Honestly, I think you're missing the core of the issue. It's called individualist anarchism for a reason. There is no one definition of it, because each individualist anarchist creates their own personal definition of the term. Hence the stress on the concept of 'individualism'.
Sorry, dude. Doesn't matter who wrote what, and what pre-established tradition of anarchism you want to conform yourself to. Anarchism and capitalism aren't contradictory. Anarchism is merely any statelessness, without regard to the voluntary structure of the economy.
The whole Benjamin Tucker "point in time" dissections are lame. His views changed prior to his death and only began to reveal his issues/problems with LTV and other things. Anarcho-anything "label" is not, jmo, how to educate others.
And correct spelling is essential for use of the English language in writing.
If you really knew anything about anarchism you'd know that they are NOT opposed to property rights; they merely advocate property based on use and occupancy along with usufruct for the means of production.
The use of your property is essential for freedom, but not if it's used in a way that coerces, or subordinates another.
Actually what I corrected your spelling. Last time I checked, those were two different things.
"Anarchism means NO STATE"
Going by the entomology, it means "no/without rule/rulers". The state is the main focus of anarchist theory but has never been the only focus. Literally all early anarchist thinkers were also staunchly anti-capitalist, seeing both statism and privatism as two sides of the same coin.
The anti-authoritarian left has always been opposed to state power, just look up William Morris's famous quote on "state"-socialism..
And the word "communism" (prior to its batardization and corruption) originally referred exclusively to a stateless society; look it up if you don't believe me.
As for "destroying the anarchist ideal", it's you who doesn't seem to understand it.
@MsSexySocialist People like you are fucking parasites to real Anarchists who are purely anarchists and freethinkers. Trying to covert it into something it's not about.
@turbofritz2 I looked over your profile and I've come to the conclusion that you are an convoluted idiot who has absolutely no idea what you are talking about and have no grasp on theory of ANY kind what-so-ever. Carry on @MsSexySocialist
90 % of humanity on this Earth are idiots who do nothing to enhance humanity and the world itself. Face this fact honestly. This is why Im an individualist anarchist, because society at large benefits this large majority and is thus not only immoral but also destructive to itself.
I feel so conflicted I like free market anarchy and left libertarianism. I am reading josiah warren and liking it but rothbard is convincing too. wtf do I do man?
@greenghost2008 Confusion is a good thing. It means you're seriously contemplating the issues and trying to reach an honest conclusion that isn't always very obvious. I'd strongly recommend reading "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber; it will, I believe, give you a better historical context from which to understand these issues. Principally, the fact that markets depend on state violence to develop; but also a lot more. Off the top of the head it's a great place to start. Good luck!
@greenghost2008 I would agree with greenghost2008 that confusion is a good thing. Don't fight it: anarchists thrive on fluxuation. That's the whole point. I would suggest that you read some of the Egoist Anarchists (Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, James L. Walker, John Beverley Robinson, S.E. Parker, Dora Marsden, etc.). All of these discussions about what is the "right" version of anarchism miss the point entirely I think because anarchy is not an immutable ideal, it's not a program;...End pt.1
@Apmhflick Pt.2- Rather, it is a negative, a tearing down of authority in all its guises. To say that I must be against capitalism, socialism, wage labor, immorality, or any other idea in order to be an anarchist is simply using authority. This is what the Egoists speak of: rejecting all ideals/fixed ideas. To be an anarchist is to reject any "essence over me" whether it be a head of state, a god, or an ideal (the abolition of pvt. property, communism, morality, etc.)...End pt.2
@Apmhflick Pt.3- There is a book called "Enemies of Society" that you can purchase from Little Black Cart (google it, youtube won't let me post the URL) that contains writings from all of these great destructive thinkers. I highly recommend it. *Don't be so concerned about making every interest of yours conform to what people tell you are the principles of anarchism (tm/Gospel truth!) because you can be sure that their saying so proves they don't really understand it themselves. Good luck.
@greenghost2008 (Free) market anarchism and left-libertarianism are not mutually exclusive. Most left-libertarians don't fall under Chomskyites' "libertarian" guise.
@greenghost2008 There are such things as "Left-Rothbardians". They draw egalitarian conclusions from Rothbard's earlier work. He associated with paleoconservatives later on in life, though.
Thank you comrade! However there have also been individualist anarchists that supported private property, and self-sufficiency, but most well known individualist anarchists have been socialists, but people like Lysander Spooner and Ayn Rand were not socialists. However, it is very oxymoronic to be an anarchist, but against socialism
So was Lysander Spooner misclassified as an individualist anarchist? He certainly made money for a time while operating his rival to the U.S. Postal service and I don't think he delivered mail personally. Just asking. I am certainly not claiming any expertise here.
@marfiuss He's just pointing out why individualist anarchism is hardly compatible with this "anarcho-capitalism" that people like to promote on the internet.
If there's a collective creating rules that people have to follow to be part of said collective how is that not a state? Is it because i have the option to leave? What if said collective turned around and said "no you can't leave". All these different versions of anarchy always seem like mob rule to me, which you can argue is just a big oppressive state in my opinion. If you can't do as you please then how is that anti authoritarian?
Can someone please explain the following to me because I can't seem to make any sense of it, how can there be different forms of anarchy? If anarchy is suppose to be a revolt against the "state" because it's authoritarian nature how can there be any rules? If I create something, i write a story for example with paper i found or stole or traded for and i tell the commune i'm a part of they have no right to it and they gang up and kick me out or take it from me how is that not authority?
How the fuck are you going to call anyone an ancap? Ancaps are diluted if they want to call themselves Anarco-Capitalists. Anarchy has always been anti-capitalist. Read the Anarchist FAQ <3
In "Instead of a Book" Tucker makes it pretty clear that he doesnt advocate force against the hierarchical institutions he railed against. He definitely degreed with Bastiat and the like though.
Your anarchism is anarchism diluted with a vulgar socialism that derides those you disagree with as impostors to your pristinely communist theory of post-statist society. Benjamin Tucker strongly opposed communism. Also, thorsmitersaw IS on the libertarian left-he follows the philosophy of Agorism, a leftist deviation of the libertarian movement and synthesis of contemporary "free-market" economics with traditionally socialist concerns.
bwahaha! 1:29 Mephistopheles?! Not all people who are anti-state are pro-socialism. Being anti-state and anti-socialism coexist beautifully in the ideal of anarcho-capitalism.
@fairiebee "Not all people who are anti-state are pro-socialism." buddhagem never said that. he also thinks to be an anti statist isnt enough to be considered an anarchist.
My take on individualist anarchism runs like this.
I think of my self as an individualist anarchist because I can think for myself. I oppose everything external that aims to tell me how to think and act that includes the lead weight of ideology.
We say "No Gods - No Masters" but why are so many of us slaves to political theory? Isn't anararchy about freedom?
I'm an anarchist, I know myself and I'll be myself. That's the only way I feel free. Ideology dosn't come in to it.
My take on individualist anarchism runs like this.
I think of my self as an individualist anarchist because I can think for myself. I oppose everything external that aims to tell me how to think and act that includes the lead weight of ideology.
We say "No Gods - No Masters" but why are so many of us slaves to political theory? Isn't anararchy about freedom?
I'm an anarchist, I know myself and I'll be myself. That's the only way I feel free. Ideology dosn't come in to it.
Also I live near Josiah Warren's settlement of Utopia, Ohio. They still use labor certificates. They are opposed to wages for labor, not necessarily any particular economic system. I am opposed to wages ethically as well, however, I prefer percentage profit sharing. In my opinion (which isn't worth much), ethics concerning Natural Law among left and right anarchists does not clash EXCEPT in economics. No uniformity is possible in economics, or any other area, without coercion.
I don't think it's valid to say you cannot be an anarchist if you are not anti-capitalist (I'm aware of the double and triple negatives in that sentence..lol). Anarch is a word with root meanings. The prefix "an" is latin for "without". The word "arch" is short for the latin word "archon", which means "ruler". So to be an anarchist, literally, you must ethically oppose rulers. Which presumes a "jurisdiction of the effected". Hence, economics is really irrelevant.
