So many Ancaps...

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ambrose's picture
Ambrose
Offline
Joined: 21-10-11
Mar 26 2013 23:18
So many Ancaps...

Is it just me, or does there appear to be growing infestation of Ancaps? Maybe Im liking the wrong Facebook pages but I am seeing way more than I used to see. This needs to be combated at the least.

Perhaps we should start making attempts to organize and at least present an opposing viewpoint on popular sites (such as facebook).

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 26 2013 23:44

An internet phenomenon not worth spending time on. I mean, some have literally spent thousands of hours in internet wars with these people. I have met 2 self-identified anarcho-capitalists in my 5 years of radical left involvement...

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Mar 27 2013 03:49

It's an internet philosophy, the refuge of middle-class white nerds who got hard into right-wing extremism. That's it. We will never meet one outside the comments section of a youtube video. My suggestion is to not argue with them, don't go on their websites, pretend they don't even fucking exist. We anarchists need to pay attention to the people, and realize the existence of "anarcho-capitalism" is a profound, morally reprehensible aberration that is OUR FAULT because we have fallen so out of touch with the working class. So many people want to take up a name as cool as "anarchist" yet so few give a damn about what it means!

If I ever see a "black and yellow" flag outside a jpeg, I'm punching the fucker holding it! The fact that these fascist vermin are taking an idea that people fought and died for sickens me to my core. There isn't a single fucking "anarcho-capitalist" as hard, as passionate, or as spirited as Durruti, Makhno, Malatesta or Magón - and there never goddam will be. I despise them as much as I despise any reactionary. The forces of decadent, middle-class liberalism will never take anarchism and turn into the ideology of idiots and morons!

Anyone who wants to see the true face of these scum needs to read their book Democracy: The God That Failed. They despise the weak. If we anarchists ever become popular, we must rid that goddam idea from the face of the earth.

To Conatz and anyone who's ever met these reactionaries outside the internet - are they all a bunch of terrible human beings or what?

Ambrose's picture
Ambrose
Offline
Joined: 21-10-11
Mar 27 2013 07:26

I haven't met one Anarchist in person, so lack proper perspective on strength of Anarchy as a whole.

I am in agreement however in that they are as bad as fascists. They appear as ideological enemy, a contradiction at its core that many in the West unfortunately find appealing- or at least online.

The only reason I did post this is the sight of specter of something that could become popular looming in the distance, if given chance. And dismay at the number of those who talk of the gold and black flag.

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Mar 27 2013 11:26

I'm actually THE quintessential anarchist, I have the scars to prove it, but I digress, yes, they are as bad as fascists, I regard them as bank credit-riding yuppies, as cold and unfeeling, as self-absorbed and greedy, I also loath their ignorance!

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 27 2013 14:10

I am also not too eager to spend my time fighting these virtual nerds, but from the local point of view, they are not too harmless. This ideology was the main one in this country until a few years ago and those people are always looking for some ways to come back. And disguising anarcho-capitalism as some form of "mutualism" which opposes large-scale capitalism (while actually not being anti-capitalist at all), they are able to smuggle their ideas across to people. For example here, and keep in mind the FB generation of activists have no idea about what is real and what is virtual.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Mar 27 2013 17:02

Mutualism = small-scale self-managed capitalism
Market socialism = large-scale self-managed capitalism
An-capitalism = large-scale 'traditional' capitalism with privatized states

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 27 2013 19:12

Nannernanner - best post yet! cool

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Mar 28 2013 08:40

some people who write for the German journal eigentümlich frei (10x a year, ~ 5000 copies) perceive themselves as "Anarcho-Capitalistic" ... the journal prides itself as a "market place for liberalism, capitalism and anarchism", in my opinion, most of the authors are either bourgeois libertarians, classical liberals or people belonging to the New Right, plus some weirdos from the Men's rights movement, the notorious national anarchist Peter Toepfer and the individualist anarchist (Stirner & Mackay fan) Uwe Timm

yeksmesh
Offline
Joined: 22-04-12
Mar 28 2013 14:14

Look not to defend these kinds of people but equating them to fascists is a wee bit over the top in my experience.

At least from my encounters with them they are mostly just small business fetishists who dream of some pure and perfect state of capitalism in which a range of small to medium sized businesses compete on some perfect unstained market and in which every person is viewed as some self-reliant enlightened individualist entrepeneur. And besides that they have a massive fetish for anything that is supposed to be voluntary (basically the traditional view of the market as a voluntary and self organised interaction of equals). And then well alot of them are also the kind that constantly whine about how capitalism isn't pure at the moment and how corporations and governements have corrupted it. So basically they are a group of liberals who want to privatise the state and hold the age old small business fetish you see in alot of liberalistic currents throughout history. Which I think is still quite something else from fascism, as they are basically just a bunch of extreme liberals, extreme liberals who are deluded and piss off a lot of people by appropriating the name of a totally opposite movement, but still just a bunch of extreme liberals.

Although there is something to say about fascistic tendencies within the theoreticians and figureheads of this "tendency" (see for example the sympathies of the mises institute with Pinochet). But as far as I have encountered this doesn't seem much of a concern for most of the internet activists.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Mar 28 2013 16:23

I've been called one(I'm not) but I've never met one. I don't get the tendency of some people to get their knickers in a twist about them to such a degree though. It seems to me that through sheer weight of numbers in agreement and the direct effect they have in our lives the real 'enemy' are those that believe in western democracy. If we're going to hate anyone(I don't, it serves no purpose), then surely these fuckers should be the ones. Their 'philosophy' is in our faces all day, every fucking day. It's a philosophy of blame, irresponsibilty, mediocrity and shallowness. That's the one that angers me the most and it's the one that most of the ruling, middle and working classes subscribe to. Fucking shameful.

duskflesh
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Apr 1 2013 09:47

Hu, I was under the impression that they were dieing and the internet biased right wing “libertarian” trend was reaching it's expiration date.

to be fair I have stop paying attention to the youtube political community a long time ago, so I'm not in a position to know. But I'm sure that that shit be dieing ever since youtube made it harder to find out about new channels. Even my right wing friend that has his own channel in youtube has stopped caring about reading economic and political books (he dose not know that I know he has the channel, funny story).

Anyway a bunch of misanthropic upper-middle class kids ranting on the internet with no potential for real action is not gana mean anything. Last year in my local anarchist book fair one of those Caronian-muralist /anarcho-cap types running a stand ( he was from the “Left Libertarian alliance”)got threatened to get punched in the face while I was having a talk with him. Basicly shows how well established they are in the actual anarchist movement. Anyway he quickly gave his threaten-er a free pamphlet claiming that it would legitimize his position in relation to the wider anarchist movement(i was personally a bit pissed myself since he charged me for the same pamphlets the year before).

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Apr 1 2013 14:18

Yeah, maybe I hang around in the wrong circles, but I have never met one IRL....

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 1 2013 16:44

for the pure article, see this site:
www . lewrockwell . com

i knew two libertarian party types when i was a u-grad, irresponsible narcissists the both of them.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Apr 2 2013 06:11
iexist wrote:
I don't think you have to be a bad person to hold bad ideas. If someone was an ancap IRL I wouldn't hit them or any other reactionary because then I'd have to punch my dad and uncle.

I think the confusion here arises because most people do not understand the tactical use of violence by anti-fascists. Most people wrongly assume that anti-fascist violence is motivated by moral repugnance at fascists, ergo if you can ascribe a moral equivalence to fascism on the part of any other party, then the use of violence against them is justified by reference to antifascism, ipso facto. This is entirely incorrect.

