OK, I see some real hatred being spilt on these forums for the left. I understand feeling nauseated when discussing the statist left (and you'd figure the statist right would be equally as reviled, although I don't think that's the case), but why hate the anarcho-left? What about "live and let live" or "let the market determine the winners"? If they aren't trying to seize your stuff for the "people", and you aren't trying to seize their stuff for yourself, then what's the problem? The market would clearly determine an idealogical "winner" (if any).
I think this is why Rothbard was looking to get his message out to anti-establishment leftists of his time. There are lots of folks out there now, hell, probably more than in Rothbard's time! Why don't we try cooperating towards common ends (namely the abolition of the state) rather than bickering about property!
For one thing, they think that there are such things as right or left wings without democratic government, which is just plain ridiculous.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Well, I suppose that's true, but there would still be a distinction between collectivist groups, and individualist groups (if that isn't an oxymoron). You can fault them for sloppy semantics.
I think it all depends on where someone has their priorties in their philosophy/aesthetic, and that would include ancaps, when considering a potential for not getting irked. That said, it is not uncommon for me to find the an-left quite tolerable / pleasent to be around / worth listening to
Jackson LaRose: OK, I see some real hatred being spilt on these forums for the left. I understand feeling nauseated when discussing the statist left (and you'd figure the statist right would be equally as reviled, although I don't think that's the case), but why hate the anarcho-left? What about "live and let live" or "let the market determine the winners"? If they aren't trying to seize your stuff for the "people", and you aren't trying to seize their stuff for yourself, then what's the problem? The market would clearly determine an idealogical "winner" (if any).
This is a false depiction of the 'anarcho-left'. If they would respect property and choice, then they wouldn't be the 'anarcho-left', they would just be anarcho-capitalists.
See this video:
Anarcho-communism versus anarcho-capitalismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmR-rQZ4qF4
And also this graph:
Nielsio:This is a false depiction of the 'anarcho-left'. If they would respect property and choice, then they wouldn't be the 'anarcho-left', they would just be anarcho-capitalists.
Well, I suppose I could see what you are saying from the point of an idealogue (good and bad, black or white, etc.) and it seems you've got the blinders fastened fairly snug.
But what's a greater threat to your liberty right now? The fact that a few, decentralized lefty tribes won't respect your property in a hypothetical future? Or that the terrible mechanations of the state threaten your property now?
Dondoolee: I think it all depends on where someone has their priorties in their philosophy/aesthetic, and that would include ancaps, when considering a potential for not getting irked. That said, it is not uncommon for me to find the an-left quite tolerable / pleasent to be around / worth listening to
Agreed. I guess it's tough when ideas are subservient to your will to understand zealotry in either camp.
Jackson LaRose:Agreed. I guess it's tough when ideas are subservient to your will to understand zealotry in either camp.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I must agree with Jackson. Seeing a potential ally in anarcho-communists was the only non-questionable (form my point of view) tactical decision that Rothbard ever made.
These guys hold an impossible position, but still they are anarchists: they wouldn’t resort to a State without loosing support. What would happen with any “democratically owned” plant, as per ancom theory, is simply that it would go bankrupt, and the whole movement with it. Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy.
Merlin:Still, they’re great fellows to get us to anarchy.
nirgrahamUK:anarchists struggle for credibility. most people that don't reject anarchy out of hand, need to understand economics sufficiently to comprehend that anarchy would bring prosperity. 'anarcho'-'communists' greatly undermine this.
True. But I don’t’ advocate making joint speeches, or conferences, or that kind of thing. And of course, every AE should always speak the truth about any mater when asked, and never subdue what he knows to be true to some strange tactic.
All I’m saying (and perhaps Jackson will agree) is that we need to stop battering them. Live them alone, and they’ll do more good than harm to the cause. We've got far bigger fish to fry, I'm afraid.
Jackson LaRose: Nielsio:This is a false depiction of the 'anarcho-left'. If they would respect property and choice, then they wouldn't be the 'anarcho-left', they would just be anarcho-capitalists. Well, I suppose I could see what you are saying from the point of an idealogue (good and bad, black or white, etc.) and it seems you've got the blinders fastened fairly snug. But what's a greater threat to your liberty right now? The fact that a few, decentralized lefty tribes won't respect your property in a hypothetical future? Or that the terrible mechanations of the state threaten your property now?
People who are anti-property are not allies against the state. They want a state, just a different kind.