I don't think it's valid to say you cannot be an anarchist if you are not anti-capitalist (I'm aware of the double and triple negatives in that sentence..lol). Anarch is a word with root meanings. The prefix "an" is latin for "without". The word "arch" is short for the latin word "archon", which means "ruler". So to be an anarchist, literally, you must ethically oppose rulers. Which presumes a "jurisdiction of the effected". Hence, economics is really irrelevant.
Why do left anarchists seem to completely ignore the school of Rothbardian, free-market, anarcho-capitalism? You say anarchism is generally anti-capitalism, but there is an entire movement of anarchism that is not. I catch flack from some so-called libertarian friends when I speak of anarchism because in their view anarchism is related to communism, socialism, or some other system that bears no resemblance to the self-government I'm talking about. So what say you of Murray Rothbard and Mises?
I've read that same piece by Benjamin Tucker, Free market Anti-Capitalism, and I basically agreed w/ him on this except personally I would not use the word socialism strictly for the reason it is as loaded as the word capitalism. And although the word Anarchy is just as loaded a word, I will use the term free market anarchist when labeling myself. What does need to be said about Tuckers interpretation of Anarchist Socialism is that it IS Voluntary Socialism which is the key., voluntary.
Your glasses or the shadow from your glasses made it look like your eyebrow wrapped around your head. LOL. I noticed that while I was watching you give Thor socialized education.
Quackery revisionism and wishful thinking does not make a thing true. Rothbard, Konkin are frauds to be scorned for promoting quackery and lies. "Anarcho" capitalism is a fraud Trojan horse philosophy meant to fool white working class into supporting capitalism against their beast interests. I'd say they're doing a fine job. You people are reactionaries/counterrevolutionary. Free association is NOT working for a boss, renting or paying interest under threat of starvation. It never will be.
Nice history lesson. The word bitch originally meant a female dog. Now it's primarily used to describe a mean female human. Have you ever used it in this way? Of course you have. Anarchy is also a word the definition of which has changed over time as human beings develop new ideas, uncover problems with old ideas, & develop disagreements. Movements commonly divide. This is just an observation of human behavior. There is no absolute ruler that gets to dictate the meaning of a word for all time.
@truthadvocate No. Anarchism has ALWAYS been a part of the broader socialist movement. Anarchism has ALWAYS been opposed to capitalism. Even Rothbard knew this as he said : "We are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical". This was because "all" anarchists had "socialistic elements in their doctrines" and "possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common."
I love Rothbard, but I don't blindly follow the words of anyone no matter how much I respect them. That's what religious sheeple do. Funny he mentioned etymology, which is a study that includes the phenomenon I explained, that the meaning of words changes over time. Free market advocates often like to disassociate themselves from the word, "anarchy" because of its negative associations. Today they use labels "free market anarchist," "market anarchist," "anarcho-capitalist," etc. to do that.
I've shown Thor over and over and over direct quotes from Tucker saying he was against property, wage labor for another person, rent and interest. They warp Stirner, Tucker and Spooner just as Rothbard did to fit their capitalist agenda idea which is holding a dominant position over others. They [Thor types] advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. They are capitalists. The individualist anarchists did not advocate these things. Thor and his bunch are also racists.
Good luck talking sense into these people, especially Thor. I've been on myspace "debating" these people for months and they hold to their delusions as if it were a life preserver in a raging ocean.
I opened this video expecting to be pissed off... however, even though I am a fervent individualist and fan of the free-market; I was pleasantly impressed by your thoroughness and thoughtfulness.
the way things are looking, governments and corporations are only increasing their control over us. i don't think your idea has much of a chance this century.
until your definition becomes more prevalent in society, or the people with your definition are able to impose their will upon others, then your vision will never be realized.
don't get me wrong, i don't mind your definition of property, i kind of like it, since i'm poor. however, there's very few middle class, and especially upper class people who are going to buy this. i think that property is a sentimental notion. it's also a convienant notion. people are going to believe, whatever definition pleases them the most.
no definition of property can be universal. there's just no way that everyone is going to buy your definition of property. therefore, there's always going to be conflict in society. really, there is no capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or corporatism, in an absolute and universal sense. there's just individuals, each with their own definition of property, comming into conflict with people that have another. sometimes, conflicts can be resolved. sometimes, conflict is inevitable.
property rights are a relative concept. your definition of property could only work if everyone else agreed with you. some people are bound to disagree with it. they're going to build a house, or a hotel, or what have you, and they're going to charge people rent, and some people are going to accept this. others, like you, may try and claim the hotel as their own because the owner no longer sleeps there. such disputes will have to be settled at gun point.
I agree, such disputes will have to be settled in private courts, through ostracism of people that break contract, and through force if need be. However the use of police forces that are funded from taxation on threat of persecution is oppressive.
correct me if i'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like your saying. your saying that if i am not presently occupying my property, then i can no longer claim it as my own. but what if i disagree with you? what if i decide to kick the renter out on the street for not paying his rent?
By all means, kick the renter out on the street. However what I am opposed to, and what I think Benjamin Tucker was opposed to, is you getting the aid of the State to kick out the renter/squatter.
If you are enlisting the aid of police forces paid for with taxes then you hold a monopoly. You are in effect charging the people you profit a compulsory protection tax, instead of hiring your own security forces to occupy and protect your property.
so what are you saying? if i buy a house, and i no longer occupy that house, and i decide to rent it to someone else, the renter, since he is presently occupying my house, should claim my house as his own, and no longer pay me any money?
When I first started watching I thought "Oh no, not another free market Libertarian Anarchist. BUt I was refreshed to see you views on it. I wonder what you're thought's are on anti-statism.
I consider myself for or less a market anarchist, but I do respect Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, Bakunin etc. But although they are very important they just epouse ideas, and really what you think should be the most important, as Kant wrote in his reflection on the enlightenment.
Unfortunately, you mispronounced "usury," therefore you can no longer call yourself an anarchist, nor are you historically linked to the traditional line of proper English speakers. :-/
I'd be hesitant to even label Prodhoun an individualist; but to answer your question their essential difference was how they saw their ideal society or the "preferred mode of organization." The Individualists envisioned more of a small-scale community of artisans; whereas the socialists envisioned something more akin to an advanced industrial society based on worker control of the means of production; collective ownership of factories etc. Protection of the individual was paramount to both.
@AfricanPrince Proudhon was a mutualist and was arguably the very first modern human to take into account all aspects of what constitutes a livable society ( mutual respect for and mutual use of the planet with animals and other living things). He actually identified as an individualist anarchist after becoming disillusioned with MARX. Tucker is seen by some as an individualist, only because he was openly against any government intervention and shunned the idea of industrial advancement
"Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know when he does not know nor of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom." - About Socrates.
The first part of this quote is the most important. I believe our society looks for the quick answers to facts. Why did Palin resign? Nobody knows. Ignorance of a fact is not supidity. Then, there is the second and more general problem - the pseudo intelectual. Saying you have wisdom when you dont.
for all the people who don't know what i mean, bakunin died in 1876, 41 years before the end of the Russian revolution. Obviously, the American education system is a failure if one cannot learn some simple fact like that.
Since when does the American Educational system talk about Bakunin? Or Anarchism in general for that matter. Other then going "OH NOEZ THE ANARCHISTS IZ ALL LIKE SOMALIA" and "THEY BLOW THINGS UP IN EUROPE LOLOLOL" is pretty much all I've heard so far.
By "individualist" I would mean "one focused on completing his nature." The Romantic/commercial notion has such a lowly focus and unpalatable tenor: that of the artist or businessman playing the tantrum-prone child and forcing his fancies down the public throat.
Isn't that more properly pronounced "YOO-zer-ee" ?
