Welcome to the forums!
"I'm familiar with how the majority of the Anarchist movement characterizes the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, but not sure how anarcho-capitalists themselves actually view their relation to the rest of the anarchist movement. I've heard this is the place to find ancaps so I'm just interested in what the ancaps here have to say on how anarcho-capitalism relates historically, politically, and economically to anarchist history and the current anarchist movement."
I'd be interested in why this matters? My take.
You might be interested in this little video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqUiE-vJ-64
Bill Whittle on a "Tale of Two Revolutions". It goes into the history of the "constrained", or right-hand path of philosophy represented by the classical liberal thinkers and the American Revolution, versus the "unconstrained", or left-hand path philosophers of the French Revolution. Rousseau, Marx, Malthus etc represent the latter... I think of them as the 'dark', or anti-human philosophers, united in their conviction that humans are a disease or blemish upon the Earth, and that mutually beneficial human interaction is inherently undesirable, especially on a large scale. They believe that their quality of life is threatened unjustly by the peaceful activities, and often mere presence, of their fellow human beings.
Rothbardian 'anarchism' is a development of the right-hand, 'constrained' revolutionary lexicon.
You might also be interested in this little piece by Rothbard: The Origins of Individualism in The US.
http://mises.org/daily/2014
The way i see is, which is not neccessarily correct nor held by all an-caps. We had people in history that laid claim to creating anarchist theory. Then we have others that distort anarchist theory by mixing it with such theories as communism and collectivism. If you take the opinion that capitalism exists without the state, which does not fit the marxism/socialist definition of capitalism. If you take the opinion that capitalism is the default economic system. Then basic anarchism would in fact be anarcho capitalism. The way I saw it was that anarchism was always anarcho-capitalism, Rothbard just coined the term to differentiate it from all the other ridiculous types of anarchism to make it more clear. Voluntaryism and anarchism are the same thing as they are both based on the non initiation of force principle. As capitalism is loosely defined as the voluntary trade between two or more parties. Voluntaryism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. As soon as you have a party (like a state of some kind) that initiates force (regulations, tariffs, taxes) then it is no longer anarchism or capitalism. Anarchist principles and capitalism in its raw forms have been around before they were labelled anarchism and capitalism and before people developed it in to a philosophy or political theory. But within an anarcho-capitalism society or region, people would be free to setup a communist community or town, as long as people are free to leave and join the town as they please. But then people would like to call that communist-anarchy. But realy that is just a communist community within an anarchy region. It is not communist anarchy. But they would definitely run in to some problems as the communist towns or community would conflict with the larger societies laws on property rights and similar and thus they would have to give up their rights by entering and joining the communist town. But that is a whole different topic. But I repeat that is not the general belief held by anarcho caps just my own view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought
Historically: I've seen many people on these boards and elsewhere who are fans of Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, or William Godwin. This is pretty much the individualist wing of the anarchist movement. However, many anarcho-capitalists have also read and/or sympathize with some of the things they may hear from an Emma Goldman or Proudhon or Chomsky.
Politically: Well, an-caps are fine so long as no system is forced on others and it keeps the peace. Anarcho-communists can have their communes, syndicalists can have their co-ops, and capitalists can exchange value for value so long as nobody threatens each other. I think often times these schools get rammed against each other so much that they forgot how much in common they have in opposition to the State. I should add though that I think these are for different reasons; many left-anarchists are against hierarchy whereas the an-caps beef is only against coercion. They don't see a moral issue with natural hierarchies.
Economically: Obviously a lot different than other anarchists since they feel that private property is the engine for all economic development. Marxists think that the capitalist will wither away without the State whereas the an-caps feel that the capitalist has an inflated standing due to assistance from the State. Again there is some agreement between the two schools that "big business" has too much control, but they differ wildly on the diagnosis and the remedy.
Definition of capitalism
For ancaps, capitalism means free markets without any type of corporatism/socialism/collectivism. So if you define capitalism as corporatism (as many left anarchists do), note that this is a difference in definition.
Land ownership
Ancaps have no problems with land ownership as we believe that mixing your own labor with land ("homesteading") makes it yours (if you are the first one, after that it's property to be traded). Every organism just takes from nature what it needs and advanced organisms communicate within their own groups to achieve mutual benefit in working together. Homesteading + Free trade in land is simply the most efficient way to achieve the max possible benefit.
Rise of wage labor
Wage labor is indeed much more prevalent today that it is in earlier (and poorer!) times, but it's not because of some corporatist conspiracy. An economy develops as people save and invest capital in innovative products that make life more productive. The industrial revolution provided massive opportunities for increased productivity through capital investment. Farmers could sell the farm and move to the city to make more money working in a factory. (Note that today in developing economies so called "sweatshops" pay higher salaries than those laborers can make farming.)