Despite the messages of many "cultural antifascist" music bands, art groups etc, antifascist violence, at least in the eyes of its actual practicioners, is a pragmatic response, rather than a moral or emotional one. It is a response to the use of violence by fascists to silence, terrorise and organisationally liquidate any left or target-ethnicity resistance to fascist violence. There may be many ways that certain Tories or corporate predators may have even more offensive views or be destroying more lives than current fascist groups, but because they are using the apparatuses of the state or market to do so, then using the same kind of tactics against them as the EDL or whathaveyou, would be an inappropriate extension of antifascist rationale. Contrary to the propaganda of the dominant ideology, antifascist violence is not an attack on freedom of speech, but a defence of it - on the part of those whom fascists aim to silence through their violence. Or, as we used to say, all militant antifascism is just self-defence. And certainly never an excuse to use violence against people whose political views piss you off, just because you find them offensive.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 2 2013 07:46

I think I have told this story before, but there was an American right-wing libertarian working at Freedom bookshop once. She was nice, but her politics were awful. She would always critique various things we spoke about, and I asked her one time what the "anarchist movements" prioritises should be, and she told me 'the abolition of the NHS'

blackened
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Apr 8 2013 12:47
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Mutualism = small-scale self-managed capitalism

Completely false - mutualism is anti-capitalist to its core.
Just because something isn't communist it doesn't mean its capitalist.

Mutualism is one of the trends of anarchism, probably the oldest of the modern anarchist movement.

Anarchism does not have to be communist (although it absolutely cannot be capitalist to get us back on track).

blackened
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Apr 8 2013 13:15

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a broad group. It is however increasingly anarchistic and anti-capitalist (just not communist).
There are several well respected anarchists who have been or are associated with them. The ones I've come across are often Wobblies, or associated with anarchist groups and actions (often being more concerned with supporting anarchism as a whole than trying to foist their views on others).

I know I won't get any support here, as anything non-communist is usually shut down, but left libertarians aren't typically 'anarcho'-capitalist, and are generally anti-capitalist.

The biggest issue is that a lot come from the more mainstream US Libertarian climate, but came to realise that so much of that movement is not concerned with any freedom, except that for the rich to exploit the poor. This means their language often differs from mainstream anarchists, even if they reject capitalism and authority and the political process.
That comes from a lack of broad knowlege of anarchism - and that is our failing. People know of libertarianism more than anarchism, and look to its rhetoric of freedom, even if it is false.

There are of course many 'anarcho'-capitalists who are quite vile who do seem to be petulant teenagers. I've given up paying any attention to them, I suggest everyone else does likewise, unless they come asking quesdtions in a reasonable manner - they may not be a lost cause if they're willing to engage constructively.

duskflesh
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Apr 10 2013 08:17
blackened wrote:
The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a broad group. It is however increasingly anarchistic and anti-capitalist (just not communist).
There are several well respected anarchists who have been or are associated with them. The ones I've come across are often Wobblies, or associated with anarchist groups and actions (often being more concerned with supporting anarchism as a whole than trying to foist their views on others).

I know I won't get any support here, as anything non-communist is usually shut down, but left libertarians aren't typically 'anarcho'-capitalist, and are generally anti-capitalist.

The biggest issue is that a lot come from the more mainstream US Libertarian climate, but came to realise that so much of that movement is not concerned with any freedom, except that for the rich to exploit the poor. This means their language often differs from mainstream anarchists, even if they reject capitalism and authority and the political process.
That comes from a lack of broad knowlege of anarchism - and that is our failing. People know of libertarianism more than anarchism, and look to its rhetoric of freedom, even if it is false.

There are of course many 'anarcho'-capitalists who are quite vile who do seem to be petulant teenagers. I've given up paying any attention to them, I suggest everyone else does likewise, unless they come asking quesdtions in a reasonable manner - they may not be a lost cause if they're willing to engage constructively.

I think this is misrepresenting the “Alliance of left libertarian a”(ALL, for short)

their pamphlets use 'anarcho'-capitalist text

and the 'Mutualist' there follow Kevin Carson. Who views an-caps as a legit form of anachism, his notion is 'libertarianism' is not to far off from what mainstream American politics and an-caps calls 'libertarianism'. There are also 'argoists' and other non-state market people in the ALL.

Kevin Carson's mutualism is not too far off from an-cap's. I might add that even Carson's folowers state that Carson's mutualism has little if anything to do with Proudhon. I have trouble thinking of Carson's mutualism as a legit form of anarchism.

Kevin Carson has some writing on organizations, iv thought about digging in to that...dose anyone know if it is any good?

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 11 2013 00:06

"Non state market" is an oxymoron.

