifying. What about being paid for services? What about varying prices for products? It's not all uniform.

[magidd]

I calling that shit becouse i live in capitalist country Russia. Capitalism is based on the labour, privet propety and inequality. I became an anrcho-communist becouse i hate to be obidient to the bosses and becouse i hate rich bustards who rob the country then 100.000.000 proletarians have problems with buing food, medicine and can't pay for they houses. I don't fucking care about people who whant to save capitalism even if some of them call themself "anarchists".

[mak2675]

as someone who feels close to anarcho-capitalism, i have to say this: you CAN rebel, you can rebel and you can seize money and property from the rich through whatever "voluntary" means but that doesn't mean its MORAL. That is where this video hits the mark. It is concerned with whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a MORAL and truly free system. He touches on the fallacies of syndicalism pretty well, i think.

[dafatalgigabyte]

"[i]n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 564]

[dafatalgigabyte]

"if the public highway is nothing but an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited, leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire? Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to enter the regime of police?" [System of Economic Contradictions, p. 371]

[magidd]

It is not important if Anarcho-Capitalism is traditional anarchism or not.

What is important : it is countr-revolutionary idea wich pretend to save and protect labour, capital and privet propety.

What is the reason to discuss that shit?

[XOmniverse]

Yeah calling it shit without any qualifiers, real solid logic there :P

[Harpakhrad11]

I think you concede to much. You say that market anarchism is of different origins then socialist anarchism. I would suggest you read some of the 19th century individualist, then rethink that. Anarcho-Capitalism is as much of a subgroup of individualism as primitivism and egoism are. The term "socialist" has changed a lot in the last 100 years and it is causing confusion. Most of the 19th century individualists were socialist, but today we would not call them that.

[Freig]

Please replace the battery in your smoke detector.

[useyourbrain12]

anarcho capitalism is actually bullshit...the only anarchism that can excist is anarchocommunism-it has nothin to do with the communist like cccp or china or whatever(matter of fact stalin first killed anarchists and then all the others).read your kropotkin!

[XOmniverse]

Why would a free market not naturally develop without a state?

The irony of people saying "Without a state to force a certain way of life on everyone, clearly MY way of life is the only way" is palpable.

[AntonBatey]

Bullshit. "Anarcho Communism" is a complete and absolute oxymoron. How else can you "plan" an economy? I'm sure you'll talk about some "group" that will enforce production quotas and call it every name in the book BESIDES a "government" or "state". Capitalism requires no state since, on the contrary, any growth nations experience is due to LACK of a state, and due to private property.

[AntonBatey]

The only "ararchism" that's possible would be within a capitalistic framework. A planned economy would require a force (gov't) that would ensure the amount of products that would be produced, wages workers got paid, regulations, etc.

IOW, "socialist anarchism" is an oxymoron.

[Thrice13]

Great ideas presented in this video. I agree with alof of what you said. Seems like some things can be contradictory, but I am not educated enough on the subject yet to identify it. Overall, great video!

[anarchoAkrasia]

What would happen in Anarcho Capitalism if a tennant refused to pay rent or vacate his house? There is a conflict right there. The landlord will simply employ a third party to evict the tennant from his house. Instead of a coercive state, we have coercive private security firms...

[ForOrAgainstUs]

It seems to me, if someone is attacking you, it is not coercion to stop that person. It is self-defense of coercion. In the same respect, not paying for rent is stealing. To obtain either monetary retribution or forceful removal is simply a reaction to an attack on one's liberty. Not paying rent is forcing someone to allow you a room if you don't leave when they ask.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

They force you to initiate force in order for you to maintain your liberty, which they are trying to steal. The private security firm is a voluntary organization to fulfill the needs of maintaining liberty. If those needs are there, the firm goes away.

[anarchoAkrasia]

"Free Markets" and the ownership of capital will always lead to masters and bosses which is a complete anathema to real anarchism.

The only reason we don't have a completely free market now, isn't because of some kind of state control over markets to subvert capitalism, it's because a purely free market system would collapse into violence and totalitarianism within moments of it being established. The state is essential to protect the property of the wealthy from the poor.

[lordmetroid]

How so... If one has ones property insured I would think the insurance people would have an vested interest in protecting your assets or they would have to pay me for all the stolen goods.

[dertyjerzian]

Do you even know you look like? Ok man. You are truly lost. I hope you get away from social systems, fast. You are a target "as is". Don't be tarded. Cut that hair, you look like some PA woman. I don't dislike you, you seem intelligent, and as far as I know, you probably don't smack women. Cut your hair

[westphalianprinz]

I'm more in favor of real socialism than either of these things.

[Aynology]

As a civilization progresses new concepts develope that require new terminology(ie.microprocessor; pre-binary code? what's that!?)

If anarchy is no ruler (as you stated) then Iarchy would be a "voluntary association of men" ruled by their ' I ' ie)Egocracy- ruled by one's Ego.

