Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On classical anarchism being anti-capitalist

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Leftists are ever-willing to point out to anarchist-capitalists that "true anarchism is anti-capitalist". It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent, and that the originators of the term and theory - whom those who oppose capitalism are always pointing to - regarded property itself as a form of authority. Proudhon, the most pervasive example of this, famously proclaimed that "Property is Theft", and was the first to apply to himself the term 'anarchist'.

But is this really as potent an argument as it may seem? Anarcho-communists are essentially conservative in this regard; they point to their originators and scold those who they perceive as straying from the originating doctrine. But what we must realize is, that all the theories which we now value, were evolved in the minds of multiple generations over time, rather than springing from the minds full-formed of those who first had inklings of the idea. For the one who first invents such a concept, it always arrives in seed-form, and it is impossible for that person to escape their circumstance and fully apply the newly-discovered principle to all areas of discourse.

Such is why, although Proudhon was profoundly cognizant of the inequalities which existed between classes, he did not apply this principle to, for instance, women, of whom he said:

"I regard as baneful and stupid all our dreams of emancipating woman. I deny her every political right and every initiative. For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties, in the fidelity of her spouse, in chastity, and in seclusion."

And of racial relations he was similarly narrow-minded:

"The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Cr"mieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us."

Should we dismiss his theories, or the multitudes of similar oversights such as Kropotkin's support for WW1, or the many offensive statements by Marx and Engels, which are too numerous to mention, altogether because of this? No, rather, we take what was valuable in them, but do not take them as gospel. We realize that our relatively recent freedoms allow us perspective which previous generations were unable to obtain; this in the same sense that we understand Plato's authoritarianism or Aristotle's pro-slavery positions, rather than scolding people with claims that "true reason is authoritarian" or "actual logic is pro-slavery."

The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle, rather than how dogmatically it clings to the originating texts. In this sense, both the classical anarchists and the "anarcho-communists" of today are resoundingly false anarchists, since they fail to apply the principle of individual rights and anti-authoritarianism consistently in all domains.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 10:55:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle, rather than how dogmatically it clings to the originating texts. In this sense, both the classical anarchists and the "anarcho-communists" of today are resoundingly false anarchists, since they fail to apply the principle of individual rights and anti-authoritarianism consistently in all domains.

The principle of anarchism: if a hierarchy exists, ask what justification there is for it. If no adequate justification can be found, it should be dismantled, and, if it served a purpose worth continuing, reconstructed as an anti-hierarchical entity.

This is a truism. Everyone, presumably, agrees that unjust hierarchies should be dismantled, and, similarly, everyone fails to apply that principle to every single aspect of their lives.

On what grounds then can we claim that anarcho-capitalists are 'not true anarchists'?

I think it's because their philosophy is completely unrelated to the 'anarchist principle' given. They have absolutely no interest in dismantling hierarchy; rather, they are interested the absolute realisation of the right to private property.

The anarcho-capitalist principle: 'People have the right to private property'. The anarcho-capitalist does not need to appeal to the anarchist principle, and, as is clear from their ideas, they have no interest in the anarchist principle. They are interested primarily in eliminating the state that taxes them, but they would have every function of the state carried out by private entities. They have no interest in abolishing any kind of oppression, they are merely interested in abolishing all enemies of private property. Anarchists can mistakenly support oppression, but it is not against the principles of anarcho-capitalism to support oppression, unless it is private property that is oppressed.

To conclude:
Anarchism: Against hierarchy and oppression, whatever that may be.
Anarcho-capitalism: The right to private property shall not be infringed by anyone.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?

Exactly. Whose validation does the government require? They are just whining.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:20:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?

Exactly. Whose validation does the government require? They are just whining.

It requires the validation of those it oppresses under the guise of being necessary.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:22:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:20:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?

Exactly. Whose validation does the government require? They are just whining.

It requires the validation of those it oppresses under the guise of being necessary.

According to you.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:26:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:22:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:20:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?

Exactly. Whose validation does the government require? They are just whining.

It requires the validation of those it oppresses under the guise of being necessary.

According to you.

According to basic logic. A government cannot function if those under its control do not accept it and are constantly rebelling. Why would you accuse me of whining and then give such childish trolling as responses?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:44:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:26:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:22:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:20:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

What do you mean what right? What right do they need? Who's validation do they require?

Exactly. Whose validation does the government require? They are just whining.

It requires the validation of those it oppresses under the guise of being necessary.

According to you.

According to basic logic. A government cannot function if those under its control do not accept it and are constantly rebelling. Why would you accuse me of whining and then give such childish trolling as responses?

But they aren't. You are only saying they should be. My responses aren't meant to troll, they are meant to expose the inconsistencies in your stance.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 1:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us. There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:10:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

This is a dumb argument imo. Anarchists subscribe to certain values and find these values incompatible with the idea of governance. Bam, that's it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 1:23:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

Pretty sure some of us do. I'm not always uber confident in my intellectual capacities but in relation to a 15 year old Objectivist?. I'll take my chances.

