http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF
Simple answer: No!
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Who cares?
TL;DR, but then who really cares what some website clasifies?
It's "anarchist" enough for statists so they are scared of ancaps as hell, trololol.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Is 'Anarcho'-Capitalism a type of Anarchism?
Yes it is.
"Anarcho-collectivism" on the other hand....
I mean, if you go by what most people think of anarchism as ([chaos and warlordism] post breakdown of the central government), then yes. But then, feudalism could be seen as a form of anarchism in relation to Roman imperialism.
If you're talking about anti-authoritarianism and the breakdown of heirarchy and class sytems, then no.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.
Their argument:
Anarchism = against capitalism, therefore anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.
Are bananas a kind of fruit?
Fruits are red or green, therefore bananas are not fruit.
fail.
"An" means not or without. "Archos" means ruler, master, or governance.
By definition, anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. You can argue with the word, but I don't think the Greeks can hear you.
It depends on how you want to define anarchism. Some see it as without a state (i.e., territorial monopoly on the provision of law and defense) and others see it as against authority structures (i.e., some on the Left view capitalism as a class-driven authority system). Under definition one, of course it is anarchism. Under definition two, it isn't.
Regardless, it is just bickering about a word. We know what "anarcho-capitalism" means, so let's debate the merit of the system rather than the definition behind it.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: I mean, if you go by what most people think of anarchism as ([chaos and warlordism] post breakdown of the central government), then yes. But then, feudalism could be seen as a form of anarchism in relation to Roman imperialism. If you're talking about anti-authoritarianism and the breakdown of heirarchy and class sytems, then no. Feudalism is quasi-anarchistic, it's warlordish; not statist. Anti-authoritarianism and anti-heirarchy are moronic nonsense. And lol@'class system'. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 20
Feudalism is quasi-anarchistic, it's warlordish; not statist.
Anti-authoritarianism and anti-heirarchy are moronic nonsense. And lol@'class system'.
The Mises Institute should make an official refutation of that FAQ.
Double points if done by Block :)
throw me in the not caring camp
William: throw me in the not caring camp I am thinking apathy is the ideal way to respond to these left-anarchists. I've certainly heard it all before, and if they want to complain about the evil bossism they can go rant on C4SS where someone gives a chit. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
"http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF
Simple answer: No!"
-Says the guy with a yellow anarchy is order picture. Anyone see any irony or confusion here?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I get the jist of his argument. The FAQ states that, "Anarcho Capitalism" does apply to the dictionary definition of the term "Anarchism," and the author thinks that is a misleading distinction. He says that Anarchism as an ideology which both rejects the state and all forms of hierarchy, which will include capitalism. To that degree, do any of us want to associate Ancap with with the general conceptions of political anarchism?
Should we just switch to "Anti-Statist?"
BUT CAPITALISM IS STATISM.
There is no winning with these people. I know what I mean by capitalism, market anarchism, etc. These word games are just pointless.
It's boring semantics stuff.
Somehow I have the feeling this thread is not intended for an honest discussion, but merely for advertisement of their ideology.
Gee you figure that out all by yourself?
Yeah, guess I have my smarty pants on. Hopefully he doesn’t make a thread for every headline of the anarchist FAQ.
This is what happens when lefto's finally crack and lose it. You should see Francois Tremblay.
All central planning leads to statism.
He says that Anarchism as an ideology which both rejects the state and all forms of hierarchy, which will include capitalism.
How do they raise children?
Marx raises their children
Giant_Joe: He says that Anarchism as an ideology which both rejects the state and all forms of hierarchy, which will include capitalism. How do they raise children?
now that's a good point, never thought about it this way. Maybe they would reply that children would be "owned" or raised collectively? Hm..
But raising, in and of itself, requires a "non-flat" relation. One is the authority on some subject matter, and the other is learning. Hierarchy is an essential property of the universe.
They don't have an answer for this. There will be more arguing about the definition of words, or they will make a reservation or exception "just this time" (tm) to make it work. Progressivism runs on "we will make an exception, just this time" until you get the mess we got today.
If leftist would have let us to have the word "liberal" not of this bulls*** would ever have to be argued off. I personally see anarcho-capitalism as a combination of anarchism and capitalism, not just a pure anarchism.
Liberalism is leftist, including classical liberalism. All the same egalitarian, revolutionary, populist, rightsist, Enlightenment nonsense. Anyways, libertarianism is not liberalism; classical or otherwise. It is something new and different.
Well, I don't know who free market-advocate used the word "libertarianism" firstly in modern sense, but originaly it was a synonym to left wing-anarchism. So my message to the leftist complaining about the use of words: You started it, so bear the consequenses.
Really, libertarianism starts as a left-wing religious movement and then moves into politics; but market-libertarianism is almost as old; and actually in terms of theory (not semantics) market anarchism predates the American Revolution or left-anarchism with Burke's A Vindication of Natural Society.