[thinkNOW07]

Why are we arguing about which anarchism is the right one? Even though i consider myself to be an anarchist-syndicalist, i am still an anarchist nonetheless. I think we should first unite to make an anarchist society where we could actually use these anarchist beliefs!!! We have become so unorganized that we have separated from the true goal of anarchism, and I think its about time that we get together as a solid group to truly make an impact.

[DackBev]

thinkNOW07, if the "true goal of anarchism" is abolishing of private ownership of the means of production, which anarcho-syndicalism advocates, then that's not the same "true goal of anarchism" for individualist anarchists. If there was ever a true anarchism, it has to be individualist anarchism, which allows private ownership of people choose it.

[thinkNOW07]

Sorry, i should have clarified. I didnt actually mean TRUE anarchism, which i also believe is individualist anarchism. What i meant was the common belief shared in anarchism, no rulers.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

That's all we have in common. I hate socialist ideas, we are political enemies.

[thinkNOW07]

I don't like socialism either, we all know that it doesnt work, but I do think that it could work in a small anarchist society. Anarchism as a whole will not get anywhere as long as there are people like you whining about their anarchism being the best. We don't know yet which one will work the best, but in order to find out we first need to make an anarchist society. I don't like socialism, but I hate capitalism in its current form...lol "we are political enemies"

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

There are too many people to have a small society. We can do social testing if this society wanted to. I agree gov needs to get out of our capitalism too! Probably not what you meant, I'm not sure what you mean, but if you like the free market you're fine with me.

[thinkNOW07]

I believe that capitalism can only work without gov. regulations (anarcho-capitalism!!!), but the problems I have with that are the bosses and workers rights...being in a place of power tends to change people in a negative way. How would we be able to test these societies?

[lordmetroid]

Well you sneak under the radar of government and start living.

[DackBev]

I've seen the tired old argument that anarcho-capitalism is not traditional and therefore not anarchism. But guess what? Anarcho-capitalism has been around since the 1960s at least. This is 2007. I think that's long enough to be "traditional." If it's not, then eventually it will be long enough. So the argument is pretty ridiculous.

[DackBev]

By the way, where is the original video that this is replying to?

[XOmniverse]

The guy who made the original video apparently removed his account.

[oliviathecanadian]

Now when someone fires a person in an anarcho-capitalism system.......how will this person survive and feed his family? Will he be able to find a job in less than two weeks? Does the business owner fire this person due to his disagreement, are their laws in place stating when a business owner can fire an employee?

[XOmniverse]

There is no state in an anarcho-capitalist system. I imagine if he is fired, he needs to find another job. This is also a good reason to maintain a savings account while one is employed.

You still look at it with the wrong perspective. You still think of the state as some kind of benevolent father figure that exists to take care of the population. Look around you; this is nonsense.

[DackBev]

Yes, you've got it right. Even if anarcho-communists said they wouldnt forcibly prohibit people from engaging in catitalism, people naturally want to own the fruits of their labor and trade them, as well as trade their labor for things. Other forms of anarchism don't make sense because they advocate people do something other than what has been proven, since time immemorial, to be what people choose to do when they have the freedom to do so - to engage in capitalism.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Terrific response, man. My sentiments exactly about anarcho-collectivism. I've yet to hear these concerns addressed adequately.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Thanks for sticking up for us anarcho-capitalist. Fuck traditional anarchy if it is against the free market.

[cujothekitten]

Some of the collectivist anarchists I've talked to in Chicago mention that if a person "breaks" the societies "rules" they will either expel the person from the community or refuse to acknowledge him/her. That argument pretty much turned me off from that form of anarchy though, I admit, I'm still rather uneducated on the details of it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[Kbiomech]

Actually, that's fairly generic to all flavors of anarchy. Refusal to associate with people who steal or commit violence. It's a modification of the non agression principle.

[lordmetroid]

Well in a market anarchy an person who commits fraud and other crimes will of course have a harder time to back his contracted promises up by an financial insurance and so have a harder time for other people to trust him or deal with him because he doesn't have a reliable third party backing up his promises.

[cujothekitten]

I'm ok with people not associating with others, I'm even ok with people not acknowledging others, it's when they get into physically removing people out of a society that upsets me. There are some instances where I think that would be appropriate but some of them were talking about minor issues like eating meat. I feel like their tolerance level is lower than most of society. That's just my experience though.

[Kbiomech]

That sounds ridiculous to me as well, Cujo.

[lordmetroid]

If they get physical on me they are out of order! Unacceptable!

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I've never heard a market anarchist advocate shunning for meat consumption, but there are left wing variants that would probably do such a thing. Stefan Molyneux has a LewRockwell[dot]com article titled "Stateless Prisons" that you might find interesting.

[CorrosionX3]

@cujo: how about when they smoke weed, should they be physically removed from society as they are now under government?

[cujothekitten]

No, I don't feel anyone should be removed for choosing what to do with their own bodies. The only time I would be in favor of such an action is if there was some kind of psychopath terrorizing the community.

[lukeev]

that would be sorted out by private local security networks anyway, that's what they'd be paid to do, protect property etc