If you define capitalism as the collusion between state and capital then that's what you're getting from many anarchists. Capitalism is many things to many people. The best way I have seen it defined was by Hans Herman Hoppe where the system of capitalism is the respect for and upholding of private property while socialism is marked by systemic transgressions against private property.
Is there private property in socialism? Wasn't aware of that.
By default economic system, I mean it is the natural economic state. The example of people on an island is used by Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty chapter 6 and 7. He does not use the term default economic system, that is something i have made up. Socialism and communism require an authority and thus are not the default economic system. Those systems require a third party to create a political authority over other people in order to arrange the system. While capitalism existed before man had even defined the word capitalism. Primitive people were trading goods between tribes centuries before the term capitalism was invented.
You might argue that there was communist tribes before communism was invented. But realy a tribe that worked together and shared the fruits of their labour were not actually communist. They were in a capitalist system that shared their goods amongst their family and community.
Even within the communist states in history we had capitalism, for example in communist russia people still traded vodka and cigs on the blackmarket.
A black market developed for goods that were particularly sought after but constantly underproduced (such as cigarettes).
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/six.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Planning
What I am unclear on is how it is a continuation in the discussion Anarchists have been having since the late 18th century.
Anarcho-capitalism just isn't what you described though. It began as continuation of the liberal tradition of minimal government and free markets. I think there are striking resemblances between ancap and 19th century individualist anarchism, and it may very well be that Spooner has more in common with Rothbard than with Kropotkin, but its not like individual anarchists evolved into capitalists. It was that laissez-faire liberals applied their own principals (primarily that a monoply provision of any good--including law and order--is bad) consistently enough to reach an anti-state position.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I can not say that I have ever seen an anarchist quote marx before. That is not two kinds of private property, the property of the producer is the producers property and the property of a laborer is the property of a laborer. The labor of other people that work for the producer, offer their services in return for money or compensation. The labor is only exploitation and a private property extension of the producer when there is no compensation ie slavery. If you remove the government from any region, economic wise you will be left with a free market or otherwise called capitalism. Capitalism can be decentralized and does not require a government to setup and arrange the system. What is ludicrous is that you think that primitive man did not engage in capitalism and whilst in small settlements people beat the shit out of each other rather than trade. If you study the tribes of africa and south america, they were not socialist, they engaged in barter and this is well documented. If capitalism is not the natural economic state then what is ? Socialist anarchists capitalists? are you trolling? Firstly you can not have socialist anarchists because they are incompatible terms. Unless you have your own definition of what socialism is. But lets pretend that such a system or ideology of socialist anarchists could exist. Then the answer would be, they would not be capitalist because they are socialist.
There aren't "new economic systems". Economics is economics, there are only different political arrangements of capital.
I didn't really want to or care to get "the" point. I was just pointing that out.
Socialists don't accept voluntary trade. They can't because then there would be some perceived inequality that arises (that is, according to them).
The connection is that as soon as there is some perceived inequality that occurs collectivists and socialists will call for some third party to rectify the situation. I had a lot more typed up but my browser crashed so so much for that.
What is the essential difference you see between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists or collectivist anarchists?
Birthday Pony:"I can not say that I have ever seen an anarchist quote marx before." Only to show that even one of the most authoritarian socialists of the time had a theory of property that was much more nuanced than simply abolishing it. The point being, that all economic theories have ideas about what kind of property is legitimate. Socialism only disregards certain types of private property as much as capitalism disregards certain types of public property (or capitalism upholds private property and socialism upholds public property, if we want to look at the two in a positive light). Property theory is never as clear cut as all or nothing. "Socialist anarchists capitalists? are you trolling?" I am not trolling, but you have picked up on the paradoxical nature of defining capitalism as voluntary trade. Defining capitalism as "voluntary trade" leads us to this: Capitalism is voluntary trade All anarchists support voluntary trade (which would include socialist anarchists) Socialist anarchists are capitalists. Now do you see the problem with that definition? "But lets pretend that such a system or ideology of socialist anarchists could exist. Then the answer would be, they would not be capitalist because they are socialist." It seems as though you do.. "Firstly you can not have socialist anarchists because they are incompatible terms. Unless you have your own definition of what socialism is." The 1950's were the first time someone identified as both an anarchist and not a socialist. How unfamiliar with anarchist history are you? "If capitalism is not the natural economic state then what is ?" I don't purport to know this, and as much as you may beg the question, my only point is that a relatively new economic system is most likely not the dominant one. It is, indeed, true that hunter/gatherers traded, but their interpretation of property, labor, and the like was absolutely nowhere near modern capitalist interpretations.
You seem to believe that anarchist socialists did not disapprove of private property. Ok then what's the problem?
You say inequality is also not a problem for socialists of any stripe or at least of all stripes (not really true but ok). Again, then what's the problem?
The essential difference that I can pick out is that anarcho-capitalists begin at the rational starting point of the individual whereas social anarchists stress the collective over the individual. Logically, then, actions in a socialist "anarchist" society will not always be voluntary as the "commune" is held up above the individual.
Anarcho-capitalists don't have a problem with natural hierarchy, only the artificial political one.
Socialist anarchists have a problem with both natural and artificial hierarchy, hence there childish focus on cooperation, communes and other egalitarian solutions.
Than they get mad when in a free market less egalitarian shareholder structures outcompete them in serving the people's needs and wants.
Rather than making an effort to understand the time value of money and the capital structure in an economy, they smoke some more pot, destroy a shop window or start arguing on a message board that anarcho-capitalists don't understand where they are coming from because some dude somewhere, sometime had a different meaning for some terms they use.
You can't change nature honey. Get over it.
"I can not say that I have ever seen an anarchist quote marx before." Only to show that even one of the most authoritarian socialists of the time had a theory of property that was much more nuanced than simply abolishing it. The point being, that all economic theories have ideas about what kind of property is legitimate. Socialism only disregards certain types of private property as much as capitalism disregards certain types of public property (or capitalism upholds private property and socialism upholds public property, if we want to look at the two in a positive light). Property theory is never as clear cut as all or nothing.
"Socialist anarchists capitalists? are you trolling?" I am not trolling, but you have picked up on the paradoxical nature of defining capitalism as voluntary trade. Defining capitalism as "voluntary trade" leads us to this: Capitalism is voluntary trade All anarchists support voluntary trade (which would include socialist anarchists) Socialist anarchists are capitalists. Now do you see the problem with that definition? "But lets pretend that such a system or ideology of socialist anarchists could exist. Then the answer would be, they would not be capitalist because they are socialist." It seems as though you do..
"Firstly you can not have socialist anarchists because they are incompatible terms. Unless you have your own definition of what socialism is." The 1950's were the first time someone identified as both an anarchist and not a socialist. How unfamiliar with anarchist history are you? "If capitalism is not the natural economic state then what is ?" I don't purport to know this, and as much as you may beg the question, my only point is that a relatively new economic system is most likely not the dominant one. It is, indeed, true that hunter/gatherers traded, but their interpretation of property, labour, and the like was absolutely nowhere near modern capitalist interpretations.
Hi,
I'm new here. I too am more familiar with the socialist anarchist tradition than with the capitalist one. So I'm finding this thread interesting.
Maybe I can clear up a few definitional differences. Socialist anarchists do not consider state owned property to be "commonly owned." While such property is nominally owned and managed "in the interests of the public," it may in fact be that only a few individuals exert any control over it. Thus, anarchists often refer to countries such as the USSR as state capitialist. Such countries are run like a giant corporation for the profit of those who actually own the country (i.e. the state bureaucrats).
Ivan Illich classified institutions by their placement on a left-right continuum. On the right, he put what he called "manipulative institutions." These include the military, schools, and automobile manufacturers. The clients of such institutions must operate within them according to the dictates of the owner, and the institutions are organized as hierarchical bureaucracies. On the left, he place what he called "convivial instutions." At the left extreme are sidewalks, parks, and telephone lines. The clients of such institutions have freedom to use these as they see fit.
Anarchists generally equate these left institutions with their view of socialism. A modern institution close to socialism would be Wikipedia. It's an institution run collectively by its users. The users actually participate in regulating and creating content for it. And they all stand on a roughly equal plane. Their influence is determined by how much time they put into it. By contrast, a "public" school is run much more in the manner of serving private interests. The teachers and administrators have near total control over how the institution is to be used. They teach children to be submissive to authority, competitive with their peers, and to see reality as something which they must conform to--basically all the features that a profit-oriented culture would demand from its people.
What is the "labor problem"?
Fool on the Hill:A modern institution close to socialism would be Wikipedia. It's an institution run collectively by its users. The users actually participate in regulating and creating content for it. And they all stand on a roughly equal plane. Their influence is determined by how much time they put into it.
Ironically, the founder of wikipedia was a student of Mark Thornton's (an anarcho-capitalist) and was very influenced by Hayek's ideas on spontaneous order.
EDIT: Jimmy Wales also identifies himself as an Objectivist and libertarian. So... that makes your comment even more ironic.
Socialist anarachists often divide property into capital (those used for production) and possessions (those used for consumption). From my understanding*, individualist anarachists and mutualists support the private ownership of possessions. They believe, however, that capital must be commonly owned among those who use it for production. This means that a family who owns a farm can work that farm themselves, claim the produce they grew as their own, and then sell the produce on the market. However, if they want to get someone else to help them with the work, they would have to accept that person as a co-owner rather than paying him or her a wage. One of the primary goals of socialism is to eliminate wages, rents, and interests.
Anarcho-communists take it a step further and support the common ownership of possessions--at least when such possessions are not in use.
*I'm not really an expert on the subject yet, so I may be misrepresenting their position.
If all individuals are involved voluntarily and of their own will do so, what's the problem? I don't understand how a choice an individual makes like favoring one thing over another implies force or coercion.