They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us.

(1) Elaborate on what it means for a system to "work".
(2) Elaborate on how and why you came to the conclusion that anarchist epistemology amounts to guessing. I'm actually curious where you picked that up.
(3) Elaborate on yer use of the term imposition- and- explain the uniqueness of this imposition in relation to non-anarchist modes of governance.

There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

Yer literally a child lol. Also wrong. Anarchism isn't primarily made up of children (like yerself). That's like saying Objectivists are mostly made up of straight, white nerds on the Internet. Oh wait.

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.

lol
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:25:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
Leftists are ever-willing to point out to anarchist-capitalists that "true anarchism is anti-capitalist". It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent, and that the originators of the term and theory - whom those who oppose capitalism are always pointing to - regarded property itself as a form of authority. Proudhon, the most pervasive example of this, famously proclaimed that "Property is Theft", and was the first to apply to himself the term 'anarchist'.

But is this really as potent an argument as it may seem? Anarcho-communists are essentially conservative in this regard; they point to their originators and scold those who they perceive as straying from the originating doctrine.

That's not what conservatism is. Plenty of doctrines attempt to salvage what is useful in their originators. Anarchism, however, is actually pretty mild in this regard. From its ever-increasing intellectual canon- laying attention to less traditional political thinkers like Lacan, Foucault, and Lyotard most recently- to its shifting intellectual backdrop (take for example the recent trend of poststructuralist-informed anarchist literature or its dominance in newer analytical trends like intersectionality and queer studies), anarchism has definitely set itself apart from other radical philosophies in its attention to foundational knowledge.

But what we must realize is, that all the theories which we now value, were evolved in the minds of multiple generations over time, rather than springing from the minds full-formed of those who first had inklings of the idea. For the one who first invents such a concept, it always arrives in seed-form, and it is impossible for that person to escape their circumstance and fully apply the newly-discovered principle to all areas of discourse.

Yeah obvi.

Such is why, although Proudhon was profoundly cognizant of the inequalities which existed between classes, he did not apply this principle to, for instance, women, of whom he said:

"I regard as baneful and stupid all our dreams of emancipating woman. I deny her every political right and every initiative. For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties, in the fidelity of her spouse, in chastity, and in seclusion."

And of racial relations he was similarly narrow-minded:

"The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Cr"mieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us."

Bakunin was also anti-semitic.

Should we dismiss his theories, or the multitudes of similar oversights such as Kropotkin's support for WW1, or the many offensive statements by Marx and Engels, which are too numerous to mention, altogether because of this? No, rather, we take what was valuable in them, but do not take them as gospel. We realize that our relatively recent freedoms allow us perspective which previous generations were unable to obtain; this in the same sense that we understand Plato's authoritarianism or Aristotle's pro-slavery positions, rather than scolding people with claims that "true reason is authoritarian" or "actual logic is pro-slavery."

The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle, rather than how dogmatically it clings to the originating texts. In this sense, both the classical anarchists and the "anarcho-communists" of today are resoundingly false anarchists, since they fail to apply the principle of individual rights and anti-authoritarianism consistently in all domains.

Lol I forgot this was about why ancaps are anarchists. Sure, call yerself what you want. Y'all are still wankers with more in common to Friedman and Pinochet than anyone who's ever called themselves an anarchist.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:04:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 3:10:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

This is a dumb argument imo. Anarchists
subscribe to certain values and find these values incompatible with the idea of governance. Bam, that's it.

Yes, like the value of "no one can tell meh what to do", a value which they would violate themselves if they were to abolish government.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:05:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:04:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:10:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

This is a dumb argument imo. Anarchists
subscribe to certain values and find these values incompatible with the idea of governance. Bam, that's it.

Yes, like the value of "no one can tell meh what to do", a value which they would violate themselves if they were to abolish government.

I'm not sure you've actually read much anarchist lit. Maybe ancap trash but anarchist lit? Yes? No?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:11:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 3:15:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 1:23:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

Pretty sure some of us do. I'm not always uber confident in my intellectual capacities but in relation to a 15 year old Objectivist?. I'll take my chances.


I'm neither of those things, but okay. Anarchism may be rhetorically compelling, but that's completely irrelevant. Many things are rhetorically compelling but don't work.

They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us.

(1) Elaborate on what it means for a system to "work".

Create a recognizably better society.

(2) Elaborate on how and why you came to the conclusion that anarchist epistemology amounts to guessing. I'm actually curious where you picked that up.

The simply fact that anarchists cannot actually verify what they're thinking about. They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head. Since anarchism is so far removed from any system for which we have good data, they are in no-man's-land.

(3) Elaborate on yer use of the term imposition- and- explain the uniqueness of this imposition in relation to non-anarchist modes of governance.