Carson hangs out with "an"caps, "national-anarchists", reactionaries, right-wing extremists, new right perverts, fucking degenerates, reactionaries, racists and scum; he's "moved to the left" the same way Goebbels "moved to the right".

He deserves to have his hands broken for his shtick. Idiot.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Apr 11 2013 00:27

Kevin Carson has been a bad influence on a lot of things... including The Anarchist FAQ.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Apr 11 2013 00:33

Imagine how better it could have been without such douche-bags like Kevin Carson, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner, Emile Armand, and Henry Appleton (who was born again on the Libcom forum as ComradeAppleton).

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 11 2013 04:17

Greetings and Salutations!

I am an anarcho-capitalist myself. Pleased to meet you. I decided to come here because I desire to foster understanding between the left and right sects of the anarchist movement.

Let me define anarchy as I see it. Anarchy is the ultimate result of the NAP the desire to remove coercion from our lives. Anarchy is not an economic system. The result of anarchy is the free market. This does not mean a capitalist market, it means simply the market, which can have either socialism or capitalism or both. There is no need for socialists to fight capitalists, the enemy is the State, not an economic system.

By acknowledging that value is subjective, that we may not have all the same goals, and that we do not have to agree on everything. We can move forward with dismantling the State.

I'm here because I want to learn about left anarchy. I am particularly interested in Proudhon, Long, and Tucker. I haven't read their stuff yet, but I will.

Please do not respond to me with vitriol. I come in peace! tongue I do not desire a flame war! I desire intelligent discourse, a sharing of ideas. The pursuit of knowledge is sacred, the disemination of knowledge is sacred! Let us not quible like children, let us share ideas. Maybe progress can be made towards realizing anarchy in our life time!

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Apr 11 2013 05:25
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Imagine how better it could have been without such douche-bags like Kevin Carson, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner, Emile Armand, and Henry Appleton (who was born again on the Libcom forum as ComradeAppleton).

Yes. That is all I've got to fuckin' say. This is an excellent post, and I wish I could write more about it. And for an answer, things would be soooo much better. Have you read Black Flame?

however, I think it might just be what inevitably happens when you get a bunch of middle-class types in any left-wing, working class movement. If Stirner, Tucker, Proudhon, Armand, and every single one of those goddam morons all had a heart attack before they could spew their garbage from their pens, there would have been just another middle-class antisocial moron replacing them by writing something even worse!

edit:
seriously, again, excellent post. I just started reading the zinelibrary.in archives because I got a lot of pdf links with their name in the urls and... fuck. Just fuck, man. Remember to Fight Speciesism! y'all

edit:
Wanna organize without all those dirty, nasty mundanes getting in the way? Your friendly neighbourhood left subcult knows how! P.S, filed under 'Organizing Manuals' so this is some serious muthafuckin' shit yo

This was filed under "class struggle' so I presume this means screaming the whole book from its very first page at the least middle class looking person at your Infoshop.

And, if you need to kick back after a long day of protesting at the entire nation of Israel through interpretive dance, sit back in what used to be your toilet seat, put your feet up on your ikea coffee table you stole from some dude's house, and read The Collected Writings Of The Unabomber. Or if you're feeling particularly intellectual you can learn about the complex theoretical contours and societal implications of Gender Anarky.

My god it's depressing and hilarious all at the same fucking time. Libcom is a beacon of light in a sea of shit.

Our glorious vanguard of the proletariat everybody!

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 11 2013 08:00

notrueliberal, first please stay on one thread. Don't derail every thread. Two, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms historically, logically, economically, and politically. Please stop using it.

Anarchism specifically came out of the workers movement as the anti-state wing of socialism and came to encompass a rejection of all forms hierarchy and coercion. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and the market is inherently coercive (not to mention needing state functions to be propped up). Ergo, anarcho-capitalism is oxymoron. Please don't use the term

If you want to know more about anarchism (which is not 'left anarchy') start here:

http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

And since the anarchist FAQ has been mentioned on this thread, you should read that too, starting here:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html

And since I know you're going to go on about co-ops/'horizontal' businesses, start here:

http://libcom.org/library/co-ops-or-conflicts
http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together
http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism

Now please stop calling yourself an anarchist.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 11 2013 16:28

"Let me define anarchy as I see it. Anarchy is the ultimate result of the NAP the desire to remove coercion from our lives. Anarchy is not an economic system. The result of anarchy is the free market. "

If you think a market isn't coercive then explain baliffs, and while your at it explain how "Pay my price for water and electricity or I'll shut you off" isn't coercive. And how exactly would you plan to deal with Private prisons, private police, private military, etc if you abolish the state but not the market.

