Ummm... Yes you can. A socialist at least. The ancap question is up for debate but yeah, you can definitely be a socialist anarchist mainly because socialism means so many different things.
If you study the philosophies you find many of the first to call themselves socialists wee anarchists.
Both socialism and laissez faire, free market capitalism can exist in stateless societies -- but only one has the chance of lasting. It's really a question of Individualism vs. Collectivism. And only of those choices is morally correct, achievable, and innately human.
"Neither capitalist nor socialist policies can be implemented without a state."
Ok...so? Anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism, and vice versa. Neither require state-implemented policy; both require the absence of state violence.
well no he is right in the sense that in socialism the state is what re distributes the weath and the goods thats true, anarchists deny all state existance as it denys true freedom, taxs, and uses force.
I'm a former newspaper editor and copy editor with an MA in English. I think I know the English language quite well. You, however, are ignoring the history of the word "socialism." It does not always mean "state socialism." It also means "libertarian socialism," which is stateless. You can easily prove this yourself by doing a simple Google search.
Anarchism implies socialism NOW. Right now. And it has since at least 1840. 1840-now. It's a fact, jack. It's in black and white. I can give you an extensive list of books, pamphlets, and newspapers, if you want to check for yourself.
The threat of hunger is coercion. Disallowing my use of land disallows my self-employment, which disallows my personal sovereignty. This barrier to my use of land is someone placing a rule on land. Look up "rule." They then create this border with guns or a fence or whatever, stating that this non-homesteaded land is theirs and they can charge for the usage of its resources and space.
Not only did you not refute my claims about capitalism, but you didn't even give any further evidence or clarification of your claims. You simply repeated it.
Franc, you're wrong and I've already explained why. Either try to refute my claims or admit that you meant something else or that you don't have a clear understanding of capitalism.
If true capitalism is an unregelutated free market, it cannot, in practical terms, be considered a statist ideology when statism implies regulation.
At first I was going to reply ... "Capitalism IS fiscal anarchism" ... but then I saw your note.
I don't think you understand what capitalism is. "State capitalism" is not capitalism, it is a contradiction in terms. To have true capitalism is to have a free market. The existence of any coercive force (such as any state) in the market or upon the market negates capitalism.
So a true capitalist IS an anarchist, at least about fiscal matters.
So Bakunin, Proudhon, Berkman, Goldman, Rocker, Chomsky, Zinn, the CNT of Spain were not anarchists? You've just decided that every major figure in anarchist history isn't an anarchist anymore? That's funny.
You mention mostly thinkers on the left. In terms of historical anarchism; The CNT did have limited success, which worked on a local basis.
But I think that Franc is talking about grand scale economics? Assuming he is then, for example, how would a "left anarchist" society operate without a large body of bureaucrats to distribute wealth, provide health care etc, (all the things that leftist talk about), without that body being what most people would recognise as a "State"?
No, I do not deny you your Bakunin, your Goldman or your Proudhon (although Proudhon is as much part of our ideology as of yours. Chomsky is not an Anarchist- he supports the State because he thinks we need the State to "fight" the inequality that the State created in the first place.
YOU are the one who denies US our anarchists. You deny Rothbard, Friedman and Spooner. You are a bigot, we're not.
Right on point. We're perfectly willing to aknowledge the Bukinuns and Proudhons, yet the lefties aren't willing to extend the same kindness towards our Spooners and Rothbards.
Since when has Chomsky ever say we need the state to fight the inequality that the state created, that sounds like a minarchist that Noam, Have you ever read or seen his interviews or speeches?
Anyway these minarchists are pissing me off, you tell them.
Ummm... Yes you can. A socialist at least. The ancap question is up for debate but yeah, you can definitely be a socialist anarchist mainly because socialism means so many different things.
If you study the philosophies you find many of the first to call themselves socialists wee anarchists.
TwinMoons2121 1 month ago
And "state capitalism can't exist without the state" is a truism, isn't it?
fbendz 2 months ago
So Kropotkin and Bakunin were not anarchists???
fbendz 2 months ago
Both socialism and laissez faire, free market capitalism can exist in stateless societies -- but only one has the chance of lasting. It's really a question of Individualism vs. Collectivism. And only of those choices is morally correct, achievable, and innately human.
NDB1790 3 months ago
"Neither capitalist nor socialist policies can be implemented without a state."
Ok...so? Anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism, and vice versa. Neither require state-implemented policy; both require the absence of state violence.
spiggitybap 2 years ago
"Note: when I say "capitalism," I mean State Capitalism "
FATToney12 2 years ago
well no he is right in the sense that in socialism the state is what re distributes the weath and the goods thats true, anarchists deny all state existance as it denys true freedom, taxs, and uses force.
Subtropicx 4 years ago
This man ignores history. Perhaps he's never read any.
DannyOKC 4 years ago
Nothing I said had anything to do with history. I think your ignorance lies more in the english language... !
Franc28 4 years ago
I'm a former newspaper editor and copy editor with an MA in English. I think I know the English language quite well. You, however, are ignoring the history of the word "socialism." It does not always mean "state socialism." It also means "libertarian socialism," which is stateless. You can easily prove this yourself by doing a simple Google search.
DannyOKC 4 years ago
I don't care about the history of words, only about how they are used now. We are speaking to each other right now, not a hundred years ago.
Franc28 4 years ago
Anarchism implies socialism NOW. Right now. And it has since at least 1840. 1840-now. It's a fact, jack. It's in black and white. I can give you an extensive list of books, pamphlets, and newspapers, if you want to check for yourself.
DannyOKC 4 years ago
The threat of hunger is coercion. Disallowing my use of land disallows my self-employment, which disallows my personal sovereignty. This barrier to my use of land is someone placing a rule on land. Look up "rule." They then create this border with guns or a fence or whatever, stating that this non-homesteaded land is theirs and they can charge for the usage of its resources and space.
dafatalgigabyte 4 years ago
Not only did you not refute my claims about capitalism, but you didn't even give any further evidence or clarification of your claims. You simply repeated it.
Franc, you're wrong and I've already explained why. Either try to refute my claims or admit that you meant something else or that you don't have a clear understanding of capitalism.
If true capitalism is an unregelutated free market, it cannot, in practical terms, be considered a statist ideology when statism implies regulation.
RobertPFreeman 4 years ago
At first I was going to reply ... "Capitalism IS fiscal anarchism" ... but then I saw your note.
I don't think you understand what capitalism is. "State capitalism" is not capitalism, it is a contradiction in terms. To have true capitalism is to have a free market. The existence of any coercive force (such as any state) in the market or upon the market negates capitalism.
So a true capitalist IS an anarchist, at least about fiscal matters.
RobertPFreeman 4 years ago
Capitalism is a statist ideology, and has nothing to do with Anarchism.
Franc28 4 years ago
So Bakunin, Proudhon, Berkman, Goldman, Rocker, Chomsky, Zinn, the CNT of Spain were not anarchists? You've just decided that every major figure in anarchist history isn't an anarchist anymore? That's funny.
buddhagem 4 years ago
You mention mostly thinkers on the left. In terms of historical anarchism; The CNT did have limited success, which worked on a local basis.
But I think that Franc is talking about grand scale economics? Assuming he is then, for example, how would a "left anarchist" society operate without a large body of bureaucrats to distribute wealth, provide health care etc, (all the things that leftist talk about), without that body being what most people would recognise as a "State"?
Klarkster 4 years ago
The CNT and the Spanish Revolution in general involved millions of people over vast swaths of industry and agriculture. It was large scale.
buddhagem 4 years ago
No, I do not deny you your Bakunin, your Goldman or your Proudhon (although Proudhon is as much part of our ideology as of yours. Chomsky is not an Anarchist- he supports the State because he thinks we need the State to "fight" the inequality that the State created in the first place.
YOU are the one who denies US our anarchists. You deny Rothbard, Friedman and Spooner. You are a bigot, we're not.
Franc28 4 years ago
Right on point. We're perfectly willing to aknowledge the Bukinuns and Proudhons, yet the lefties aren't willing to extend the same kindness towards our Spooners and Rothbards.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
Since when has Chomsky ever say we need the state to fight the inequality that the state created, that sounds like a minarchist that Noam, Have you ever read or seen his interviews or speeches?
Anyway these minarchists are pissing me off, you tell them.
InsurgenistCujo 4 years ago
Kaboom!
blue46gt 4 years ago
So "voluntary capitalism" in a "free market" is a contradiction?
tvfrihed 4 years ago
There is no such thing as "voluntary capitalism." The market is voluntary, capitalism is not.
Franc28 4 years ago
Laissez-faire capitalism is what we mean by capitalism.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
well that should be clear enough, yet I doubt it will clear things up for some....
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
Absolutely.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago