One thing I have noticed about the term "Capitalism" is that it seems to have different meanings for just about every different ideology. This makes it a pain to describe oneself as an anarcho-capitalist because to some, Capitalism is more like what we consider to be corporatism or statism. Thus, it is that much more confusing to outsiders to understand. It also makes other anarchists (be they the morons over at Infoshop who wouldn't know Stalinism from freedom or more reasonable individualist/collectivist anarchists who just get the wrong connotations from our name) consider us to be a strange, foreign group because of the name, if only because famous anarchists (Kropotkin, etc) define Capitalism differently than us. Also, Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't flow off the tongue very well. Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist all flow fine, libertarian is a bit harder but acceptable, but anarcho-capitalist doesn't work.
Thus, I think we need to think of new names. Voluntarists is good, but isn't quite the same and is more of a subset of ancaps (same with Agorists, who are described more by their ideal means of removing the state). I personally use market anarchist, but I think someone here might be able to find a briefer but stronger word to use.
Could you please explain the difference between "voluntarist" and "anarcho-capitalist" and "market anarchist"?
We should call it 'puppies'. Who can be against puppies, amirite?
That's a pretty good idea. Everytime someone questions us we could easily say they're against puppies. Then it's just another quick jump to "anyone who isn't a friend of puppies isn't a friend of humanity."
(Wow this is kind of fun. Is this what it's like to plan statist debate tactics?)
Egoist... a good word to fight for, I think we can take it because few want it...and bottom line and all things untangled it is probably the reason why we are talking about what we are talking about.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I agree with OP. Words do not derive their meanings from the roots from which they are constructed but, rather, from usage. People use the word anarchy to describe a state of lawlessness and social chaos. Capitalism has a technical meaning within the discipline of economics that is different from popular usage (popular usage is something more akin to "colonial mercantilism"), which makes it a less-than-desirable label for a social movement.
In terms of my politics, I am anti-state.
In terms of my economics, I am free market.
In terms of social order, I believe we need to reinstate private law and promote the ideals of voluntary cooperation and the naturally harmonious character of human relationships.
I don't think there is one label that sums all that up, certainly not "anarcho-capitalist."
Clayton -
"Hey guys, lets talk politics. I am a socialist, what are you guys?"
"I am a social democrat."
"I'm a conservative."
"I'm an anarchist."
"Well, I'm a puppy."
*Heads explode*
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
Slightly different from ancaps, if only in methodolgy (same thing with agorists). Also, it doesn't flow very well on the tongue, either ("So you're a... vol-un-tare-ee-yist?"). Also, the connotations of the word kind of lack direct meaning to us and are probably claimed by others (why don't we call ourselves anons)
It should be between three and four syllables since most big "ideologies" have about that many.
(In case you haven't caught on, this is mostly for fun, but I do kind of want a simple descriptor that isn't loaded or complicated. Also, market anarchist is fine for now, but it is two words and I want one word, dammit!)
My Buddy: "Hey guys, lets talk politics. I am a socialist, what are you guys?" "I am a social democrat." "I'm a conservative." "I'm an anarchist." "Well, I'm a puppy." *Heads explode*
Pretty much how I imagined it.
Slightly different from ancaps, if only in methodolgy (same thing with agorists).
Would you care to articulate what this difference is please?
Also, it doesn't flow very well on the tongue, either ("So you're a... vol-un-tare-ee-yist?").
That's why I prefer "voluntarist" and "voluntarism".
Also, the connotations of the word kind of lack direct meaning to us and are probably claimed by others (why don't we call ourselves anons)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm pretty sure "voluntary" has plenty of meaning for people of our persuasion.
It should be between three and four syllables since most big "ideologies" have about that many. (In case you haven't caught on, this is mostly for fun, but I do kind of want a simple descriptor that isn't loaded or complicated. Also, market anarchist is fine for now, but it is two words and I want one word, dammit!)
Again, "vol-un-tar-ist". 4 syllables. 1 word. Infinite possibilities.
(hey that could be our slogan)
Or 'jewish'. Murray Rothbard invented anarcho-capitalism and was a jew, and Mises was too. And I heard that Gary North proved that the Old Testament is quite pro-market. No one certainly don't want to be an anti-semitist!
I like the term individualist
I personally like to go by "voluntaryist" simply because "anarchist" is associated with socialism and violence.
I think anarcho-capitalist is fine; it's the most accurate as it carries with it implicit meaning. If "outsiders" assume the term means something cartoonishly false, it's just a google search away from dispelling their ignorance.
The people with an ounce of an inquisitive mind will simply ask "what does that mean?"...just as they will with the terms "voluntaryist" and "agorist".
And I heard that Gary North proved that the Old Testament is quite pro-market.
I haven't read North's book/s on the matter but I've heard of them. I managed to read the Bible cover to cover this year and it comes off as rather unapproving of the idea of the state.
That's because of the 1st commandment.
I think it has too many names. I don't believe any other political ideology has so many goddamn names. Last thing we need is some more stupid semantics debates.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm a market anarchist libertarian voluntaryist anarcho-capitalist freedom-loving agorist anti-statist.
Libertyandlife-
Here here, these people and their goddamn semantic bullshit can shove it for all I care.
A market anarchist libertarian voluntaryist anarcho-capitalist freedom-loving agorist anti-statist puppy.
Incidentally, what's wrong with "libertarian"?
I prefer plain old "liberal". I believe the only political philosophy that is not evil is the one that says that people should have liberty to live their lives how they see fit without interference from tax-funded bullies.
Therefore, I'm a liberal.
Hasn't the term "liberal" been tainted by the American left?
Even in Europe, socialists like to think of themelves as "liberal".
Im sooo with Mr Buddy on this. We should not be using the C word at all. The average person sees Capitalism exactly as the dictionary definition ie, the means of production are in private hands. This meaning makes no distinction of where the real source of power comes from..... using the coercive apparatus of the State to enforce this 'private' control to the benefit of a politically connected elite. Recently I had a friend who thought I was a Socialist because I explained that the current monetary system redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich via monetary inflation and by having first use of the newly printed money. To her this was Socialist talk. And to her the current financial / banking system (that is enforced by the State with the barrel of a gun) was actually Capitalist. We see these things as the polar reverse of current viewpoints. The real definitions have become so twisted you may as well throw them away, even when talking to students of political economy.
Schnuffi said "Even in Europe, socialists like to think of themelves as "liberal"."
Where in Europe does this happen?
I like anarcho-capitalist. It's social view point (anarcho) and economic view point (capitalist).
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
The real definitions have become so twisted you may as well throw them away,
Yep. Lew Rockwell's article on the Norway tragedy is a great analysis of this dynamic at work. The promoters of ideologies are constantly struggling to have their ideology appear to be the most clean/pure/etc. so that it will win proselytes and maintain adherents. But the one ideology that gets clobbered by everybody equally is classical liberalism... in fact, that's why I have to insert the adjective "classical" in the first place, the distinction between conservative and liberal was grossly distorted especially during the Progressive era. In their struggle to not appear like the jackbooted authoritarians they are, Progressives began calling themselves Liberals, since that word had the connotation of an ideology that is tolerant and inclusive. So, now we have to say "classical liberal" or "libertarian" lest someone think we mean Social Democrat or some other flavor of Progressivism.
"It's social view point (anarcho)..."
I'm not sure anarcho-capitalism necessarily offers a social viewpoint. It offers a political viewpoint of being anti-state, but it's okay with institutionalized racism, sexism, or other typically authoritarian social standards as long as they're voluntary (by it's standards of what is voluntary). That's actually the biggest divide I've noticed.
Only a fringe group like ours would have 50 names for the same ideas.
Communism, socialism, social democracy, statism, progressivism, "liberalism", nazism, marxism... We are not alone.
EDIT: Oh, and I forgot stalinism, maoism, leninism etc. etc.
How about "propertarian"?
Re: propertarian,
Looks ok to me @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarian .
Propertarian does look good...but I still say it doesn't sound as good as "voluntarism". "Private property" still has a negative connotation...not as bad as "capitalism", but people still associate "private property" => private sector => greedy corporation => doesn't care about anything but profit => will let someone starve to save a dollar. This, despite how virtually no one denies the legitimacy of private property when it comes to their property. But the fact that this is dissonant Doublethink doesn't stop people from holding on to those notions...and it doesn't stop them from forming conclusions about people and ideas before they've even heard them.
Labels are important, as they can serve as a way to economize on information costs...which is important to everyone, but even more so to people who have difficulty thinking. It is for this reason you can't just be satisfied to say the common lofty refrain: "labels are stupid. They don't mean anything. Definitions are in the mind of the listener. People can define words however they want. It's all relative. Words are just sounds. I don't believe in 'isms', blah blah blah". And you also get stuff like this too. The fact is people use labels (and yes, to the point of the hifalutin naysayers, labels are used and relied on more than they should be)...but that certainly doesn't mean thought shouldn't be put into them. In fact it points to the opposite.
It is for this reason I think discussion like this has a purpose, and it is for the reason stated above that I think voluntarism is possibly the best label. Even despite how people may agree to private property in some circumstances, they will argue the exact opposite in others...But everyone knows what "voluntary" means, and there is no one who argues the alternative is preferred (even if their actions imply that they believe force is preferred in certain circumstances...they still have a hard time actually coming out and admitting it. They are aware how bad it sounds). I think that's an important key. When you frame the debate in such a way that the statist has to admit they favor force over voluntary action, it not only highlights the root of our entire philosophy, but it exposes the flaws in theirs in a very obvious and easily understood way.
" but it's okay with institutionalized racism, sexism, or other typically authoritarian social standards as long as they're voluntary (by it's standards of what is voluntary)."
That is the social viewpoint. Anarchism is "without ruler." A ruler is a head of state, a governing official or the thing that nuns hit you with. So by being an anarchist, one says they are against rulers, against governing officials and the things that nuns hit you with. I think there ceases to be a "politicial outlook" with the elimination of the state. There is no "politics." Just social viewpoints on the nature of humanity. So when I think of anarcho-capitalism. I don't think of it within the confines of a environment which retains the state, I think it is as an environment absent of the state which has no political viewpoints.
That's all well and good, but my point is that the anti-authoritarianism doesn't seem to transfer into a lot of social realms with regards to things like sexism.
Sexism is a personal character flaw and should be addressed accordingly. I doubt that "sexist attitudes" are something that require legal remedy, that is, threat of the use of force. "Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice." (Epilogue to Jonathan Gullible by Kenneth Schooland) Rectifying personal character flaws through threats of force is not moral instruction, it's just an amoral shifting of the strategic equilibrium in society regarding what are advantageous and disadvantageous forms of expression.
I could accept voluntarist. At least no one else uses that.
The movement for dwindling the state and adhering to "homestead/contract/production" property rights based on an awarenes of economic principles was known, from its inception, as "liberalism". We who would see the state dwindled to nothing and who call for no systematized exceptions to the above conception of property rights are the inheritors and the present-day culmination of that grand tradition. If for no other reason than for new liberals to feel they are part of a grand, evolving tradition, and not some new intellectual fad, we should fight to take back "liberalism".
Clayton, I agree that sexism does not necessarily entail the use of force or any action against property. The problem is that not all sociological things, including authoritarianism, necessarily relate to property.
Just because something isn't legally sanctioned does not mean it's not institutionalized. When the people in power of institutions generally all discriminate in similar ways, then institutionalized discrimination is present. What I am saying is that beyond a simple anti-state stance, Anarcho-capitalism fails to go into sociological questions of authoritarianism or offer any critique of how authoritarianism presentes itself in any other form than the state.
Rothbardian Anarchist, just Rothbardian or just Anarchist for short. (Like Marxists-Leninist Communists can either be Marxists, or Communists for short.) I am fine with shoving the term 'Capitalism' into people's face, but I am not into hyphens so much. Another small problem is that we are mostly broke and not capitalists at all, so it may sound strange to someone if you go around calling yourself an Anarcho-Capitalist (like Jim Rogers calls himself adventure capitalist.)
Rothbard should not have been as modest and just called Anarcho-Capitalism Rohbardian Anarchism. PS, "voluntarist" is bad. First of all no one knows what that means, second it sounds weak. It is a sterile word. You have to be more in your face than that.
Marko:PS, "voluntarist" is bad. First of all no one knows what that means, second it sounds weak. It is a sterile word. You have to be more in your face than that.
Right. Because everyone knows what "Rothbardian" means. And they're are just dying to listen to people who display a "shove things in your face" attitude while calling themself an anarchist.
Your post is made up of nothing but you puting words into my mouth. I did not say "everyone" has heard of Rothbard, and I was not talking about shoving things into people's faces (what??).
Marko: You have to be more in your face than that.
Marko:I am fine with shoving the term 'Capitalism' into people's face
Marko:"voluntarist" is bad. First of all no one knows what that means
Marko:[I prefer] Rothbardian Anarchist, just Rothbardian
John James:Because everyone knows what "Rothbardian" means.
Marko:Your post is made up of nothing but you puting words into my mouth. I did not say "everyone" has heard of Rothbard