"Destruction is a statist measure; it is fundamental to government. So what are the black-clad youngsters so filled with hatred and so prone to destroy? They call themselves anarchists, but they are the embodiment of the statist principle: “do as I say--or else.” The masked hordes rioting the streets calling for anarchy want power; they want the power to do as they please, and they want the power to separate action from responsibility. They want the freedom to act--without consequence. They demand respect from others in the sense of fear, obedience and subjection rather than appreciation and admiration; they want to be the state and control its powers.They are indeed the opposite of any conceivable part of the anarchist tradition, but use the label to place responsibility of their deeds on others. They blame anarchism for their actions, while demanding the powers of the state to mold society into their view of utopia. The riots are not a call for freedom; it is a call for another kind of government. Anarchism, on the other hand, is the absence of government."
Blame Anarchism? - Per Bylund
So to answer your question, on what's a bigger threat. I think that would be a false dichotomy because I don't see left-anarchists furthering our cause in any way whatsoever. Our cause is difficult and requires an unbelievably studied and well-understood position in philosophy, economics and morality. I don't think the left-anarchists have any of that. And because they don't, I think they just hurt our cause, in the way Per described above.
Because the right of private property is one of the lynch pins of libertarianism, and regular anarchists dont believe such a thing exists. Without it, libertarianism has zero foundation. If man cannot buy and organize his property as he sees fit, then we do not have freedom - we have chaos. The anarchists will not usually play this battle, "Oh its OK in an ancap world if we have our own anarchists (sic) communes?". No, they will nearly always make a variation of the argument that the capitalists will set up their own private fiefdoms (meaning they will use their own property as they like).
Basically that is like arguing commies should be our natural ally because they ostensibly seek to demolish the state.
The anarcho-left is a huge mishmash of very different ideas. Most of them completely statist and misguided.
Totalitarian direct democracy for instance is a popular idea among anarcho-leftist and it is by far the most horrible form of rule concivable.There are other notions that the the Anarchist Federation shouldn't meddle too much, just control all trade between communes ...Many claim that using force to prevent ownership of land is perfectly ok and some of these lunatics even form political parties (quoting Proudhon stating that parties are abominations in the party agenda) and unfortunately they don't do this as a joke.
There are few anarcho-leftists that are agreeable and want a society in which it would be perfectly possible to live as anarcho-capitalist. They want proper anarchism and that people should voluntarily choose to share stuff and generally behave as hippies. That view is ok but there are very few anarcho-leftist I have come across that have this non-statist idea. The rest are statist.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
nirgrahamUK:you think that people have wills? such arrogance of pretence to knowledge..............!
Hey man, I don't go around telling other people how to live. And if everyone isn't already a natty right NAP-bot, then we must be able to choose to affirm or ignore ideologies.
At least, I think...
They just need to put a good spin on it. I'm sure people are much comfortable with "libertarian" than "anarcho-capitalist" (which is probably why Rothbard hijacked it from the anarcho-left in the first place). So, they need a cutesy name that reminds people of freedom, like I dunno, maybe "liberal democrats" or the "Free People's Front". Y'know, something sexy!
Collectivization without violence is impossible
Merlin:All I’m saying (and perhaps Jackson will agree) is that we need to stop battering them. Live them alone, and they’ll do more good than harm to the cause. We've got far bigger fish to fry, I'm afraid.
Here, here.
Like Molinari's letter to the Socialists.
We aren't enemies, we want the same thing, just different means to that end, which will be hashed out when the end is achieved.
Jackson LaRose:They just need to put a good spin on it. I'm sure people are much comfortable with "libertarian" than "anarcho-capitalist" (which is probably why Rothbard hijacked it from the anarcho-left in the first place). So, they need a cutesy name that reminds people of freedom, like I dunno, maybe "liberal democrats" or the "Free People's Front". Y'know, something sexy!
how shallow
sicsempertyrannis:Because the right of private property is one of the lynch pins of libertarianism, and regular anarchists dont believe such a thing exists. Without it, libertarianism has zero foundation. If man cannot buy and organize his property as he sees fit, then we do not have freedom - we have chaos.
Yeah, I still don't get why the right to property is so vital. Haven't you ever heard of a gun? You don't want someone screwing with your property, defend it! Maybe get together with some buddies, with a mutual defense contract or something. I think it's called a "town".
sicsempertyrannis: Basically that is like arguing commies should be our natural ally because they ostensibly seek to demolish the state.
I think that is what I'm arguing, just not the ones who are trying to use the state to demolish itself.
sicsempertyrannis:No, they will nearly always make a variation of the argument that the capitalists will set up their own private fiefdoms (meaning they will use their own property as they like).
Well then tell 'em "I'll see you after the state topples from the sights of my 30/06 but 'till then, let's bring it down" or something else tough sounding. Maybe they will value their lives over matyrdom for the proles, or maybe not, in which case you'd better be a good shot.