There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

Yer literally a child lol. Also wrong. Anarchism isn't primarily made up of children (like yerself). That's like saying Objectivists are mostly made up of straight, white nerds on the Internet. Oh wait.

I'm actually an adult now (and I'm no longer an Objectivist). Didn't I already tell you that?


I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.

lol

yes, lol indeed
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:11:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:15:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 1:23:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

Pretty sure some of us do. I'm not always uber confident in my intellectual capacities but in relation to a 15 year old Objectivist?. I'll take my chances.


I'm neither of those things, but okay. Anarchism may be rhetorically compelling, but that's completely irrelevant. Many things are rhetorically compelling but don't work.

Theory and practice aren't distinct. If something doesn't work practically than it either doesn't work theoretically or the theoretical models being used are in need of revision.

They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us.

(1) Elaborate on what it means for a system to "work".

Create a recognizably better society.

There's obviously disagreement on what that mean. Some people think capitalism works because we have Iphones. Others think it doesn't because a third of the world lives in poverty. People can look at identical phenomenon and value them as either working or not working according to their preexisting ideal of what works on a normative level.

(2) Elaborate on how and why you came to the conclusion that anarchist epistemology amounts to guessing. I'm actually curious where you picked that up.


The simply fact that anarchists cannot actually verify what they're thinking about. They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head. Since anarchism is so far removed from any system for which we have good data, they are in no-man's-land.

Yer privileging one form of epistemology over another without reason (while simultaneously not doing a good job of even understanding the epistemology which yer rejecting). Of course, yer also ignoring the fact that the same principle applies to liberal government at the time of the American revolution, progressive social policy in the middle of the eighteenth century, anti-absolutist resistance of the seventeenth century, social liberationism in the latter half of the twentieth century, etc. etc.

(3) Elaborate on yer use of the term imposition- and- explain the uniqueness of this imposition in relation to non-anarchist modes of governance.

There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

Yer literally a child lol. Also wrong. Anarchism isn't primarily made up of children (like yerself). That's like saying Objectivists are mostly made up of straight, white nerds on the Internet. Oh wait.


I'm actually an adult now (and I'm no longer an Objectivist). Didn't I already tell you that?

lolk


I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.

lol

yes, lol indeed
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:21:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:11:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:15:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 1:23:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

Pretty sure some of us do. I'm not always uber confident in my intellectual capacities but in relation to a 15 year old Objectivist?. I'll take my chances.


I'm neither of those things, but okay. Anarchism may be rhetorically compelling, but that's completely irrelevant. Many things are rhetorically compelling but don't work.

Theory and practice aren't distinct. If something doesn't work practically than it either doesn't work theoretically or the theoretical models being used are in need of revision.

I didn't say they are. Something can be "rhetorically compelling" without being sound.


They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us.

(1) Elaborate on what it means for a system to "work".

Create a recognizably better society.

There's obviously disagreement on what that mean. Some people think capitalism works because we have Iphones. Others think it doesn't because a third of the world lives in poverty. People can look at identical phenomenon and value them as either working or not working according to their preexisting ideal of what works on a normative level.

Well, yes. But even anarchists don't want the society which non-anarchists think anarchism would create.

(2) Elaborate on how and why you came to the conclusion that anarchist epistemology amounts to guessing. I'm actually curious where you picked that up.


The simply fact that anarchists cannot actually verify what they're thinking about. They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head. Since anarchism is so far removed from any system for which we have good data, they are in no-man's-land.

Yer privileging one form of epistemology over another without reason (while simultaneously not doing a good job of even understanding the epistemology which yer rejecting).

Only as it applies to political philosophy, and I did give a reason i.e., "They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head").

Of course, yer also ignoring the fact that the same principle applies to liberal government at the time of the American revolution, progressive social policy in the middle of the eighteenth century, anti-absolutist resistance of the seventeenth century, social liberationism in the latter half of the twentieth century, etc. etc.

How am I ignoring it? I don't think the success of any of those could have been known beforehand. They were experiments (although, I think people could have had greater confidence in them than is warranted by anarchism).


(3) Elaborate on yer use of the term imposition- and- explain the uniqueness of this imposition in relation to non-anarchist modes of governance.

There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

Yer literally a child lol. Also wrong. Anarchism isn't primarily made up of children (like yerself). That's like saying Objectivists are mostly made up of straight, white nerds on the Internet. Oh wait.


I'm actually an adult now (and I'm no longer an Objectivist). Didn't I already tell you that?

lolk


I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.

lol

yes, lol indeed
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:36:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:21:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 4:11:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Create a recognizably better society.

There's obviously disagreement on what that mean. Some people think capitalism works because we have Iphones. Others think it doesn't because a third of the world lives in poverty. People can look at identical phenomenon and value them as either working or not working according to their preexisting ideal of what works on a normative level.