"Please do not respond to me with vitriol. I come in peace! tongue I do not desire a flame war! I desire intelligent discourse, a sharing of ideas."

If that really is the case then I strongly suggest you stop talking like your from a Mediaeval fair addressing the court, and stop pre-emptively assuming what our responses are going to be. Oh and maybe start your own threads if your not really interesting in the threads conversation.

Now to get back on track I really don't believe Ancaps are really on the rise, they may be "big" on the internet but the internet is one big echo chamber that allows small groups spread thinly to make contact with each other. (Libcom itself is an example really) Tell me do they have any actual physical presence anywhere?

And as for presenting an opposing view, whats wrong with pointing out how private forces can be just as oppressive as state agencies whenever they try to peddle their "Privatise everything" line?
I personally have never heard a convincing rebuttal to that. At most I've received some comment about how all those nasty private armies work for governments which isn't true and easy to prove.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 11 2013 19:11
Quote:
anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms historically, logically, economically, and politically.

I forgot 'linguistically'.

Quote:
all those nasty private armies work for governments which isn't true and easy to prove.

I think there /could/ be some truth to this if you accept that basic state functions could fulfilled by private actors.

notrueanarchist, if you want an example of anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you look at the totalitarian company towns that existed in certain US mining communities in the 1800s. Private police, company stores, company scrip, company owned housing, company doctors and schools. State functions filled by private, profit motivated actors. That's the logical outscome of anarcho-capitalism. Have fucking fun.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Apr 11 2013 20:10
Chilli Sauce wrote:

notrueanarchist, if you want an example of anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you look at the totalitarian company towns that existed in certain US mining communities in the 1800s. Private police, company stores, company scrip, company owned housing, company doctors and schools. State functions filled by private, profit motivated actors. That's the logical outscome of anarcho-capitalism. Have fucking fun.

plus a dozen different churches financed by the company

notrueliberal
Offline
Joined: 11-04-13
Apr 11 2013 21:56

"If you think the market isn't coercive explain baliffs"

First of all I don't know what you mean, or what you want me to explain.

However, the bailiff as it exists today is a construct of the State. To say that the bailiff is coercive in today's world is completely correct. There are many ideas on how law can be accomplished in a "free" market (whatever the hell that means). The way I subscribe to is arbitration. Individual (A) has an issue with individual (B). Both A and B argree on an Arbiter they present their cases and the agreed upon arbiter gives his decision. The idea that there can be or should be a uniform code of justice is however fallacious. Is my way perfect? No but nothing ever is, nor will it ever be so. Utopia is a myth.

"[E]xplain how 'Pay my price for water and electricity or I'll shut you off' isn't coercive" In the world of today due to the extreme regulation, and the many barriers to entry created by State intervention, the utility companies have monopolies. The result of this is that there is no accountablity and often there is no where to turn if you aren't satisfied with your provider. In a "free" market without said barreirs to entry there would be more firms on the market, which gives you recourse. In other words you can go somewhere else. This is true of many things even today even though State intervention has greatly reduced your options. But you aren't even talking about options, you appear to be talking about something even more fundamental, entitlement. Does the fact that you exist entitle you to goods and services? Do you deserve X just because you are here, and you want it?

"How do you plan to deal with private prisons, private police, and private military, if you abolish the State and not the market" Again there are many schools of thought on this subject. Personally I don't think that private prisons will exist. With out government funding I doubt a prison could run. It's a waste of resources. My thoughts on private police is that they are unnecessary, personally I train in martial arts, and I carry a firearm because I believe in personal responsability. However other people disagree with me on that and they point out that competition between firms will give you the ability to leave one firm for the superior service of a different firm. Again the State monopoly on law has caused the issues that you and I both hate. What about private military then? The military and the police are the same service, that of defence, they're just specializations within that market. Again I personally favour the militia as a mode of defence. I'm working on a series of essay's right now talking about this, I'll give you some points. 1) The military of today doesn't provide defence. 2) Conventional Armies cannot provide defence. As a result convential armies that eat resources but provide nothing won't exist after the abolishment of the State. How do you intend to deal with private armies? After all, all it takes to create an army is a group of people to be united with a goal and arm and organize themselves. Do you think that after ya'll have abolished the State and market that armies won't exist? Do you believe that after the State and market are gone everyone will be happy? No one will resist, no will murder, rape, and pillage?

Now to get back on track. As Reddebrek has pointed out AnCaps don't have that many members. I suspect that there are probably less 100k world wide, and that is a very high estimate. Like Libcoms, the AnCaps simpley have a presence on the internet. As far as physical communities go, there is an AnCap colony in Cambodia sponsered by the DollarVigilante which smuggles people out of the US, there is an AnCap community in Acopulco Mexico, in the United States both New Hampshire and Wyoming have communities of AnCaps.

I'm not sure what you mean by "private" forces. But if you mean things like Black Water, I would lilke to point out that that firm gets most of it's money from government contracts to opperate in the middle east. Yes private armies can be just as oppressive as the State. The State is an organized crime syndicate just like the Hell's Angels, the IRA, the IRS, the Bloods, MS13 and the Mafia.

In order for liberty to exist anywhere it must be guarded. Evil Men desireing power are always going to exist. Murderers thieves, and rapists won't disappear from the world like magic, they will always exist. Like I said Utopia is a myth.

After reading ya'lls "Introduction to Capitalism" essay I understand why ya'll hate it so much. But I have to say that this hatred stems from grossly misunderstanding what Capital is, what drives the market, the role of labour in the market etc... I wonder if I came to the right spot for what I had in mind. We'll have to wait and see.

Peace be with you!

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 12 2013 05:48

"However, the bailiff as it exists today is a construct of the State."

The enforcer of the debt collector is the construct of the state? Is the shop security guard and the celebrities bodyguard also the product of the state?

"To say that the bailiff is coercive in today's world is completely correct."

Indeed it is thats why its presence as common support role for private transactions shows the absurdity of your "Markets are free of coercion".

"There are many ideas on how law can be accomplished in a "free" market (whatever the hell that means)"

?If you yourself don't know what your ideology means then how are you fit to explain it to anyone else?

"The way I subscribe to is arbitration. Individual (A) has an issue with individual (B). Both A and B argree on an Arbiter they present their cases and the agreed upon arbiter gives his decision."

You are aware that what you've just described is the Fascists method for dealing with conflict right? Oh but then you believe in class collaboration just like they do so that really shouldn't be a surprise.

Leaving aside your fellow travellers how on earth do you propose these "mediators" can be found and to be capable of viewing disagreements objectively in sufficient numbers to cover all potential areas of dispute? And since the state is gone how could you enforce decisions made by arbitration?

"The idea that there can be or should be a uniform code of justice is however fallacious."

.... But you have just proposed a uniform code of justice albeit a very thin one.

"Is my way perfect? No but nothing ever is, nor will it ever be so. Utopia is a myth."

? I never asked you for perfection I asked you to explain your notion that Markets are not coercive, so far you haven't even bothered addressing it.

"[E]xplain how 'Pay my price for water and electricity or I'll shut you off' isn't coercive" In the world of today due to the extreme regulation, and the many barriers to entry created by State intervention, the utility companies have monopolies."

Well for a start that simply isn't true there are many energy and water companies. But even if it was true with the state, its irrelevant because that has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you to explain how such a power dynamic isn't coercive, blaming it on the state or the shadowy Cabal of Elder Water Buffalo's doesn't answer that question accept to admit in a roundabout way that it actually is coercive.

"The result of this is that there is no accountablity and often there is no where to turn if you aren't satisfied with your provider. In a "free" market without said barreirs to entry there would be more firms on the market, which gives you recourse."

Okay instead of repeat myself again I'll try this another way, you accept the premise that the state is coercive yes? And you advance the premise that markets are not coercive yes? Your evidence that they are not coercive is that in the event of coercion taking place the consumer can go elsewhere yes?

There is more then one state in the world, many have differing degrees of authority and coercion therefore you and me and everybody have recourse to go to a state much freer then the one we live in. That is an indisputable fact.

So we have two conclusions to draw from this, either States are not actually coercive since those who remain in the nasty ones do so by choice, or a market can still be coercive if it is shown to be and the volume of choices available in either case is irrelevant.

"In other words you can go somewhere else. This is true of many things even today"

In deed like countries, that still doesn't change the fundamental coercive nature of the relationship between the state and the citizen. Your argument is nothing more then the moneyed version of the "go to country X"

"But you aren't even talking about options,"

Because options no matter how many or how few do not in anyway change the coercive relationship, they are differences of degrees not kind.

To give you another example, lets take knife fighting and boxing, both are fundamentally violent, one is more violent then the other, but that does not mean the less violent one suddenly stops being violent.

If you are compelled to do something, or made to consent to it out of fear of consequences the relationship is a coercive one.

The fact that there was choice does not in anyway negate the coercion being applied.

"you appear to be talking about something even more fundamental, entitlement. Does the fact that you exist entitle you to goods and services?"

The fact that you ask this question proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are nothing like us.

"Do you deserve X just because you are here, and you want it?"

I notice you are suddenly talking about abstract X when I and you were talking about actual examples. But to answer your question Yes every human deserves life and the access and use of the things that guarantee that life. Are you seriously saying in a case of a person not being able to afford water or heat in the winter (which were the specifics we were discussing) you would support shutting them off and allowing them to perish?

"Again there are many schools of thought on this subject. Personally I don't think that private prisons will exist."

But earlier you were saying that the greatest obstacle for market entry was the state, so under that thinking we should have more prisons not less.

"With out government funding I doubt a prison could run."

And why won't they secure other sources of funding? if businesses are willing spend money on there own security why wouldn't they be willing to fund or enter in contracts with a prison service? To me if nothing else it sounds like a good way to solve the problem of ineffective mediation.

"It's a waste of resources."

Sorry but markets work on supply and demand if theres demand and no obstacle (which according to you was the state) there will be someone offering there services.

"My thoughts on private police is that they are unnecessary, personally I train in martial arts, and I carry a firearm because I believe in personal responsability. However other people disagree with me on that and they point out that competition between firms will give you the ability to leave one firm for the superior service of a different firm."

? You know what since I don't have all day I'll ignore the blatant narcissism at the start. Private police forces have the same role and responsibilities as state police. Therefore they would have all the capabilities of that force, under your society there is only the Market. The market works on supply and demand, there will be a demand for such a force since property and inequality remain. So by what justification does it have to exert power over its targets? And how could you keep such an entity in line?

"Again the State monopoly on law has caused the issues that you and I both hate."

How? You've completely ducked the issue, by your own admission all the State does is limit options, if something is fundamentally coercive how does increasing its number change that?

"What about private military then? The military and the police are the same service, that of defence, they're just specializations within that market. Again I personally favour the militia as a mode of defence."

And how exactly would you keep this militia in line? The state is gone and you have provided no alternatives. Again you haven't answered what I've asked how would a private militia not be coercive?

The Irish Militia was not above enforcing landlord eviction notices, even during the famine, in fact they helped guard food exports out of Ireland during the period. To give just one example.

"but provide nothing won't exist after the abolishment of the State."

1) Private military groups do exist and operate independently of states so we know that's not true.
2) A coercive entities use is its coercive effects so it does in fact provide something.
3) Other private groups make use of state armies to fulfil there agenda's so why on earth wouldn't at least atempt to find an alternative in a post state world?
4) Actually that question isn't really necessary since even now with the option of state armies many turn to the private sector for their guns and boots.

"How do you intend to deal with private armies?"

By the abolishing of state and capital. With absence of public and state funds and infrastructure no large armies can be formed.

"After all, all it takes to create an army is a group of people to be united with a goal and arm and organize themselves."

Yes but for such a group to be capable of actually oppressing others takes a vast logistical network, otherwise Guerilla movements would have far more success. The only other alternative to State or corporate support would be if that groups aims were shared by a large section of the population. Thats how the few Guerilla movements that managed to succeed without major external assistance did so.

But if that were the case why even bother forming an army? most groups turn to armed conflict because they oppose the state or its current leadership with a large military presence of its own.

"Do you think that after ya'll have abolished the State and market that armies won't exist?"

Actually yes. There were no standing armies before the state and market, the first recorded instance of a standing army was after the formation of the Babylonian states. Because armies need a lot of backing, they can't function independently.

"Like Libcoms, the AnCaps simpley have a presence on the internet."

Sorry but that's simply false if by "Libcoms" you mean the groups that fall under that banner then most do have strong physical presences in some parts of the world so your comparison is untrue.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "private" forces. But if you mean things like Black Water, I would lilke to point out that that firm gets most of it's money from government contracts to opperate in the middle east."

Most, not all. By your own admission groups like Black Water receive funds from non state actors. So if we were to abolish the state that would simply mean their funding was exclusively private, so there is in fact coercive forces within the market.

"Yes private armies can be just as oppressive as the State. The State is an organized crime syndicate just like the Hell's Angels, the IRA, the IRS, the Bloods, MS13 and the Mafia."

Yes which is why your assertion that markets aren't coercive is absurd.

"In order for liberty to exist anywhere it must be guarded. Evil Men desireing power are always going to exist. Murderers thieves, and rapists won't disappear from the world like magic, they will always exist. Like I said Utopia is a myth."

And if you have guards you must therefore have coercion. Like I said I didn't ask for utopia I asked you to justify you assertion that markets aren't coercive. You instead wasted many paragraphs dodging the question and are now actually undermining yourself. Bringing out the old Utopia strawman wont help you.

"After reading ya'lls "Introduction to Capitalism" essay I understand why ya'll hate it so much. But I have to say that this hatred stems from grossly misunderstanding what Capital is,"

The private ownership of the means of production. That is what capitalism is

"what drives the market,"

supply and demand.

"the role of labour in the market"

To produce goods and services that generate profit for the owner i.e. the Capitalist.

"I wonder if I came to the right spot for what I had in mind."

Well it seems to me what you had in mind was stunning us all with your intellect and winning us all around to your half baked ideas. If that is the case, then yes you did.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Apr 12 2013 07:36

On one hand, I'm dissapointed you didn't respond to any of my posts. On the other hand, I'm busy and have better things to do, plus I think it means you're probably less likely to stick around on libcom.

Quote:
"If you think the market isn't coercive explain baliffs"

First of all I don't know what you mean, or what you want me to explain.

It mean, what if someone decides to stop paying rent? A bailiff is needed to evict that person or the whole premise of capitalism falls away. If I have to stop paying for housing, you can bet I'm going to stop working. And if I can get away with not paying for housing, I'm going to bet I can steal shit from the store or from work. This mean the ideas of commodities cease to exist and that accumulation of capitalism will be be arrested.

That inherent coercion (be it private/state bailiff or private/state security) is needed if the very basis of private property is to continue.

And this is the point, state or no state, capitalism which needs coercive force to protect private property. I guess theoretically it's possible to abolish the state, but the repressive functions of the state will be taken over by private actors a la the company town example I already gave.

Finally, screw you on "entitlements" you right-wing reactionary ball-bag. Productive activity is social, therefore the fruits of that activity--what's commonly called the economy--should be socially distributed. This is the problem with capitalism: what are fundamentally relationships between people are obscured as relationships between things. That allows for the stupid shit idea of 'entitlements'.

As for you shit about 'utopia', that's a sad excuse for an argument. You want utopia, look at the proponents of fucking capitalism. Not to mention that, again, all you have to do is read some basic anarchist texts to realize that anarchists don't advocate some perfect blueprint for society, but rather suggest of series of principals along with some prefigurative structures for how we can build direct democratic and non exploitative social relations.

Also,

notrueanarchist wrote:
Evil Men

Now please stop calling yourself an anarchist.