Felipe: Collectivization without violence is impossible
Never been on a sports team?
nirgrahamUK:how shallow
Hey, shallow sells. Have you listened to the radio in the past 30 years?
The socialists and liberals (libertarians) are esentially two sides of the same coin. It all stems from liberalism. In the mid 1800's they were all called liberals (ex social liberals, political liberals, human liberals) and were usually allied against oppressive govts. I see no reason why it can't be like that today.
i try not to.
nirgrahamUK:i try not to.
Well, that's one thing we can agree on.
Jackson LaRose:Never been on a sports team?
Wouldn't that be an example of social cooperation rather than collectivization?
I think one of the most important things to consider is along Machiavellian like thoughts. Ex: You do not want to ally yourself with someone stronger than you who is clearly against your interests. Would the an-left be an example of this on the whole? I honestly don't know (on intuition I have weak doubts), but it is an important thing to consider.
Jackson LaRose: Felipe: Collectivization without violence is impossible Never been on a sports team?
No team sports in Rothbardia?
Nielsio:No team sports in Rothbardia?
You won't be missing much. It won't work out so good when they keep trying to charge a fee to pass the ball...
Jackson LaRose:OK, I see some real hatred being spilt on these forums for the left. I understand feeling nauseated when discussing the statist left (and you'd figure the statist right would be equally as reviled, although I don't think that's the case), but why hate the anarcho-left? What about "live and let live" or "let the market determine the winners"? If they aren't trying to seize your stuff for the "people", and you aren't trying to seize their stuff for yourself, then what's the problem? The market would clearly determine an idealogical "winner" (if any).
Because they would line us up against a wall, one by one, and shoot us. The anarcho-right, if you want to call it that, would never prevent the left from carrying out and implementing their socialist utopia. But unfortunately, they would never do the same for us. You have to understand that their movement is not, in anyway, based on reason or economics--just pure emotion and hatred.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:Because they would line us up against a wall, one by one, and shoot us.
After the first one, the rest might get a little more pro-active in defending their "property" (lives)
Esuric:The anarcho-right, if you want to call it that, would never prevent the left from carrying out and implementing their socialist utopia. But unfortunately, they would never do the same for us.
I don't know about that. If they really were anarchists, why wouldn't they just leave us alone? The difference between a commune and business partnership is not all that great, really.
Esuric:You have to understand that their movement is not, in anyway, based on reason or economics--just pure emotion and hatred.
Well, I think that's sort of an unfair generalization. That would be like me saying, "All libertarians are michigan militia, OK city bomber types who live in shacks in the mountains, and make pipe bombs when they aren't at their klan rallies. As a former lefty, I'd say I was just more misguided and uneducated, if anything. My principles have essentially remained unchanged.
Jackson LaRose: Merlin:All I’m saying (and perhaps Jackson will agree) is that we need to stop battering them. Live them alone, and they’ll do more good than harm to the cause. We've got far bigger fish to fry, I'm afraid. Here, here. Like Molinari's letter to the Socialists. We aren't enemies, we want the same thing, just different means to that end, which will be hashed out when the end is achieved.
This is pretty flawed. Since you know ends don't justify means and take ends take care of themselves and all that...
Esuric: Jackson LaRose:OK, I see some real hatred being spilt on these forums for the left. I understand feeling nauseated when discussing the statist left (and you'd figure the statist right would be equally as reviled, although I don't think that's the case), but why hate the anarcho-left? What about "live and let live" or "let the market determine the winners"? If they aren't trying to seize your stuff for the "people", and you aren't trying to seize their stuff for yourself, then what's the problem? The market would clearly determine an idealogical "winner" (if any). Because they would line us up against a wall, one by one, and shoot us. The anarcho-right, if you want to call it that, would never prevent the left from carrying out and implementing their socialist utopia. But unfortunately, they would never do the same for us. You have to understand that their movement is not, in anyway, based on reason or economics--just pure emotion and hatred.
That sounds a little bit too much like creating a boogey man. I think to have that mindset and fear of a group can only create problems. Just like the US scaring us against "Islamo-Fascism". Even if it is a somewhat accurate statement (and I am not saying it is) the sentiment ought to change.
Jackson LaRose: I don't know about that. If they really were anarchists, why wouldn't they just leave us alone? The difference between a commune and business partnership is not all that great, really.
They aren't real anarchists; that's the entire point. Go to revleft and ask them if they would allow private property, corporations and markets to exist. The syndicalists I talk to say that property and profit are theft/morally unjustifiable.
Jackson LaRose: Well, I think that's sort of an unfair generalization.
No, their systems of societal organizations are impossible to implement successfully. They must necessarily fail.
Jackson LaRose:hat would be like me saying, "All libertarians are michigan militia, OK city bomber types who live in shacks in the mountains, and make pipe bombs when they aren't at their klan rallies.
Non sequitur.
Esuric:They aren't real anarchists; that's the entire point.
Again, I think that's generalizing and sterotyping a group, like saying "of course he's good at math, he's asian".
Esuric:The syndicalists I talk to say that property and profit are theft/morally unjustifiable.
Yeah, but syndicalists desire a dictate of the majority, not anarchy.
Esuric:No, their systems of societal organizations are impossible to implement successfully. They must necessarily fail.
Now, I could understand that from a central planning type of collectivsm, but not a decentralised, tribal collective, because market influence would still be present outside the group.
Esuric:Non sequitur.
No, ludicrous hyperbole to point out yours, although I guess I can easily see the confusion.
Jackson LaRose:Now, I could understand that from a central planning type of collectivsm, but not a decentralised, tribal collective, because market influence would still be present outside the group.
Decentralized socialism doesn't exist. This is syndicalism, aka, the most absurd theory ever put forth by man. See Socialism by Ludwig von Mises.
So let us assume that we have complete anarchy where the left and right get to create their own institutions and live however they like. The left creates their coops where they share ownership over the means of production but must compete against private corporations. Here are a few questions.
Faced with extreme inequality (which they brought upon themselves) they will do what they've always done: agitate, spread mass propaganda, and appeal to jealousy (not all of them will do this, of course, just those who are ideologically tied to the movement). Am I wrong? Will this time be different? Never mind the fact that their propaganda will also appeal to those members of society who work for failed/less successful corporations (even though they are still much wealthier than those working for coops, but relatively poorer than those who work for successful corporations).
Jackson LaRose: Esuric:They aren't real anarchists; that's the entire point. Again, I think that's generalizing and sterotyping a group, like saying "of course he's good at math, he's asian".
This doesn't make any sense.
Assuming that you are correct, and there is a large enough group of violent disenfranchised leftists to make a serious threat to a homeostatsis ancap type of environment, than there are major psychological laws that must be addressed about people that would have to be taken into account along with economic law.
Dondoolee:Assuming that you are correct, and there is a large enough group of violent disenfranchised leftists to make a serious threat to a homeostatsis ancap type of environment, than there are major psychological laws that must be addressed about people that would have to be taken into account along with economic law.
I don't trust humanity. They are, for the most part, dominated by jealousy (in my opinion). Which is why I'm a liberal and not an anarchist. I haven't even addressed Schumpeter's argument about intellectuals, which is very strong.
Esuric:Decentralized socialism doesn't exist.
I can think of a couple of examples: Bushmen, Monasteries, Community Gardens
Esuric:This is syndicalism
There are lots of flavors of anarcho-collectivists
Esuric:What do you think would happen when those corporations (who get to secure capital through financial markets) expand,
Without the protection of the state, it seems unlikely to me that corporations would get very large, if even exist at all. Why would you need limited liability with no courts around?
Esuric:have much higher/more sophisticated capital per worker? And when the coops, who can't demand the same degree/sophistication of capital
Why do you consider that a given?
Esuric:who make all decisions by majority votes (each member of the coop is a different human being, with different productivity and different desires
the lazy ones get voted off the island!
Esuric:what would happen when the left sees that their ideology has entirely failed them, when they realize that they are much poorer than those who work for corporations, and when they see their members leaving coops and joining such corporations? What do you think the ideological leaders of the left would do then? Faced with extreme inequality (which they brought upon themselves) they will do what they've always done: agitate, spread mass propaganda, and appeal to jealousy. Am I wrong? Will this time be different? (never mind the fact that their propaganda will also appeal to those members of society who worked for failed corporations).
Well, if the corporations are going to be that much better off, than there's nothing to worry about. Their propoganda machine would be better, their weapons would be better, they would be smarter (all the smarties having "left the left" when they realized the ship was sinking), and there would be more of them (lots of people are pragmatic, rather than idealistic zealots). So, what's the problem? Hell it might be a boon for guys like you! Imagine, an opportunity to realize a "final solution" to the "leftist problem".
And what about lefty-lites? I'm thinking decentralist greens, or random hippie-types. Harmless? Scourges of freedom?
Than I think one would have to look into Hayekian like comprimises, if that is one's view on humanity. If you think there is that much jealousy to be dangerous you have to find psychological solutions as well, they can not be ignored. Unfortunatly I think there is no easy solution. At least it would be a good and largly untapped field w/in a libertarian sphere, plus you have Hayek as a springboard (who could ask for better), sounds like a great start to something. I honestly think though, belligerent and fearful talk will only do harm, one must have a Hayekian politness as well.