Well, yes. But even anarchists don't want the society which non-anarchists think anarchism would create.

Perhaps. Though you haven't elaborated on what that means. Furthermore, given yer unfamiliarity with anarchist epistemology (especially contemporary lit on the matter), I'm assuming that we'd be comparing apples and oranges regarding what is the proper object of analysis concerning the 'good' society.

The simply fact that anarchists cannot actually verify what they're thinking about. They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head. Since anarchism is so far removed from any system for which we have good data, they are in no-man's-land.

Yer privileging one form of epistemology over another without reason (while simultaneously not doing a good job of even understanding the epistemology which yer rejecting).

Only as it applies to political philosophy, and I did give a reason i.e., "They obviously cannot simulate the world in their head").

That's not a reason, it's a restatement of the epistemological position which you situated in opposition to anarchist thought.

Of course, yer also ignoring the fact that the same principle applies to liberal government at the time of the American revolution, progressive social policy in the middle of the eighteenth century, anti-absolutist resistance of the seventeenth century, social liberationism in the latter half of the twentieth century, etc. etc.

How am I ignoring it? I don't think the success of any of those could have been known beforehand. They were experiments (although, I think people could have had greater confidence in them than is warranted by anarchism).

You do know that anarchism is conceptually experimental right? That it rejects and neglects grand narratives of Marxism and liberalism which purport high degrees of awareness concerning the effects of their society-wide impositions? Anarchism is essentially (a) bottoms-up, meaning it takes the experiences and needs of people *within* a system as prior to the needs which a system might require for its reproduction and (b) diffuse, meaning that the sites of struggle align themselves in intersectional (as opposed to hierarchical) patterns. That is, problems of racial, sexual, economic, etc. oppression are analyzed and resisted in terms of how they connect and intersect rather than as part of a broader scheme of practice (as with Marxism's insistence on reduction of all oppression to the economic, for example).
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 4:54:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 3:25:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
Leftists are ever-willing to point out to anarchist-capitalists that "true anarchism is anti-capitalist". It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent, and that the originators of the term and theory - whom those who oppose capitalism are always pointing to - regarded property itself as a form of authority. Proudhon, the most pervasive example of this, famously proclaimed that "Property is Theft", and was the first to apply to himself the term 'anarchist'.

But is this really as potent an argument as it may seem? Anarcho-communists are essentially conservative in this regard; they point to their originators and scold those who they perceive as straying from the originating doctrine.

That's not what conservatism is.

Yes it is, it is literally the definition of conservatism.

Plenty of doctrines attempt to salvage what is useful in their originators. Anarchism, however, is actually pretty mild in this regard. From its ever-increasing intellectual canon- laying attention to less traditional political thinkers like Lacan, Foucault, and Lyotard most recently- to its shifting intellectual backdrop (take for example the recent trend of poststructuralist-informed anarchist literature or its dominance in newer analytical trends like intersectionality and queer studies), anarchism has definitely set itself apart from other radical philosophies in its attention to foundational knowledge.

Lol I forgot this was about why ancaps are anarchists. Sure, call yerself what you want. Y'all are still wankers with more in common to Friedman and Pinochet than anyone who's ever called themselves an anarchist.

Ironic that you call ancaps "wankers" when you did not even have the courtesy to properly read my post. The fact that you forgot what the topic of this post even was and continued talking about "foundational knowledge" and what thinkers ancaps are similar to means that you ignored the entire point of my rant, not giving the cursory effort required to make any attempt at comprehending it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:11:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 10:55:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle, rather than how dogmatically it clings to the originating texts. In this sense, both the classical anarchists and the "anarcho-communists" of today are resoundingly false anarchists, since they fail to apply the principle of individual rights and anti-authoritarianism consistently in all domains.

The principle of anarchism: if a hierarchy exists, ask what justification there is for it. If no adequate justification can be found, it should be dismantled, and, if it served a purpose worth continuing, reconstructed as an anti-hierarchical entity.

The problem with the term 'hierarchy' is that it becomes easy to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of result. Even if two people have radically different amounts of wealth, it would be authoritarian to redistribute that wealth if it was accumulated by the person's own labour.

This is a truism. Everyone, presumably, agrees that unjust hierarchies should be dismantled, and, similarly, everyone fails to apply that principle to every single aspect of their lives.

On what grounds then can we claim that anarcho-capitalists are 'not true anarchists'?

I think it's because their philosophy is completely unrelated to the 'anarchist principle' given. They have absolutely no interest in dismantling hierarchy; rather, they are interested the absolute realisation of the right to private property.

That's because dismantling hierarchy is in itself a meaningless platitude, saved only, perhaps by your adding the caveat of 'unjustified', and the principle of anarchism is not to abolish hierarchy but to eliminate authority; and this is directly correlated to rights, and this means the necessity of property. Rights and property are two sides of the same coin, that is, that which authority trespasses illegitimately.