I've long thought it tragic that the term "wage slavery" is so far down the memory hole of anything close to mainstream discussion. As I recall it was a big rhetorical theme of pro-slavery pols toward the industrial North in the Civil War era, so it once had a high-profile place in the central discussion of mid/late 19th century politics.
meh... maybe. i would debate that he's the BEST, but he's certainly relavent. but in any case drawing on someone's wisdom doesn't make you an ideological follower. i'm a marxist to the same extent that i'm a Zinn-ist or a Chomsky-ist or a Klein-ist.. but my ideology is closest to Bakunin-ist, and in reality is simply Anarchist.
yes but you have to draw on marx to some extent you can't get around marx he is an ecclipsing figure. I was just commenting on the part of the vid where david said he is not a marxist
i agree with this statement, but i don't think it makes you a marxist. i don't identify as a marxist, although i'm happy to refer to marx's work, especially his critique. this does not make me a marxist. to me the term marxist entails one who not only embraces marx's critique, but also his platform and recommended methods of change. in these areas i strongly disagree with marx and marxists. i presume so does david, as marx's methods involve the state.
Well stated about Marx. One also has to consider the various interpretations that extend from Marxism, such as the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek. All anti-capitalists are indebted to Marx to some degree; however, as anarcrustie stated, he was simply an intelligent man, not the god-like figure many leftists think of him as being.
exactly! and that exact mentality, taking everything a fallible human says as true, almost as though it were religious dogma, leads to horrifically authoritarian attitudes. i've heard Maoists and Hoxhaists earnestly argue that homosexuality is counterrevolutionary simply based on quotes made by the founders of their tendencies.
I think "left-rothbardianism" (a term I think you can use to describe Thorsmitersaw) is much closer to individualist anarchism than anarcho-sydnicalism (i.e. anarcho communism and/or anarcho collectivism) is.
Your philosophy is absurd prima facie. You call it anarchism, and then lay out an economic system that can only exist when enforced (through real or implied violence) upon the populace by a powerful state.
A system in which two individuals should be disallowed (again, through state violence) from coming to an agreement they both consent to of their own free will (obviously the ignorant pole is being exploited, da?).
Were you a Marxist, at least your ideas would be internally consistent.
He said:"As to work, I'm a Union Carpenter and I would wager that I work harder in a day than you've worked in your entire life."
So what do you expect? He approves of state power (through union legislation) to get a better deal from his fellow man, than he would have gotten on a voluntary basis. The threat made to his fellow man is essential in selling his unionized carpenter service. This threat of force also allows him to make more money or work less, then he would have voluntarily.
I'm assuming you're talking about ansocs. "prima facia" (which I'll just assume is latin for "really fancy") or not, all systems of property or contract imply the threat of force. This is as much true of private property as it is of any other form of social arrangement. If you want to prohibit theft, then you have to make some social allowance for the use of force against those who undermine that institution.
And before I forget it, a musing on the idea of "Weakness".
To my perception, power has reached the same status of a near uniformly pejorative term, a thing to be ashamed of, to hide behind bushles, to feel bad about even CONSIDERING, let alone acting for it.
I've remarked to you before my view on the idea of making all equal through loss instead of gain, and this stems from it. I see Anarchy not as moving away from the state, but -towards- self, yet the potential is there, in an Anarchist-
-environ, that instead of months worth of paper work to pull off the reaming called "Immenint Domain", the denying too of ones own property from external forces will naturally fast track themselves. Most people can mess with a Judge. Far fewer can out debate a bullet.
In that world, Anarchy is just a way of saying "Large groups continue to screw you, they simply don't call themselves governments anymore.
I see the alternative of only using that which you can protect and keep, but so few-
-people have faith in themelves, are able and willing to entrust an endeavor with all they have, bred and stewed in fear as they were, for anyone to consider it possible.
Forget the path for a moment. Anarchy is responsibility for ones life. How then does one go about reminding others to cultivate their self-trust to the point of being WILLING to leave the care of the state in the first place?
Seems to me once that's answered and addressed, the Anarchist moment would beautifully snowball.
The Taoist master Lao Tzu in 6th Century BC China was essentially a voluntarist. That predates pretty much everything you are talking about. Aristotle was pretty laissez faire too - although the Greeks didn't really study 'economics' per se.
You should read the Austrian Perspective on Economic History by Murray Rothbard. It's pretty good stuff.
Rothbard thought about calling himself a nonarchist because he knew that he wasn't really an anarchist in the way that the existing anarchist schools were.
Eventually he settled upon anarcho-capitalism but you are right in that AC and other similar schools such as voluntarism, agorism et cetera.. are anarchists that accept private property.
Would you prefer we call ourselves nonarchists then?
The public/private distinction is usually made to refer to government vs non-government control, but the distinction does break down for LLC's and corporations who are claimed to be 'private' yet are chartered and protected by government, and also due to the fact that what is considered 'public' such as streets, parks, ect, are in fact private to any individuals whom the government see's fit to exclude them from via immigration controls and such.
When you look at the major concentrations of political and economic power in our society, in particular institutions such as large corporations and state beurocracies, the public/private distinction doesn't make much sense at all. They are private in the sense that they are controled by an exclusive group of individuals and public in the sense that we are forced to contribute towards sustaining them.
Individualism Anarchism is not strictly limited to the ideas of Benjamin Tucker. Lysander Spooner supported intellectual property and private ownership of production. Spooner also spoke against wage labor and was pro-labor. Just because you hold propertarian views does not render you a capitalist or an anarcho capitalist. There are some agorists that consider themselves "anti-capitalist."
Well it kinda goes with the whole "Anarchy" thing: No Archies. It'd kinda be like being an Atheist and believing in a god. Kinda silly. Working for a boss/master in our society is quite normal and I don't expect you to see the problem with it. It's as natural as the air you breathe. But if you want to understand our objection to it, I'd recommend Norman Ware's Industrial Worker as a good starting point. Also, consider the language you use. It's just as valid to say that you support renting peeps
why would an employer employee relation ship be hierarchical? It's like saying you are against marriage because you are against hierarchy. What hierarchy? It is two people exchanging value for value. The first needs labor, the 2nd money. They can both withdraw from the relation ship. None is above the other. Is a customer/shopkeeper relation ship also hierarchical in your view? Or the relation ship between the writer of a book and her readers?
Simply because you've never considered the problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. You come from a point of ignorance and it's not surprising that this is difficult for you to understand. As I said, you should educate yourself so that you're able to ask intelligent, pertinent, and relevant questions. As to work, I'm a Union Carpenter and I would wager that I work harder in a day than you've worked in your entire life. That said, I really do encourage you to look into this more deeply.
First you urge me to educate myself before I make rash statements, followed by an uneducated rash statement about you working harder in 1 day, than I have in my entire life.
Like with the mental masturbation remark, urging me to get away from abstract theories (when I was talking of the production of flower pots), there seem to be a lot of projection going on. You accuse others of what you do your self, but are unconscious off. I urge you to have that checked out
I urge you to learn a tiny little bit about the subject before you attempt to comment; otherwise you just look like an ignorant fool, asking questions a two-year-old might ask. You have the internet at your fingertips. Is it too much to ask for you to utilize it to educate yourself so that you might ask an intelligent question? Or continue playing the fool; it seems to suit you well.
"You accuse others of what you do your self, but are unconscious off."
Nice arm-chair psychoanalyzing.
"saying you are against marriage because you are against hierarchy. "
Many marriages and are very hierarchical in nature and involve methods of power, control, and coercion. Other marriages are more egalitarian. I'd say the same is true for the boss-worker relationship.
I's say the marriages that are hierarchical, are coercive and I would tend to call that legalized slavery. The same for the boss-worker relationship, once they stop being voluntary and start being coercive, its slavery in my dictionary. Your boss cannot tell you what to do, because you can quit. He can only ask in return for rewards. He is desperate for your labor, you are desperate for the money. There is no hierarchy in my view.
You say that Benjamin Tucker supported only "possession" in land but how about all the other means of production? Unlike you collectivists he supported private property in all other means of production: businesses. You want to abolish private ownership of the means of production.
As passionate as you are about this, I'd suggest you do a video response. This is, after all, You Tube. Not You Text. You're all over the place in this discussion. If there is a particular point you are passionate about, raise it in a video response.
It's just that you were complaining about people not being "familiar with traditional anarchist voices." You're apparently only vaguely familiar with traditional individualist anarchist voices. One of the guys you're responding to is correct to say to you that individualist anarchism is the original anarchism. You and other collectivists are not in the tradition of anarchism, if one looks at it that way.
Well, I should point out that I don't consider myself a "collectivist" but you can keep calling me that if you like. And, again, I wasn't arguing about when individualist Anarchists came on the scene. I was arguing about the interpretation of their views, in particular Tucker and Warren. You can predate me all you want. If that makes you feel better. That wasn't my concern. Be the original Anarchist. Tell all your friends. But, frankly, you seem confused about what's even being discussed here.
If you're opposed to private ownership of the means of production, then you're a collectivist. Individualism is for individual control of the means of production. Collectivism is for collective control.
Gustave de Molinari is an individualist anarchist anarcho-capitalist that predates all the anarchists you mentioned. Like all free market anarchists he was for a market in force, and unlike Tucker he didn't have a labor theory of value.
Ahh, yes, the famous Anarchist Molinari. LOL. I see, so if Rothbard says it, it must be true? I should reiterate that my video response is not about who pre-dates who, but about correctly interpreting and understanding Individualist Anarchists like Tucker, Stirner, Warren and the like. Molinari seems a stretch to me but count him as yours if you like.
You deny that Molinari was for a free market in force, and that he supported private property and had no opposition to interest rent and profit because he did not accept a labor theory of value?
That's an anarcho-capitalism by definition.
You deny he was an anarcho-capitalist? On what grounds?
Yeah... Benjamin Tucker counted Molinari as an anarchist, so I'd say that he counts. Tucker also did *not* count Kropotkin and other anarcho-communists as anarchists.
Have I not been clear? You can count anybody you like as Anarchists. I'm not disputing that at all. Do I look to Molinari as an inspirational figure in the Anarchist movement? No. Do I first ask, "Who did Benjamin Tucker deem an Anarchist?" No. Do I count Individualist Anarchists as Left Libertarians? Yes. I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Maybe I'm just not being clear?
we offer living merchandize with high quality and reasonable prices.you can search "Robbuy com" by google to find us.（we accept paypal as payment method.）
That's not the intent of this video. It's about understanding what earlier Anarchists were thinking, writing, and fighting for. To pretend there was some propertarian versus anti-propertarian struggle going on is just silly. It was a battle between Libertarians and Authoritarians. Who pre-dates who? I think that's easily enough to determine.
""All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." Henry Appleton
"There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." Victor Yarros
"One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz
""That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves. - Tucker
Honestly, I think you're missing the core of the issue. It's called individualist anarchism for a reason. There is no one definition of it, because each individualist anarchist creates their own personal definition of the term. Hence the stress on the concept of 'individualism'.
icyangel13 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@death9719
The same way I would stop a chainsaw wielding anal rapist..... have faith that one day society will no longer tolerate such behavior.
catbuffalo 1 week ago
@catbuffalo Ok, so you wouldn't force people to except anarchism
death9719 1 week ago
how would you stop bosses from existing? would you force them, and their employees to shut down? if so your exerting authority over them.
death9719 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
catbuffalo 1 week ago
Sorry, dude. Doesn't matter who wrote what, and what pre-established tradition of anarchism you want to conform yourself to. Anarchism and capitalism aren't contradictory. Anarchism is merely any statelessness, without regard to the voluntary structure of the economy.
mikebaal 1 month ago
The whole Benjamin Tucker "point in time" dissections are lame. His views changed prior to his death and only began to reveal his issues/problems with LTV and other things. Anarcho-anything "label" is not, jmo, how to educate others.
Anarchism with no adjectives!
PositivelyBored 1 month ago
Labels.
Silly.
miasma1616 2 months ago
Property is essential for freedome.
Wheter or not i can use the material i own for what i want or not is essential for freedome.
turbofritz2 3 months ago
@turbofritz2
"Property is essential for freedome."
And correct spelling is essential for use of the English language in writing.
If you really knew anything about anarchism you'd know that they are NOT opposed to property rights; they merely advocate property based on use and occupancy along with usufruct for the means of production.
The use of your property is essential for freedom, but not if it's used in a way that coerces, or subordinates another.
That negates another's freedom.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Thank you for correcting grammar now we got that in place - Concidering it's my 3rd angyageand i don't realy care too much about speeling.
I looked at your page (no i wasnot looking at your pictures you wannabe) and it makes no sense at all.
Anarchism means NO STATE. Communism and left winged is pro state power.
Simple as that. Don't go around and destroy the idealist anarchist spirt and lie about the ideology.
turbofritz2 2 months ago
@turbofritz2 (1/2)
"Thank you for correcting grammar"
Actually what I corrected your spelling. Last time I checked, those were two different things.
"Anarchism means NO STATE"
Going by the entomology, it means "no/without rule/rulers". The state is the main focus of anarchist theory but has never been the only focus. Literally all early anarchist thinkers were also staunchly anti-capitalist, seeing both statism and privatism as two sides of the same coin.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@turbofritz2 (2/2)
"Communism and left winged is pro state power"
I'm afraid history disagrees with you.
The anti-authoritarian left has always been opposed to state power, just look up William Morris's famous quote on "state"-socialism..
And the word "communism" (prior to its batardization and corruption) originally referred exclusively to a stateless society; look it up if you don't believe me.
As for "destroying the anarchist ideal", it's you who doesn't seem to understand it.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist People like you are fucking parasites to real Anarchists who are purely anarchists and freethinkers. Trying to covert it into something it's not about.
turbofritz2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turbofritz2 I looked over your profile and I've come to the conclusion that you are an convoluted idiot who has absolutely no idea what you are talking about and have no grasp on theory of ANY kind what-so-ever. Carry on @MsSexySocialist
joekopor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turbofritz2
"People like you are fucking parasites"
Do you say that because I'm an anarchist (a real anarchist) or because I'm a jew? Yes, I've seen the anti-semetic diatribes on your page.
"real Anarchists who are purely anarchists and freethinkers"
Ever heard of the concept of tautology?
"Trying to covert it into something it's not about"
Anarchism is and always has been the anti-statist abd anti-authoritarian tendency of socialism - learn some history. It might do you good.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
Anarchism is anti state anti welfare.
Communism is total state control.
Please stop hijacking the good forces of freedome loving rebels and poison them with your socialist communist and collectivist propaganda!!
turbofritz2 3 months ago
90 % of humanity on this Earth are idiots who do nothing to enhance humanity and the world itself. Face this fact honestly. This is why Im an individualist anarchist, because society at large benefits this large majority and is thus not only immoral but also destructive to itself.
GodOfUnbelief 4 months ago
I feel so conflicted I like free market anarchy and left libertarianism. I am reading josiah warren and liking it but rothbard is convincing too. wtf do I do man?
greenghost2008 5 months ago in playlist Anarchism
@greenghost2008 Confusion is a good thing. It means you're seriously contemplating the issues and trying to reach an honest conclusion that isn't always very obvious. I'd strongly recommend reading "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber; it will, I believe, give you a better historical context from which to understand these issues. Principally, the fact that markets depend on state violence to develop; but also a lot more. Off the top of the head it's a great place to start. Good luck!
buddhagem 5 months ago 4
@greenghost2008 I would agree with greenghost2008 that confusion is a good thing. Don't fight it: anarchists thrive on fluxuation. That's the whole point. I would suggest that you read some of the Egoist Anarchists (Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, James L. Walker, John Beverley Robinson, S.E. Parker, Dora Marsden, etc.). All of these discussions about what is the "right" version of anarchism miss the point entirely I think because anarchy is not an immutable ideal, it's not a program;...End pt.1
Apmhflick 1 month ago
@Apmhflick Pt.2- Rather, it is a negative, a tearing down of authority in all its guises. To say that I must be against capitalism, socialism, wage labor, immorality, or any other idea in order to be an anarchist is simply using authority. This is what the Egoists speak of: rejecting all ideals/fixed ideas. To be an anarchist is to reject any "essence over me" whether it be a head of state, a god, or an ideal (the abolition of pvt. property, communism, morality, etc.)...End pt.2
Apmhflick 1 month ago
@Apmhflick Pt.3- There is a book called "Enemies of Society" that you can purchase from Little Black Cart (google it, youtube won't let me post the URL) that contains writings from all of these great destructive thinkers. I highly recommend it. *Don't be so concerned about making every interest of yours conform to what people tell you are the principles of anarchism (tm/Gospel truth!) because you can be sure that their saying so proves they don't really understand it themselves. Good luck.