The anarcho-capitalist principle: 'People have the right to private property'. The anarcho-capitalist does not need to appeal to the anarchist principle, and, as is clear from their ideas, they have no interest in the anarchist principle. They are interested primarily in eliminating the state that taxes them, but they would have every function of the state carried out by private entities.

A state which does not infringe on anyone's rights or property is a complete contradiction, because in that case it is "governance which does not govern", but only engages in mutually voluntary exchanges.

They have no interest in abolishing any kind of oppression, they are merely interested in abolishing all enemies of private property.

The two are literally the same in every sense.

Anarchists can mistakenly support oppression, but it is not against the principles of anarcho-capitalism to support oppression, unless it is private property that is oppressed.

Yes, ancap ignores all those forms of oppression which do not affect the victim's person or property whatsoever, such as imaginary oppression. The fact is that it is impossible to oppress someone just by engaging in labour and then keeping the products of your own labour, without trespassing anyone's property, which is all that is allowed by ancap.

To conclude:
Anarchism: Against hierarchy and oppression, whatever that may be.
Anarcho-capitalism: The right to private property shall not be infringed by anyone.

Please define what you mean by 'hierarchy'.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 6:52:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 4:54:05 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:25:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 5:38:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
Leftists are ever-willing to point out to anarchist-capitalists that "true anarchism is anti-capitalist". It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent, and that the originators of the term and theory - whom those who oppose capitalism are always pointing to - regarded property itself as a form of authority. Proudhon, the most pervasive example of this, famously proclaimed that "Property is Theft", and was the first to apply to himself the term 'anarchist'.

But is this really as potent an argument as it may seem? Anarcho-communists are essentially conservative in this regard; they point to their originators and scold those who they perceive as straying from the originating doctrine.

That's not what conservatism is.

Yes it is, it is literally the definition of conservatism.

I like how you failed to respond to where I literally explained how it isn't.

Plenty of doctrines attempt to salvage what is useful in their originators. Anarchism, however, is actually pretty mild in this regard. From its ever-increasing intellectual canon- laying attention to less traditional political thinkers like Lacan, Foucault, and Lyotard most recently- to its shifting intellectual backdrop (take for example the recent trend of poststructuralist-informed anarchist literature or its dominance in newer analytical trends like intersectionality and queer studies), anarchism has definitely set itself apart from other radical philosophies in its attention to foundational knowledge.

Lol I forgot this was about why ancaps are anarchists. Sure, call yerself what you want. Y'all are still wankers with more in common to Friedman and Pinochet than anyone who's ever called themselves an anarchist.

Ironic that you call ancaps "wankers" when you did not even have the courtesy to properly read my post. The fact that you forgot what the topic of this post even was and continued talking about "foundational knowledge" and what thinkers ancaps are similar to means that you ignored the entire point of my rant, not giving the cursory effort required to make any attempt at comprehending it.

You didn't explain why ancaps were anarchists. You just pointed out that philosophies change, which I understand. In fact I explained the ways in which anarchism actually *has* changed so yer charge is non-unique to ancap and actually has nothing to do with it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:10:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:11:35 AM, sdavio wrote:

You have tried to show not that anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are similar traditions, but that anarcho-capitalism is immune from anarchist criticism. Is that not accurate? All I am arguing is that anarcho-capitalism does not bear any theoretical similarities at all to anarchism.

That's because dismantling hierarchy is in itself a meaningless platitude, saved only, perhaps by your adding the caveat of 'unjustified', and the principle of anarchism is not to abolish hierarchy but to eliminate authority

Thank you for reiterating the point I made that it is a truism. How exactly do you have authority without hierarchy? They are one and the same. The oppressor and the oppressed is a hierarchy. Please don't make such basic errors.

Yes, ancap ignores all those forms of oppression which do not affect the victim's person or property whatsoever, such as imaginary oppression. The fact is that it is impossible to oppress someone just by engaging in labour and then keeping the products of your own labour, without trespassing anyone's property, which is all that is allowed by ancap.

In other words, 'There are no hierarchies in Ancapistan! Go away anarchists!'.

The argument you have to make to establish anarcho-capitalism as an actual part of the tradition of anarchism is to show that it is, in some way, based on the anarchist principle, which you have agreed is the seeking out of hierarchy, and the dismantling of it if it cannot be justified.

The problem is that anarchism has always been about pursuing a society where people do not oppress each other, and anarcho-capitalism is about pursuing a society where the right to private property is not infringed upon. The fact that anarcho-capitalists then move to define 'oppression' as the infringement of private property and conclude, therefore, that they are perfect anarchists, does not actually make them anarchists.

Things anarchists are concerned about:
-Authoritarian political organisation
-Authoritarian workplaces
-Authoritarian education
-Religious authority
-Discrimination relying on hierarchies between superior and inferior races/sexes/sexualities etc.

Anarchism is clearly "a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways" (R. Rocker, emphasis added)

As Rothbard acknowledges, this does not describe anarcho-capitalism.
"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive"

Let me recapitulate the important points for you:
Anarchism is political, social and economic movement striving against all authority, coercion, domination and oppression . Proudhon was being a bad anarchist when he was sexist, and Bakunin a bad anarchist when he was racist.

Anarcho-capitalism simply proposes that the state be abolished and private property made inviolable. Thus, the only hierarchy they oppose, according to Rothbard, is that "tyrannical central authority". The anarcho-capitalist is not interested in the "free unhindered unfolding of of all the individual and social forces in life". It could not care less, in fact. You are not a bad anarcho-capitalist when you are a racist, a sexist, when you rule over your employees in the most brutally authoritarian way, when you treat education as a matter of dictating facts to children and 'filling up a vessel'. You are not encouraged in any way by anarcho-capitalism to seek out any other hierarchies than the state, and that is only because the state happens to infringe upon private property.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:27:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 4:04:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 3:10:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:16:44 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:15:42 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is oxymoronic. According to anarchism, by what right do anarchists have to abolish government? It's come to whining, not principles.

This is a dumb argument imo. Anarchists
subscribe to certain values and find these values incompatible with the idea of governance. Bam, that's it.

Yes, like the value of "no one can tell meh what to do", a value which they would violate themselves if they were to abolish government.

You are committing the 'not collecting stamps is a hobby / not believing in God is a religion' fallacy.

Anarchists need to face the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. They're sure it will work, but do they really have any idea? Nope. They are basically guessing, and want to impose their guesswork on the rest of us. There's a reason anarchism is most prevalent among the young, for it is this demographic which is most prone to being overly-idealistic, careless, rebellious-for-the-sake-of-it and ungrateful.

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to think anarchism would work out any better than it did for the prehistorics or Somalia.

The mistake 'practical' people like yourself have been making for the past hundred thousand years is that you aren't practical, you're just afraid of deviation from the system you have become used to, which in itself refutes your criticism. If you have adapted to the system you live in, on what grounds do you say that people cannot adapt to anarchism, unless anarchism is actually a contradictory proposal? And if people do adapt, then we had better make sure they are adapting to the best possible system, and not to the one that we happen to have become 'comfortable' with. The tension is not between 'practical people' and 'idealists', but between people who are afraid of change and between people who are willing to move on to unfamiliar, but better, things.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:45:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 6:52:27 AM, socialpinko wrote:
That's not what conservatism is.

Yes it is, it is literally the definition of conservatism.

I like how you failed to respond to where I literally explained how it isn't.

Let me understand. You are saying that this:

"Plenty of doctrines attempt to salvage what is useful in their originators. Anarchism, however, is actually pretty mild in this regard. From its ever-increasing intellectual canon- laying attention to less traditional political thinkers like Lacan, Foucault, and Lyotard most recently- to its shifting intellectual backdrop (take for example the recent trend of poststructuralist-informed anarchist literature or its dominance in newer analytical trends like intersectionality and queer studies), anarchism has definitely set itself apart from other radical philosophies in its attention to foundational knowledge."

..is an explication of how this:

"[T]hey point to their originators and scold those who they perceive as straying from the originating doctrine."

..does not describe conservatism. I just do not see it.

You didn't explain why ancaps were anarchists.

My purpose, specifically, was not to justify the entire ancap philosophy, but to rebut the common argument anarchists make that, since ancap is relatively recent, and the founders of anarchism were anti-capitalist, this makes ancap "not real anarchism." The other common reason they give is to say that capitalism is itself oppressive and authoritarian, but this cannot be rebutted because it is not an argument but a nonsensical assertion.

Ancaps are anarchists because they understand that authority is the right to override someone else's property right at will, and they advocate a society where property rights are absolute; therefore taking a unilaterally anti-authority stance, which is anarchism.

You just pointed out that philosophies change, which I understand. In fact I explained the ways in which anarchism actually *has* changed so yer charge is non-unique to ancap and actually has nothing to do with it.

Of course it is not unique to ancap, but your claim that it is irrelevant from it is false and completely unsubstantiated.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:39:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 8:10:08 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:11:35 AM, sdavio wrote:

You have tried to show not that anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are similar traditions, but that anarcho-capitalism is immune from anarchist criticism. Is that not accurate?

No, I've not stated any of that.

All I am arguing is that anarcho-capitalism does not bear any theoretical similarities at all to anarchism.

My argument was primarily about comparing a doctrine to the principle rather than to the theories of past philosophers. Therefore I don't care how similar ancap is to Proudhon or Kropotkin but only how accurate it is to the definition and concept of anarchy. The focus of my original post was to show that, although those thinkers were valuable in creating the seeds of those ideas, they were not in their general theory very consistent examples of anarchists.