Apmhflick 1 month ago
@Apmhflick **Sorry, dude. You ARE greenghost2008. I meant I agree with buddhagem.**
Apmhflick 1 month ago
@greenghost2008 (Free) market anarchism and left-libertarianism are not mutually exclusive. Most left-libertarians don't fall under Chomskyites' "libertarian" guise.
DesecrateConformity 2 weeks ago
@greenghost2008 There are such things as "Left-Rothbardians". They draw egalitarian conclusions from Rothbard's earlier work. He associated with paleoconservatives later on in life, though.
DesecrateConformity 2 weeks ago
@DesecrateConformity I like to think of myself as left libertarian now. I still have an-cap beliefs but I am not dogmatically an-cap anymore.
greenghost2008 2 weeks ago
@greenghost2008 (Free) market anarchism does not always equal anarcho-capitalism, either. I am a free market, left-libertarian anarchist.
DesecrateConformity 2 weeks ago
9:32 is my fave
NewVinland 8 months ago
Thank you comrade! However there have also been individualist anarchists that supported private property, and self-sufficiency, but most well known individualist anarchists have been socialists, but people like Lysander Spooner and Ayn Rand were not socialists. However, it is very oxymoronic to be an anarchist, but against socialism
4500jas 9 months ago
So was Lysander Spooner misclassified as an individualist anarchist? He certainly made money for a time while operating his rival to the U.S. Postal service and I don't think he delivered mail personally. Just asking. I am certainly not claiming any expertise here.
Sluggo1971 10 months ago
I am not sure, but what i am sure about is that anarchism isnt just for bitchfighting on youtube, imposing others your thoughs.
Linking to literature is good, but let people make up there own minds. Bitchfighters, get a life .
marfiuss 11 months ago
@marfiuss He's just pointing out why individualist anarchism is hardly compatible with this "anarcho-capitalism" that people like to promote on the internet.
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago
*things
vaguelyhumanoid 11 months ago
buddhagen is cheating. He is finding the worst an-cap and earth and went against him rather then find a good an-cap.
greenghost2008 11 months ago
If there's a collective creating rules that people have to follow to be part of said collective how is that not a state? Is it because i have the option to leave? What if said collective turned around and said "no you can't leave". All these different versions of anarchy always seem like mob rule to me, which you can argue is just a big oppressive state in my opinion. If you can't do as you please then how is that anti authoritarian?
NotRadicalLogical 11 months ago
Can someone please explain the following to me because I can't seem to make any sense of it, how can there be different forms of anarchy? If anarchy is suppose to be a revolt against the "state" because it's authoritarian nature how can there be any rules? If I create something, i write a story for example with paper i found or stole or traded for and i tell the commune i'm a part of they have no right to it and they gang up and kick me out or take it from me how is that not authority?
NotRadicalLogical 11 months ago
How the fuck are you going to call anyone an ancap? Ancaps are diluted if they want to call themselves Anarco-Capitalists. Anarchy has always been anti-capitalist. Read the Anarchist FAQ <3
MrFuzzyballs69 1 year ago
In "Instead of a Book" Tucker makes it pretty clear that he doesnt advocate force against the hierarchical institutions he railed against. He definitely degreed with Bastiat and the like though.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@SecularNumanist disagreed*
SecularNumanist 11 months ago
Your anarchism is anarchism diluted with a vulgar socialism that derides those you disagree with as impostors to your pristinely communist theory of post-statist society. Benjamin Tucker strongly opposed communism. Also, thorsmitersaw IS on the libertarian left-he follows the philosophy of Agorism, a leftist deviation of the libertarian movement and synthesis of contemporary "free-market" economics with traditionally socialist concerns.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid Mutualism isn't capitalism.
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I know that, I never said it was. I AM a mutualist. Stop assuming tings you have no evidence for.
vaguelyhumanoid 11 months ago
bwahaha! 1:29 Mephistopheles?! Not all people who are anti-state are pro-socialism. Being anti-state and anti-socialism coexist beautifully in the ideal of anarcho-capitalism.
fairiebee 1 year ago
@fairiebee "Not all people who are anti-state are pro-socialism." buddhagem never said that. he also thinks to be an anti statist isnt enough to be considered an anarchist.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialism and Anarchism are not mutually exclusive.
eatadicc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My take on individualist anarchism runs like this.
I think of my self as an individualist anarchist because I can think for myself. I oppose everything external that aims to tell me how to think and act that includes the lead weight of ideology.
We say "No Gods - No Masters" but why are so many of us slaves to political theory? Isn't anararchy about freedom?
I'm an anarchist, I know myself and I'll be myself. That's the only way I feel free. Ideology dosn't come in to it.
thevalhallaexpress 1 year ago
My take on individualist anarchism runs like this.
I think of my self as an individualist anarchist because I can think for myself. I oppose everything external that aims to tell me how to think and act that includes the lead weight of ideology.
We say "No Gods - No Masters" but why are so many of us slaves to political theory? Isn't anararchy about freedom?
I'm an anarchist, I know myself and I'll be myself. That's the only way I feel free. Ideology dosn't come in to it.
thevalhallaexpress 1 year ago
Also I live near Josiah Warren's settlement of Utopia, Ohio. They still use labor certificates. They are opposed to wages for labor, not necessarily any particular economic system. I am opposed to wages ethically as well, however, I prefer percentage profit sharing. In my opinion (which isn't worth much), ethics concerning Natural Law among left and right anarchists does not clash EXCEPT in economics. No uniformity is possible in economics, or any other area, without coercion.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think it's valid to say you cannot be an anarchist if you are not anti-capitalist (I'm aware of the double and triple negatives in that sentence..lol). Anarch is a word with root meanings. The prefix "an" is latin for "without". The word "arch" is short for the latin word "archon", which means "ruler". So to be an anarchist, literally, you must ethically oppose rulers. Which presumes a "jurisdiction of the effected". Hence, economics is really irrelevant.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProIndividual 1 year ago
I don't think it's valid to say you cannot be an anarchist if you are not anti-capitalist (I'm aware of the double and triple negatives in that sentence..lol). Anarch is a word with root meanings. The prefix "an" is latin for "without". The word "arch" is short for the latin word "archon", which means "ruler". So to be an anarchist, literally, you must ethically oppose rulers. Which presumes a "jurisdiction of the effected". Hence, economics is really irrelevant.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
@donroche
Bingo! nuf said...
jbscott0830 1 year ago
@donroche LOL
crud4 1 year ago
Why do left anarchists seem to completely ignore the school of Rothbardian, free-market, anarcho-capitalism? You say anarchism is generally anti-capitalism, but there is an entire movement of anarchism that is not. I catch flack from some so-called libertarian friends when I speak of anarchism because in their view anarchism is related to communism, socialism, or some other system that bears no resemblance to the self-government I'm talking about. So what say you of Murray Rothbard and Mises?
stancruse 1 year ago
I've read that same piece by Benjamin Tucker, Free market Anti-Capitalism, and I basically agreed w/ him on this except personally I would not use the word socialism strictly for the reason it is as loaded as the word capitalism. And although the word Anarchy is just as loaded a word, I will use the term free market anarchist when labeling myself. What does need to be said about Tuckers interpretation of Anarchist Socialism is that it IS Voluntary Socialism which is the key., voluntary.
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago 3
@enemyartistkristofeR Yo enemyartist. Should have known I'd find you here. REP Freedom Force east coast chapter baby!
stancruse 1 year ago
@stancruse I am always where the Anarchist Action is Taking Place - And REPresenting Always too
from NYC to LA
peace. love. anarchy
free market anarchy!
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
Comment removed
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
Your glasses or the shadow from your glasses made it look like your eyebrow wrapped around your head. LOL. I noticed that while I was watching you give Thor socialized education.
crud4 1 year ago
I consider myself as an anarchist. I am mainly an extreme nonconformit. People must learn to find there inner self and be as they feel.
MrAnarchist99 1 year ago
Ok, fine, I'm not an anarchist, I'm a Titanist.
JasonDamisch 1 year ago
lol the dude at 1:30 is the devil
highervis 1 year ago
What's the difference then between individual anarchist and collective anarchist? Maybe I'll find it myself?
highervis 1 year ago
can someone please tell me the difference between left libertarian anarchists and anarcho-capitalists?
wildabeast11235 1 year ago
fish swim, birds fly, anarcho-capitalists dont know wat theyre talking about. lets leave it at that
progressnreason 1 year ago
Comment removed
progressnreason 1 year ago
Quackery revisionism and wishful thinking does not make a thing true. Rothbard, Konkin are frauds to be scorned for promoting quackery and lies. "Anarcho" capitalism is a fraud Trojan horse philosophy meant to fool white working class into supporting capitalism against their beast interests. I'd say they're doing a fine job. You people are reactionaries/counterrevolutionary. Free association is NOT working for a boss, renting or paying interest under threat of starvation. It never will be.
crud4 1 year ago
Nice history lesson. The word bitch originally meant a female dog. Now it's primarily used to describe a mean female human. Have you ever used it in this way? Of course you have. Anarchy is also a word the definition of which has changed over time as human beings develop new ideas, uncover problems with old ideas, & develop disagreements. Movements commonly divide. This is just an observation of human behavior. There is no absolute ruler that gets to dictate the meaning of a word for all time.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate No. Anarchism has ALWAYS been a part of the broader socialist movement. Anarchism has ALWAYS been opposed to capitalism. Even Rothbard knew this as he said : "We are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical". This was because "all" anarchists had "socialistic elements in their doctrines" and "possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common."
crud4 1 year ago
I love Rothbard, but I don't blindly follow the words of anyone no matter how much I respect them. That's what religious sheeple do. Funny he mentioned etymology, which is a study that includes the phenomenon I explained, that the meaning of words changes over time. Free market advocates often like to disassociate themselves from the word, "anarchy" because of its negative associations. Today they use labels "free market anarchist," "market anarchist," "anarcho-capitalist," etc. to do that.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
Brainpolice is the biggest idiot of all. Their leader.
crud4 2 years ago
I've shown Thor over and over and over direct quotes from Tucker saying he was against property, wage labor for another person, rent and interest. They warp Stirner, Tucker and Spooner just as Rothbard did to fit their capitalist agenda idea which is holding a dominant position over others. They [Thor types] advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. They are capitalists. The individualist anarchists did not advocate these things. Thor and his bunch are also racists.
crud4 2 years ago
LOL!
briano8713 1 year ago
Good luck talking sense into these people, especially Thor. I've been on myspace "debating" these people for months and they hold to their delusions as if it were a life preserver in a raging ocean.
crud4 2 years ago
@crud4,
How poetic. I think they might just be disagreeing with you. What delusions are you talking about?
truthadvocate 1 year ago
You take people to task for mispronouncing 'Bakunin' then yourself mispronounce 'usury' and to be frank it make you look like an idiot.
Otherwise, Tucker was entirely correct. Might makes right. This of course is why the State monopolizes the use of force.
universatile 2 years ago
I opened this video expecting to be pissed off... however, even though I am a fervent individualist and fan of the free-market; I was pleasantly impressed by your thoroughness and thoughtfulness.
Fuck capitalism
Fuck morals
Fuck religion
Fuck obligation to greater good
Fuck hierarchy!
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago 2
the way things are looking, governments and corporations are only increasing their control over us. i don't think your idea has much of a chance this century.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
until your definition becomes more prevalent in society, or the people with your definition are able to impose their will upon others, then your vision will never be realized.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
don't get me wrong, i don't mind your definition of property, i kind of like it, since i'm poor. however, there's very few middle class, and especially upper class people who are going to buy this. i think that property is a sentimental notion. it's also a convienant notion. people are going to believe, whatever definition pleases them the most.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
no definition of property can be universal. there's just no way that everyone is going to buy your definition of property. therefore, there's always going to be conflict in society. really, there is no capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or corporatism, in an absolute and universal sense. there's just individuals, each with their own definition of property, comming into conflict with people that have another. sometimes, conflicts can be resolved. sometimes, conflict is inevitable.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
property rights are a relative concept. your definition of property could only work if everyone else agreed with you. some people are bound to disagree with it. they're going to build a house, or a hotel, or what have you, and they're going to charge people rent, and some people are going to accept this. others, like you, may try and claim the hotel as their own because the owner no longer sleeps there. such disputes will have to be settled at gun point.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
I agree, such disputes will have to be settled in private courts, through ostracism of people that break contract, and through force if need be. However the use of police forces that are funded from taxation on threat of persecution is oppressive.
universatile 2 years ago
correct me if i'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like your saying. your saying that if i am not presently occupying my property, then i can no longer claim it as my own. but what if i disagree with you? what if i decide to kick the renter out on the street for not paying his rent?
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
By all means, kick the renter out on the street. However what I am opposed to, and what I think Benjamin Tucker was opposed to, is you getting the aid of the State to kick out the renter/squatter.
If you are enlisting the aid of police forces paid for with taxes then you hold a monopoly. You are in effect charging the people you profit a compulsory protection tax, instead of hiring your own security forces to occupy and protect your property.
universatile 2 years ago
so what are you saying? if i buy a house, and i no longer occupy that house, and i decide to rent it to someone else, the renter, since he is presently occupying my house, should claim my house as his own, and no longer pay me any money?
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
to all the anarchists who can't stop shouting about anarcho-capitalism.... stop arguing semantics. its a waste of the internets.
CommSense 2 years ago
I'm a mutualist. I wouldn't call myself an individualist or a socialist.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 2
There are actually right wing capitalisitic anarchists...
Garret00074 2 years ago
When I first started watching I thought "Oh no, not another free market Libertarian Anarchist. BUt I was refreshed to see you views on it. I wonder what you're thought's are on anti-statism.
verstwo2 2 years ago
I consider myself for or less a market anarchist, but I do respect Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, Bakunin etc. But although they are very important they just epouse ideas, and really what you think should be the most important, as Kant wrote in his reflection on the enlightenment.
fps0chris 2 years ago 2
"soviet russia"!! i don't know if that comment was painful. it embarrassed ME
fede2 2 years ago 2
Unfortunately, you mispronounced "usury," therefore you can no longer call yourself an anarchist, nor are you historically linked to the traditional line of proper English speakers. :-/
MillionthUsername 2 years ago 4
"He lived at Soviet Russia"
Oh, boy . . that is epic fail.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago 12
Since men like Prodhoun, Tucker etc. identified themselves as socialists, what makes them "individualists"?
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
I'd be hesitant to even label Prodhoun an individualist; but to answer your question their essential difference was how they saw their ideal society or the "preferred mode of organization." The Individualists envisioned more of a small-scale community of artisans; whereas the socialists envisioned something more akin to an advanced industrial society based on worker control of the means of production; collective ownership of factories etc. Protection of the individual was paramount to both.
buddhagem 2 years ago
Comment removed
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Who's the user who claimed that Mikhail Bakunin lived in Soviet Russia?
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Proudhon wasn't a individualist he created a system called Mutualism so he was a Mutualist note that Mutualism is on the left too
Menace3434 2 years ago 2
@AfricanPrince Proudhon was a mutualist and was arguably the very first modern human to take into account all aspects of what constitutes a livable society ( mutual respect for and mutual use of the planet with animals and other living things). He actually identified as an individualist anarchist after becoming disillusioned with MARX. Tucker is seen by some as an individualist, only because he was openly against any government intervention and shunned the idea of industrial advancement
1truemisfit 4 months ago
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
So I won't delare my grouping in anarchism until I've read more fully,
otherwise I'll probubly start talking rot aswell.
mwhite2 2 years ago 2
"Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know when he does not know nor of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom." - About Socrates.
The first part of this quote is the most important. I believe our society looks for the quick answers to facts. Why did Palin resign? Nobody knows. Ignorance of a fact is not supidity. Then, there is the second and more general problem - the pseudo intelectual. Saying you have wisdom when you dont.
Great video.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Hey Buddhagem who were the market anarchist users you referred to in your vid? Just out of curiosity. :P
okayillgonow 2 years ago
for all the people who don't know what i mean, bakunin died in 1876, 41 years before the end of the Russian revolution. Obviously, the American education system is a failure if one cannot learn some simple fact like that.
mrtyles 2 years ago 9
@mrtyles That's because you don't learn anarchism in school unless the teacher is pretty radical.
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago
@mrtyles
Since when does the American Educational system talk about Bakunin? Or Anarchism in general for that matter. Other then going "OH NOEZ THE ANARCHISTS IZ ALL LIKE SOMALIA" and "THEY BLOW THINGS UP IN EUROPE LOLOLOL" is pretty much all I've heard so far.
TheAnonymousAnomie 9 months ago 3
the guy who said bakunin lived in soviet russia is an idiot who needs elementary history lessons.
mrtyles 2 years ago 3
By "individualist" I would mean "one focused on completing his nature." The Romantic/commercial notion has such a lowly focus and unpalatable tenor: that of the artist or businessman playing the tantrum-prone child and forcing his fancies down the public throat.
neothomist1275 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Market socialism? Deary me.
Individualism isn't anarchism, nor is it held by hinged individuals. Bonnet and his like are really in the dustbin of history.
DANxTHExRED 2 years ago
Bonnot* rather.
DANxTHExRED 2 years ago
Then how do you explain current individualists such as Kevin Carson?
KruZer7 2 years ago
Good stuff!
Hairsplitting question on 5:55:
Isn't that more properly pronounced "YOO-zer-ee" ?
I've long thought it tragic that the term "wage slavery" is so far down the memory hole of anything close to mainstream discussion. As I recall it was a big rhetorical theme of pro-slavery pols toward the industrial North in the Civil War era, so it once had a high-profile place in the central discussion of mid/late 19th century politics.
terpis 2 years ago
Marx is the best thoretical reference that all anti-capitalist have and he is still very relevant today so in a sense we are all marxist by necessity
ryler05 2 years ago
meh... maybe. i would debate that he's the BEST, but he's certainly relavent. but in any case drawing on someone's wisdom doesn't make you an ideological follower. i'm a marxist to the same extent that i'm a Zinn-ist or a Chomsky-ist or a Klein-ist.. but my ideology is closest to Bakunin-ist, and in reality is simply Anarchist.
anarcrustie 2 years ago
yes but you have to draw on marx to some extent you can't get around marx he is an ecclipsing figure. I was just commenting on the part of the vid where david said he is not a marxist
ryler05 2 years ago
i agree with this statement, but i don't think it makes you a marxist. i don't identify as a marxist, although i'm happy to refer to marx's work, especially his critique. this does not make me a marxist. to me the term marxist entails one who not only embraces marx's critique, but also his platform and recommended methods of change. in these areas i strongly disagree with marx and marxists. i presume so does david, as marx's methods involve the state.
anarcrustie 2 years ago
Well stated about Marx. One also has to consider the various interpretations that extend from Marxism, such as the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek. All anti-capitalists are indebted to Marx to some degree; however, as anarcrustie stated, he was simply an intelligent man, not the god-like figure many leftists think of him as being.
wcropp1 2 years ago
exactly! and that exact mentality, taking everything a fallible human says as true, almost as though it were religious dogma, leads to horrifically authoritarian attitudes. i've heard Maoists and Hoxhaists earnestly argue that homosexuality is counterrevolutionary simply based on quotes made by the founders of their tendencies.
anarcrustie 2 years ago
I think "left-rothbardianism" (a term I think you can use to describe Thorsmitersaw) is much closer to individualist anarchism than anarcho-sydnicalism (i.e. anarcho communism and/or anarcho collectivism) is.
KruZer7 2 years ago 3
You know that clip of me was done sarcastically. I was joking about how "anarchists" in general are viewed.
I made a video to you explaining it and you took your video down and apologized.
...so what the fuck are you doing?
Luke12000 2 years ago
I wouldn't read too much into or worry that much about your inclusion, I think he was just including it for laughs.
mutulus 2 years ago
Your philosophy is absurd prima facie. You call it anarchism, and then lay out an economic system that can only exist when enforced (through real or implied violence) upon the populace by a powerful state.
A system in which two individuals should be disallowed (again, through state violence) from coming to an agreement they both consent to of their own free will (obviously the ignorant pole is being exploited, da?).
Were you a Marxist, at least your ideas would be internally consistent.
RagnarDanny 2 years ago
He said:"As to work, I'm a Union Carpenter and I would wager that I work harder in a day than you've worked in your entire life."
So what do you expect? He approves of state power (through union legislation) to get a better deal from his fellow man, than he would have gotten on a voluntary basis. The threat made to his fellow man is essential in selling his unionized carpenter service. This threat of force also allows him to make more money or work less, then he would have voluntarily.
modelmark 2 years ago
well said
wizkid2000 2 years ago
I'm assuming you're talking about ansocs. "prima facia" (which I'll just assume is latin for "really fancy") or not, all systems of property or contract imply the threat of force. This is as much true of private property as it is of any other form of social arrangement. If you want to prohibit theft, then you have to make some social allowance for the use of force against those who undermine that institution.
mutulus 2 years ago
And before I forget it, a musing on the idea of "Weakness".
To my perception, power has reached the same status of a near uniformly pejorative term, a thing to be ashamed of, to hide behind bushles, to feel bad about even CONSIDERING, let alone acting for it.
I've remarked to you before my view on the idea of making all equal through loss instead of gain, and this stems from it. I see Anarchy not as moving away from the state, but -towards- self, yet the potential is there, in an Anarchist-
HotaruZoku 2 years ago
-environ, that instead of months worth of paper work to pull off the reaming called "Immenint Domain", the denying too of ones own property from external forces will naturally fast track themselves. Most people can mess with a Judge. Far fewer can out debate a bullet.
In that world, Anarchy is just a way of saying "Large groups continue to screw you, they simply don't call themselves governments anymore.
I see the alternative of only using that which you can protect and keep, but so few-
HotaruZoku 2 years ago
-people have faith in themelves, are able and willing to entrust an endeavor with all they have, bred and stewed in fear as they were, for anyone to consider it possible.
Forget the path for a moment. Anarchy is responsibility for ones life. How then does one go about reminding others to cultivate their self-trust to the point of being WILLING to leave the care of the state in the first place?
Seems to me once that's answered and addressed, the Anarchist moment would beautifully snowball.
HotaruZoku 2 years ago
Hey Buddhagem,
The Taoist master Lao Tzu in 6th Century BC China was essentially a voluntarist. That predates pretty much everything you are talking about. Aristotle was pretty laissez faire too - although the Greeks didn't really study 'economics' per se.
You should read the Austrian Perspective on Economic History by Murray Rothbard. It's pretty good stuff.
podrag 2 years ago
Rothbard thought about calling himself a nonarchist because he knew that he wasn't really an anarchist in the way that the existing anarchist schools were.
Eventually he settled upon anarcho-capitalism but you are right in that AC and other similar schools such as voluntarism, agorism et cetera.. are anarchists that accept private property.
Would you prefer we call ourselves nonarchists then?
podrag 2 years ago
lol look at that second guy, i didn't know hell boy was on youtube!
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
Comment removed
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
The public/private distinction is usually made to refer to government vs non-government control, but the distinction does break down for LLC's and corporations who are claimed to be 'private' yet are chartered and protected by government, and also due to the fact that what is considered 'public' such as streets, parks, ect, are in fact private to any individuals whom the government see's fit to exclude them from via immigration controls and such.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
When you look at the major concentrations of political and economic power in our society, in particular institutions such as large corporations and state beurocracies, the public/private distinction doesn't make much sense at all. They are private in the sense that they are controled by an exclusive group of individuals and public in the sense that we are forced to contribute towards sustaining them.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
Individualism Anarchism is not strictly limited to the ideas of Benjamin Tucker. Lysander Spooner supported intellectual property and private ownership of production. Spooner also spoke against wage labor and was pro-labor. Just because you hold propertarian views does not render you a capitalist or an anarcho capitalist. There are some agorists that consider themselves "anti-capitalist."
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
That 'Soviet Russia' guy is hilarious! Fail.
DANxCHORIN 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
Why do anarchists have to rail against "hierarchy".
What would you call someone who simply wants society based on a system of voluntarism.
Working for a boss is completely voluntary, and I don't see the big deal.
AndyMH182 2 years ago
Well it kinda goes with the whole "Anarchy" thing: No Archies. It'd kinda be like being an Atheist and believing in a god. Kinda silly. Working for a boss/master in our society is quite normal and I don't expect you to see the problem with it. It's as natural as the air you breathe. But if you want to understand our objection to it, I'd recommend Norman Ware's Industrial Worker as a good starting point. Also, consider the language you use. It's just as valid to say that you support renting peeps
buddhagem 2 years ago
why would an employer employee relation ship be hierarchical? It's like saying you are against marriage because you are against hierarchy. What hierarchy? It is two people exchanging value for value. The first needs labor, the 2nd money. They can both withdraw from the relation ship. None is above the other. Is a customer/shopkeeper relation ship also hierarchical in your view? Or the relation ship between the writer of a book and her readers?
Have you ever worked in real life?
modelmark 2 years ago
Simply because you've never considered the problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. You come from a point of ignorance and it's not surprising that this is difficult for you to understand. As I said, you should educate yourself so that you're able to ask intelligent, pertinent, and relevant questions. As to work, I'm a Union Carpenter and I would wager that I work harder in a day than you've worked in your entire life. That said, I really do encourage you to look into this more deeply.
buddhagem 2 years ago
First you urge me to educate myself before I make rash statements, followed by an uneducated rash statement about you working harder in 1 day, than I have in my entire life.
Like with the mental masturbation remark, urging me to get away from abstract theories (when I was talking of the production of flower pots), there seem to be a lot of projection going on. You accuse others of what you do your self, but are unconscious off. I urge you to have that checked out
modelmark 2 years ago
I urge you to learn a tiny little bit about the subject before you attempt to comment; otherwise you just look like an ignorant fool, asking questions a two-year-old might ask. You have the internet at your fingertips. Is it too much to ask for you to utilize it to educate yourself so that you might ask an intelligent question? Or continue playing the fool; it seems to suit you well.
buddhagem 2 years ago
you continue to project
modelmark 2 years ago
"You accuse others of what you do your self, but are unconscious off."
Nice arm-chair psychoanalyzing.
"saying you are against marriage because you are against hierarchy. "
Many marriages and are very hierarchical in nature and involve methods of power, control, and coercion. Other marriages are more egalitarian. I'd say the same is true for the boss-worker relationship.
HellWithPoverty 2 years ago
"Nice arm-chair psychoanalyzing."
thanks, it was kind of obvious.
I's say the marriages that are hierarchical, are coercive and I would tend to call that legalized slavery. The same for the boss-worker relationship, once they stop being voluntary and start being coercive, its slavery in my dictionary. Your boss cannot tell you what to do, because you can quit. He can only ask in return for rewards. He is desperate for your labor, you are desperate for the money. There is no hierarchy in my view.
modelmark 2 years ago
You say that Benjamin Tucker supported only "possession" in land but how about all the other means of production? Unlike you collectivists he supported private property in all other means of production: businesses. You want to abolish private ownership of the means of production.
(Tucker also later changed his mind about land).
Individualistico 2 years ago
As passionate as you are about this, I'd suggest you do a video response. This is, after all, You Tube. Not You Text. You're all over the place in this discussion. If there is a particular point you are passionate about, raise it in a video response.
buddhagem 2 years ago
It's just that you were complaining about people not being "familiar with traditional anarchist voices." You're apparently only vaguely familiar with traditional individualist anarchist voices. One of the guys you're responding to is correct to say to you that individualist anarchism is the original anarchism. You and other collectivists are not in the tradition of anarchism, if one looks at it that way.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Well, I should point out that I don't consider myself a "collectivist" but you can keep calling me that if you like. And, again, I wasn't arguing about when individualist Anarchists came on the scene. I was arguing about the interpretation of their views, in particular Tucker and Warren. You can predate me all you want. If that makes you feel better. That wasn't my concern. Be the original Anarchist. Tell all your friends. But, frankly, you seem confused about what's even being discussed here.
buddhagem 2 years ago
If you're opposed to private ownership of the means of production, then you're a collectivist. Individualism is for individual control of the means of production. Collectivism is for collective control.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Gustave de Molinari is an individualist anarchist anarcho-capitalist that predates all the anarchists you mentioned. Like all free market anarchists he was for a market in force, and unlike Tucker he didn't have a labor theory of value.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Ahh, yes, the famous Anarchist Molinari. LOL. I see, so if Rothbard says it, it must be true? I should reiterate that my video response is not about who pre-dates who, but about correctly interpreting and understanding Individualist Anarchists like Tucker, Stirner, Warren and the like. Molinari seems a stretch to me but count him as yours if you like.
buddhagem 2 years ago
You deny that Molinari was for a free market in force, and that he supported private property and had no opposition to interest rent and profit because he did not accept a labor theory of value?
That's an anarcho-capitalism by definition.
You deny he was an anarcho-capitalist? On what grounds?
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yeah... Benjamin Tucker counted Molinari as an anarchist, so I'd say that he counts. Tucker also did *not* count Kropotkin and other anarcho-communists as anarchists.
rainskullvids 2 years ago
Have I not been clear? You can count anybody you like as Anarchists. I'm not disputing that at all. Do I look to Molinari as an inspirational figure in the Anarchist movement? No. Do I first ask, "Who did Benjamin Tucker deem an Anarchist?" No. Do I count Individualist Anarchists as Left Libertarians? Yes. I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Maybe I'm just not being clear?
buddhagem 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we offer living merchandize with high quality and reasonable prices.you can search "Robbuy com" by google to find us.（we accept paypal as payment method.）
MrSushan 2 years ago
we're gonna bicker about which camp pre-dates the other?
iamjackscolin 2 years ago
That's not the intent of this video. It's about understanding what earlier Anarchists were thinking, writing, and fighting for. To pretend there was some propertarian versus anti-propertarian struggle going on is just silly. It was a battle between Libertarians and Authoritarians. Who pre-dates who? I think that's easily enough to determine.
buddhagem 2 years ago
There certainly was a propertarian versus anti-propertarian conflict going on and continues to this day. You're in it right now.
Here's some samples from the 19th century from the conflict:
""Yes, genuine Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism." Benjamin Tucker
(continued)
Individualistico 2 years ago
""All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." Henry Appleton
"There is no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism." Victor Yarros
(continued)
Individualistico 2 years ago
"One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz
Individualistico 2 years ago
""That there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land, Anarchists deny. I . . . maintain that the community is a non-entity, that it has no existence, and is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the individuals themselves. - Tucker
Individualistico 2 years ago