That's because dismantling hierarchy is in itself a meaningless platitude, saved only, perhaps by your adding the caveat of 'unjustified', and the principle of anarchism is not to abolish hierarchy but to eliminate authority

Thank you for reiterating the point I made that it is a truism. How exactly do you have authority without hierarchy? They are one and the same. The oppressor and the oppressed is a hierarchy. Please don't make such basic errors.

Anything can be a hierarchy. We can line people up in order of height, and call that an "unjustified hierarchy" if the tall people cannot justify their being taller than the short people. Thus, my argument was not that "anarchy is the movement against unjustified hierarchies" is a truism, but as I said, that it is a vague platitude, and that anarchy is not anti-hierarchy but anti-authority.

Yes, ancap ignores all those forms of oppression which do not affect the victim's person or property whatsoever, such as imaginary oppression. The fact is that it is impossible to oppress someone just by engaging in labour and then keeping the products of your own labour, without trespassing anyone's property, which is all that is allowed by ancap.

In other words, 'There are no hierarchies in Ancapistan! Go away anarchists!'.

Is it the new favorite ancom tactic to just paraphrase the person's statements to whatever you feel like?

The argument you have to make to establish anarcho-capitalism as an actual part of the tradition of anarchism is to show that it is, in some way, based on the anarchist principle, which you have agreed is the seeking out of hierarchy, and the dismantling of it if it cannot be justified.

You added the word "tradition" to make it seem like I'm saying it's similar to the classical anarchist works, which is the exact opposite of my argument, and I definitely did not agree that anarchism is the seeking out of hierarchy.

The problem is that anarchism has always been about pursuing a society where people do not oppress each other, and anarcho-capitalism is about pursuing a society where the right to private property is not infringed upon. The fact that anarcho-capitalists then move to define 'oppression' as the infringement of private property and conclude, therefore, that they are perfect anarchists, does not actually make them anarchists.

Actually since that definition can be justified and all attempts to deviate from it reduce, when analyzed, to the same thing, it really does make ancaps anarchists.

Things anarchists are concerned about:
-Authoritarian political organisation
-Authoritarian workplaces
-Authoritarian education
-Religious authority
-Discrimination relying on hierarchies between superior and inferior races/sexes/sexualities etc.

There are indeed people who are anarchists and are interested in these topics, but they are not necessary to the definition of anarchism.

Anarchism is clearly "a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways" (R. Rocker, emphasis added)

This is a nice rhetorical piece, but it's too vague and discursive to be a workable technical definition.

As Rothbard acknowledges, this does not describe anarcho-capitalism.
"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive"

It is just this kind of appeal to authority which I am arguing against. I fully recognize that Rothbard was wrong about a wide array of things, especially on the philosophical side.

Let me recapitulate the important points for you:
Anarchism is political, social and economic movement striving against all authority, coercion, domination and oppression . Proudhon was being a bad anarchist when he was sexist, and Bakunin a bad anarchist when he was racist.

Agreed.

Anarcho-capitalism simply proposes that the state be abolished and private property made inviolable. Thus, the only hierarchy they oppose, according to Rothbard, is that "tyrannical central authority". The anarcho-capitalist is not interested in the "free unhindered unfolding of of all the individual and social forces in life". It could not care less, in fact. You are not a bad anarcho-capitalist when you are a racist, a sexist, when you rule over your employees in the most brutally authoritarian way, when you treat education as a matter of dictating facts to children and 'filling up a vessel'. You are not encouraged in any way by anarcho-capitalism to seek out any other hierarchies than the state, and that is only because the state happens to infringe upon private property.

Ancap is neutral on those topics, because it concerns only the political side of things. To attempt to use force to stop someone from being sexist, for instance, I would regard as ill-advised, so the principles do not overlap. If each person is allowed their own property, then all other beliefs become their own private matter, and there is opened up an arena where they can be sensibly debated, without fear of it becoming violent. If, however, the lines are blurred, and every ideology is violently imposed, then every belief becomes a public matter, and this inevitably leads to an oppressive majority imposing its own worldview on the minority. Ancap is therefore a movement which promotes the idea that freedom of expression and opinion will lead to the best theories naturally winning out. For instance, a non-sexist employer will have the benefit of a wider base of employees to choose from, and will therefore succeed in the marketplace over those who only employ men.

This is as distinct from the anarcho-communists who require that everyone become completely enlightened, that every disagreement is "dialectically resolved", as a prerequisite to the system functioning.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:53:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:39:37 AM, sdavio wrote:

Ancap is neutral on those topics, because it concerns only the political side of things.
Anarchism is [a, oops] political, social and economic movement
Agreed.

Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism? I shall expand on this later.

Anything can be a hierarchy. We can line people up in order of height, and call that an "unjustified hierarchy" if the tall people cannot justify their being taller than the short people. Thus, my argument was not that "anarchy is the movement against unjustified hierarchies" is a truism, but as I said, that it is a vague platitude, and that anarchy is not anti-hierarchy but anti-authority.

Lol, well actually you can justify that, because its a hierarchy of height order, therefore it is justified when the height order is accurate.

It is just this kind of appeal to authority which I am arguing against. I fully recognize that Rothbard was wrong about a wide array of things, especially on the philosophical side.
It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent

I am not saying 'All these anarchists who existed previously were against private property', I am saying that 'Anarchism is quite accurately defined as a movement by X, and anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with X'. As you say:
The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle

So, therefore, it falls to you to establish that anarcho-capitalism is not what it appears to be, which is simply the obvious conclusion of an inviolable right to private property, but rather part of this movement which has always had as its principle an analysis and a critique of authoritarianism in society. Anarcho-capitalism seeks to completely redefine anarchism not as a 'trend' or a 'process', but as what is effectively a legal system, bereft of any social or ongoing analysis. If this is true, then anarcho-capitalism is not at all true to the principle of anarchism, but merely shares some incredibly superficial similarities.

Ancap is neutral on those topics, because it concerns only the political side of things. To attempt to use force to stop someone from being sexist, for instance, I would regard as ill-advised, so the principles do not overlap.

You have hit the nail on the head, sdavio, and established why anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism is simply an interpretation of 'violence is wrong', and thus certainly nothing to do with the rich critique of society as a whole that is anarchism.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:46:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:53:39 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:39:37 AM, sdavio wrote:

Ancap is neutral on those topics, because it concerns only the political side of things.
Anarchism is [a, oops] political, social and economic movement
Agreed.

Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism? I shall expand on this later.

Typing ergo before something doesn't make it so.

Anything can be a hierarchy. We can line people up in order of height, and call that an "unjustified hierarchy" if the tall people cannot justify their being taller than the short people. Thus, my argument was not that "anarchy is the movement against unjustified hierarchies" is a truism, but as I said, that it is a vague platitude, and that anarchy is not anti-hierarchy but anti-authority.

Lol, well actually you can justify that, because its a hierarchy of height order, therefore it is justified when the height order is accurate.

By that logic, the hierarchies you are raging against don't exist.

It is just this kind of appeal to authority which I am arguing against. I fully recognize that Rothbard was wrong about a wide array of things, especially on the philosophical side.
It is true that the capitalist strain of anarchism is very recent

I am not saying 'All these anarchists who existed previously were against private property', I am saying that 'Anarchism is quite accurately defined as a movement by X, and anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with X'.

More precisely, you are chastising ancap for being based on a specific principle rather than being a loosely correlated set of vague rhetoric, like ancom.

As you say:
The degree to which a theory is a 'true' example of its label, is how accurately, how consistently, it remains true to its principle

So, therefore, it falls to you to establish that anarcho-capitalism is not what it appears to be, which is simply the obvious conclusion of an inviolable right to private property, but rather part of this movement which has always had as its principle an analysis and a critique of authoritarianism in society.

I have to prove that it fits the definition of anarchism, which is the advocacy of a stateless society, and the criticism of authority.

Anarcho-capitalism seeks to completely redefine anarchism not as a 'trend' or a 'process', but as what is effectively a legal system, bereft of any social or ongoing analysis. If this is true, then anarcho-capitalism is not at all true to the principle of anarchism, but merely shares some incredibly superficial similarities.

I reject your assertion that anarchism is primarily defined as a "trend", and that anarcho-capitalism doesn't include "ongoing analysis". You seem to be being purposefully ambiguous so as to avoid being answerable to any position in particular.

Ancap is neutral on those topics, because it concerns only the political side of things. To attempt to use force to stop someone from being sexist, for instance, I would regard as ill-advised, so the principles do not overlap.

You have hit the nail on the head, sdavio, and established why anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.

You don't need to constantly restate that you believe in the validity of your conclusion. If you provide a cogent argument, it should make that point on its own.

Anarcho-capitalism is simply an interpretation of 'violence is wrong', and thus certainly nothing to do with the rich critique of society as a whole that is anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist because it's not a "rich critique of society"? Your argument seems more an aesthetic comment than principled reasoning.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:56:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Socialpinko, I challenge anyone to read this paragraph and figure out how it's a disproof of the idea that conservatism is the act of scolding those who one perceives as straying from an originating doctrine:

"Plenty of doctrines attempt to salvage what is useful in their originators. Anarchism, however, is actually pretty mild in this regard. From its ever-increasing intellectual canon- laying attention to less traditional political thinkers like Lacan, Foucault, and Lyotard most recently- to its shifting intellectual backdrop (take for example the recent trend of poststructuralist-informed anarchist literature or its dominance in newer analytical trends like intersectionality and queer studies), anarchism has definitely set itself apart from other radical philosophies in its attention to foundational knowledge."
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx