Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
RandomCapitalist

Why are socialists so fixated on ancaps?

For all intents and purposes "ancap" isn't even a thing. What's known as "ancap" is little more than a constellation of ethical theories that are built from SVT (therein may lie the answer) and support free markets. Rothbardian ethics arent even a very dramatic departure from the deontology of socialists, just the addition of property rights.

Even if we widen our scope to "free market advocates" in general, we are still talking about a "movement" that wants to be left alone and generally even advocates shunning democracy as a fools errand.

So why are internet socialists so utterly fixated on ancaps who mean so little? I suspect it's because ancaps openly subscribe to such a strict application of SVT and marginalism and it was, after all, the brokers of the marginal revolution that nailed the coffin shut on LTV and the mishmash of dogma about laboring with your hands and equality that is socialist ideology.

It seems to me that if I were a socialist, ancaps would not really be a blip on my radar and I would be much more concerned with how essentially all mainstream political action serves to enhance and empower the state through scapegoating and division.

Posted May 24, 2018, 11:14 AM UTC

19350
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

Of all the ideologies, it's most at odds with how I think capitalism works. Social democrats at least admit capitalism has inherent ethical issues, but ancaps seem to take any result of the free market as necessarily moral. That's just insanely naive to me.

Edit: I didn't express myself clearly. Let me revise that statement to "...but ancaps seem to take any result of the free market as necessarily justified." I've never known an anarcho-capitalist to question the efficacy of their system when faced with an unpleasant result of free market exchange.

39
CorporatePropAnarcho-Capitalist•

I’d say that we don’t believe any result of the free market is moral so much as we believe that action by the state aimed at making people act morally can only lead to more and greater immoralities.

12
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

In short, making people behave in a certain manner is immoral.

5†
Dopecheez-Centrist/Left Capitalist •

So making people stay off my land is immoral too, right?

12
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Is this your new roads argument? It's about time really. I've been super bored with explaining that even now the government doesn't actually build roads.

It's self defense my dude. You're basically asking if its wrong to take you off that computer chair of yours while you're sitting on it eating doritos. The answer is yes. That's your chair. You come on my land knowingly and try to squat, I will remove you. If that means you die in the process, then so be it. I don't need to call in my buddies to do so either. No need for a government to enforce my property rights.

-4†
TheLateThagSimmonsGrilled Cheese Mutualist•

And that's the disconnect. It's a hard wall of morality for a concept that isn't really that important or even consistent.

Secondly, it just kicks the can down the road of "They think anything that doesn't meet this one super low standard is morally righteous." You did not do anything to disprove the assertion, you merely shifted it slightly.

5
test822collective raw materials/market determined finished goods•

so enforcing private property rights is immoral?

4
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Nope. It's self defense.

0
SectoxNeoliberal•

but advertising influences people to make decisions all the time. Is it still voluntary if you're being unconsciously "forced" to make a decision?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

4
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

So why support private property and market exchange then? You are creating a false dichotomy (it's either private property and a market with a state and coerced morality or without it).

5
RandomCapitalistOP•

Can you show us where any ancap ethicist has claimed that any result in a free market is necessarily moral?

Doesn't make you look very thoughtful or informed to call someone "naive" immediately after demonstrating a total misunderstanding of their position.

5†
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

Honestly, I'm not interested in debating with you because you consistently act like a child. Just commenting on your post to put my own perspective out there.

3†
RandomCapitalistOP•

Your perspective is wrong ;)

2†
NihilisticHotdogMinarchist•

but ancaps seem to take any result of the free market as necessarily moral

Strawman.

That is not the case. Bad actors exist in every society. AnCaps wants to minimize that by distributing control/power in the most efficient way possible.

3
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

I think I didn't express myself correctly. Is it more accurate to say ancaps think every result of the free market is justified? That's more what I intended to say.

6
NihilisticHotdogMinarchist•

"justified" is an interesting word to use.

I suppose you can say that it's justified in the sense that it's the lesser evil.

3
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

So if you believe that free markets are the most efficient and least coercive way to organize society, it follows you would take every result of the market as justified as a lesser evil.

The obvious question, then, is why they think the free market (with private property norms, which is a very important caveat, imo) is the most efficient and least coercive way to organize society. I don't really see why this is the case.

6
buffalo_pete•

Is it more accurate to say ancaps think every result of the free market is justified?

I would tweak this slightly to say "Nonviolent, voluntary actions require no justification."

0†
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

Interesting way to frame it. I think property norms require justification, and that the definition of voluntary isn't quite as clear as we'd like it to be.

5
khandnalie•

But they try to do this within a system that inherently and automatically concentrates power into fewer and fewer hands.

2
NihilisticHotdogMinarchist•

But they try to do this within a system that inherently and automatically concentrates power into fewer and fewer hands.

The government is what provides the conduit to the power.

Even so, is that even factual? Is the power being concentrated or diluted, considering the population growth? How would you define power?

Is wealth power? Even if it's gain fairly and without coercion? If you manage to provide a service to everyone which they love, you'd be very wealth, and everyone would be better off receiving said service.

Would this make you somehow more powerful, and thereby bad?

0
khandnalie•

No, capital provides that conduit. The state is really just a tool of the capitalists. In our system, the more money you have, the more powerful you are, simply enough. Wealth is indeed power.

In a capitalist system, wealth can only ever ultimately flow upwards. The more money you have the easier it is to make more money. The less money you have, the harder it is to get ahead. Under capitalism, this power always tends towards concentration.

Providing a service in exchange for some wealth is one thing. But that's not really what happens under capitalism. Usually, it's offering someone else's service in exchange for value. The person providing the actual service gets a small cut, while the capitalist pockets the lions share. The truth is, no one makes the kind of wealth that matters politically through hard work. That's just not how the system works.

You don't get wealthy through work, you get there through owning stuff. That's the flaw in the system, which allows such massive wealth inequality, and the resulting disparity in political power.

3
motherofordersmashy smashy•

I hate this sub but to offer my 0.02 worker credits...

  1. you are right, anarchocapitalism isn't a real thing. It's a capitalism cult. While this rubs socialists the wrong way for obvious reasons its also bc...

  2. many socialists are anarchists. Like actual anarchists, who dont respect the hierarchy of the workplace. There is a pet peeve among anarchists that ancaps stole the prefix (and the term libertarian) from the left. if nothing else, it obfuscates who is a comrade v a reactionary

  3. since (1) is the case, ancaps tend to slide to fascism when it is practical, as it does a better job at preserving capitalism than anarchism. Ask any ancap about border security and see the 'anarcho-' bit float away...(For more see : the role of the state in capitalism, and differences btwn markets & capitalism)

  4. demographically, many ancaps also embrace other toxic bs. eg red pill/incel crap, white supremacy, etc.

It all results in a group that stands against...nearly everything a socialist would hold dear. (I wouldnt apply all this to libertarians however fwiw)

18
JohnCanuckFavorite Child•
  1. who dont respect the hierarchy of the workplace

How could you eliminate hierarchies without state authority? Hierarchies are natural. It would require a great deal of effort and authority to eliminate this natural disposition.

7
bubbajojebjo•

Democracy! Authority of the collective.

7
Hard_Rain_FallingNeutral Anger•

People are inherently susceptible to charismatic leaders and would ultimately elect them into power.

Even if they didn't, pure democracy isn't "authority of the collective", it's tyranny of the majority.

7
arizonadreaminClassical Liberal•

......so a state authority

3
motherofordersmashy smashy•

(1) I would contest that it is not natural. e.g. symbiotic relationships exist. (2) Dying from an infection is natural, but it is worth the effort to develop medicine. I'll take morals over nature any day.

On the practical note on "how", the short/easy answer is organizing democratically. Check out work on worker coops

7
JohnCanuckFavorite Child•

symbiotic relationships exist

  1. a) The existence of symbiotic relationships does not negate the existence of hierarchy.

  2. b) A family is an example of a natural hierarchy. Due to their nature, children must rely on the guidance of their elders.

  3. Medicine is the result of government and human efforts. Even still, the spread of Western medicine was resisted by activists like Gandhi. I am not suggesting we follow nature and not morality. However, it takes considerable effort to escape the bonds of nature - people still die of infections. Thus, I doubt an anarchist society could eliminate hierarchy. Only extreme government intervention stands a hope of removing such a fundamental feature of human relationships.

Check out work on worker coops

I volunteer for numerous worker coops. These organizations have hierarchies. Even worker coops have supervisors.

7
hungarian_conartist•

worker credits

Labour vouchers

7
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

no die u traitor menshevik scum

2
hungarian_conartist•

Fite meirl

1
HeFlipYaMutual Exploitationism•

Why do you hate this sub?

2
motherofordersmashy smashy•

I think it does more harm than good. I have actually switched from one extreme to the other, and can say from experience a sub like this is where I go when I DON'T want to change my mind.

I'll go ahead and say both sides approach every discussion in bad faith here, and the result is just attempts to totally OWN the enemy. All nuance is lost, and misinformation is everywhere.

101 type subs do a better job of actually explaining different views to folks imo.

7
HeFlipYaMutual Exploitationism•

It's kind of like a swap meet. You find stuff here you don't find anywhere else, but you might have to do some digging.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2†
End-Da-Fed•

What AnCap critics don't realize is that anarchism is accepted as a core value in numerous nonpolitical spheres in society where anarchy is not only valued but firmly defended, such as dating, career choices, education, who to marry, whether or not to get an abortion, choosing to be monogamous or polyamorous, and so on.

If anarchism is dismissed as “bad” in any sphere of society for any excuse then those same excuses also apply to other spheres as well.

Unless the Statist/Marxist criticizing Anarcho-Capitalism is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the Ministry of Careers, The Dept. of Education to choose your high school and college, etc., then that proves there is value of anarchy in certain spheres.

Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalism cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

1†
motherofordersmashy smashy•

The only frustrating thing about this outlook is how quickly it vanishes when discussing capital. Or unions. Or the border. Or demilitarization. Or prisons. Or democracy. Or sharing toothbrushes.

In theory an ancap could be an ally of left-anarchists on many issues, but that has played out...zero times?

I hate to say it but I really do think a lot of that simply isn't true of most ancaps. Once you learn to love the hierarchy of capital, one develops a taste for hierarchies in other spheres as well. I think they just dislike liberal-democracies and are generalizing it to all governments, but would actually feel quite good about fascism.

I'd love to be wrong though. I do think libertarians tend to be more sincere in their critiques of the state, though. However I'm biased as I used to be one and know more personally.

8
End-Da-Fed•

Bumper sticker propaganda aside, the outlook does not really "vanish" at all. If you take away restrictions on chaperoning women on all dates to giving them total anarchy in dating and being sexually active, you get several benefits and several problems:

  1. No more curfew restrictions.

  2. Increased chances of sexual assault

  3. Increased chances of being raped

  4. Increased chances of being abused

  5. Better freedom of choosing a partners

  6. Greater control over life decisions

  7. Increase in sexual pleasure

  8. Increased chances of getting STD's

  9. Greater gender equality, etc....

The same applies with AnCapism but it's my contention the unbridled freedom far out weighs the fear-mongering since the obvious "cons" can be managed and dealt with.

-3
motherofordersmashy smashy•

I think we are speaking past eachother. We agree on abolishing the state and social hierarchies. I also wish to abolish economic and nationalist hierarchies, which most ancaps embrace.

4
ToXlC911Minarchist•

Because Fascists are so pro-capitalist...

1
motherofordersmashy smashy•

Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.

3
ToXlC911Minarchist•

They are for corporatism or syndicalism, which are anti-capitalist systems. Just because there's no revolution it doesn't mean that the status quo is kept.

1
Guncriminalu/CheapShill did nothing wrong•

you are right, anarchocapitalism isn't a real thing. It's a capitalism cult.

A cult is an organisation. There's no organisation called ancap.

since (1) is the case, ancaps tend to slide to fascism when it is practical

Since (1) is BS and everything is fascism to you people, I'm not going to address this one.

Ask any ancap about border security and see the 'anarcho-' bit float away...

Err no. There's a lot of contention there. Some support outright open borders, others regard the land as private property and understandably don't want people hostile to ancap flooding in.

-1†
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

It is the old collectivist vs individualist dilemma. How can a collectivist claim to be on the side of the people when individuals are giving them the finger and asking to be left alone?

We don't want their bullshit applied to us, no matter how hard they are peddling it.

Some of this comes from the modernist / postmodernist split. The modernist trusts their own reason above all else. The postmodernist can only see power dynamics. For the modernist individual, the postmodernists are unreasonable. To the postmodernist, the successful individualist must have got that way through expressions of power.

15
RockyMtnSprings•

collectivist vs individualist

This conflict of ideas boils down to this aspect. Some people hate the idea of a drummer marching to beat of his own drum. They hate him with a passion.

That is why the cries of not real socialism comes out about the Soviets. However, the Soviet gulags are a logical conclusion to not letting the individual Do what they want.

9
michaelnoirjust a left independent•

That's not quite right is it, because on the extreme left you have the anarchists, who are usually strong individualists. They're just individualists who recognize that humans are a social species. Hence= socialism.

5
Hambone_Malone•

We are a social species, but we aren't wired to worry or care for people outside of our immediate family and community. What's good for some is not good for all. Socialists have a one size fits all solution, from my perspective. Live and let live seems to be lost on socialists.

6
michaelnoirjust a left independent•

Live and let live seems to be lost on socialists.

Not on the anarchists, the original libertarians, who are also socialists. They would claim that it's capitalism which doesn't leave you alone and let you get on with your life.

2
Ashleyj590•

speak for yourself. Some of us are born with empathy, some people are sociopaths. I don't have to know a homeless person to want to help them.

2
HeFlipYaMutual Exploitationism•

I'm an individualist who recognizes that humans are a social species, yet I'm a staunch liberal.

2
yoshiary•

Yes, you are different.

1
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Hence= socialism.

Being a social species does not make anything a socialist species. That's an immensely ignorant argument to even attempt to make.

2
michaelnoirjust a left independent•

That's where the word comes from though.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
michaelnoirjust a left independent•

How could a true anarchist ever submit to the will of a collective?

Because humans are a social species. For the vast majority of the time that they have existed, they have lived in tribes. These tribes usually had out-group hostility and in-group solidarity.

It's silly to surround the word "collective" with sinister implications. Co-operative labour is a human universal, without which we couldn't even have cleared a forest to plant some crops. Lots of things are done collectively, and done well. Capitalist production, especially the high-tech kind, is also very collective. It often involves raw materials from all over the globe that have to be shipped to other places and assembled by cooperating workers. It was capitalism, the need to make profit, that fostered this change, that killed off the small artisan and ushered in the big factories.

Rather than think of an "individualist vs collectivist" spectrum it's much more useful to picture the four-square diagram with a left authoritarian in the top left, a libertarian left in the bottom left, and an authoritarian right in the top right, and a libertarian right in the bottom right. That makes it much clearer.

All the classical anarchist writers that I've read are very strong individualists, and socialists at the same time. There is no contradiction there, because mostly they apply to different spheres of life.

Nicholas Walter says in his book About Anarchism:

"Thus in our private lives we are individualists, doing our own things and choosing our companions and friends for personal reasons.

In our social lives we are mutualists, making free agreements with each other, and giving what we have and getting what we need by equal exchanges with each other.

In our working lives we would mostly be collectivists, joining our colleagues in producing for the common good.

And in the management of work we would mostly be syndicalists, joining our colleagues in deciding how the job should be done.

In our political lives we would mostly be communists, joining our neighbours in deciding how the community should be run."

Thus are reconciled the different types of anarchism, as they pertain to different spheres of life.

3
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

Some people hate the idea of a drummer marching to beat of his own drum.

got an example?

1
RockyMtnSprings•

Anybody who advocates a socialized society. It is predicated upon everybody for the collective.

2
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

damn I was hoping for a drummer.

1
BakuninsWorld•

Holy shit you are stupid

-1
RockyMtnSprings•

Lol, I'm stupid?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

Collectivist anarchism advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves. For the collectivization of the means of production, it was originally envisaged that workers will revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined in democratic organizations based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.

based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production.

Oh, lord. This is a recipe for success. Lol, so, if I am a windowlicker and it takes me forever to get shit done, I get paid more?

If I am stupid, you are a certified retard.

1
totroptfMarxist-Leninist•

Marx was part of the modern tradition, not the postmodern tradition, yet he still saw economic power dynamics playing a crucial role. You have not accurately defined postmodernism (not that it is easy to define).

7
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

And yet all the great minds of the postmodern tradition are, strangely enough, on the extreme left marxist / socialist end of the political spectrum.

You have not accurately defined postmodernism (not that it is easy to define).

Yeah, the main problem with my definition is I used 2 sentences instead of 20 volumes.

5
totroptfMarxist-Leninist•

Being in some way influenced by Marx is not the same thing as being a Marxist. Marxists have been some of the most vicious critics of postmodernism (Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, Vivek Chibber, etc.)

Postmodernism is, among other things, characterized by a resistance to grand universalizing or totalizing narratives...it is literally completely antithetical to Marxism, and emerged as a reaction to the perceived "failure" of Marxism.

8
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

Being in some way influenced by Marx is not the same thing as being a Marxist.

Ya ya, not all socialists are marxist, no true socialism, I get it.

Marxists have been some of the most vicious critics of postmodernism

As with any religion, people ignore the parts they don't like.

Postmodernism is, among other things, characterized by a resistance to grand universalizing or totalizing narratives...it is literally completely antithetical to Marxism, and emerged as a reaction to the perceived "failure" of Marxism.

I agree that is what it CLAIMS to be, yet all postmodernists view the world through the lense of power and invariably end up on the extreme left. Try to deny it if you want, but as a modernist I believe my own reason and observations before I believe your rhetoric.

2
EJ2H5SuusuTendencies are a spook•

This has the stink of Hicks all over it. The guys a total hack.

1
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

"Everyone I disagree with is a total hack".

Yeah, he spent his life studying this stuff. total hack confirmed.

3
EJ2H5SuusuTendencies are a spook•

We're talking about Hicks not "everyone".

"Spending your whole life studying this stuff" doesn't make you not a hack. If I spent my whole life flat Earth theories that doesn't make me worth listening to.

However, if you want to gauge somebody's credibility on that, why don't you look at what other people "studying this stuff their whole life" think of Hicks and his book - most people "who study this stuff their whole lives" think he's a hack. You don't even have to leave reddit, just peruse through r/askphilosophy or r/philosophy for Stephen Hicks. There's many well sourced arguments from many people who "spend their lives studying this stuff" on why he is a hack. If "studying this stuff your whole life" is enough credentials to take someones word, then when the majority of people who "study this stuff their whole life" tend to agree on something, you might want to at least look into it.

He's also almost 60 years old and you'd be hard pressed to find any scholarly citations of Hicks. His h-index doesn't even register on google scholar.

Sorry dude you might have liked your very first philosophy book, and it made you feel all tingly inside and told you everything you wanted to hear, but it was garbage.

1
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

You don't even have to leave reddit, just peruse through r/askphilosophy or r/philosophy for Stephen Hicks.

Should I take them any more seriously than r/politics ? There are partisan hacks all over reddit, why should I think they stay out of the philosophy subs? Especially because philosophy is (mostly) an academic exercise, and the thing we are indirectly discussing is the post-modernists take over of academia. Of course they will be hostile to Hicks, he represents the opposition.

2
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

It is the old collectivist vs individualist dilemma

"old" come on the entire fucking "dilemma" was a meme created by Ayn Rand.

You can't even explain why you believe that Anti-capitalism is "Collectivist".

0
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

You can't even explain why you believe that Anti-capitalism is "Collectivist".

It's kind of right in the name: 'socialist'.

0
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

Wew this is a new one

2
mandragaraEnvironmentalist - Socialist•

Ancaps are basically fundamentalist capitalists. They're funny in the same way other extremist groups are.

13
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Well now you understand why socialists just can't be taken seriously ;)

2
mandragaraEnvironmentalist - Socialist•

Depends on the type of socialist.

2
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

I don't believe I differentiated. They're all lacking in proper reasoning and deduction skills.

1
Dopecheez-Centrist/Left Capitalist •

Yes, and neither can you.

1
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Being an AnCap is not my sole identifying characteristic. I happen to be a human being, not an ideologue.

1
oscarmardou•

But socialists aren't?

2
TheAvalonianMarket Socialist | Transhumanist•

Speaking only from personal experience, I have met quite a few ancaps who are so close to getting it, then veer off into feudalist apologia. This makes them psychologically irritating in a way mainstream liberals aren't, because I end up thinking they can be convinced and see reason -- or that we can at least find some common position of anti-statist solidarity -- with just one more argument. I don't do a whole lot of debating against ancaps online, but I had some heated discussions with IRL friends of mine -- I'm fully on their side when they talk about the ill-deserved holdings of the state, but somehow the Duke of Buccleugh deserves the five percent of Scotland the crown gave his great-grandfather because it's now magically protected by some arbitrary property norm. They're a tempting target because of how contradictory their ideas seem from the outside.

11
TheLateThagSimmonsGrilled Cheese Mutualist•

They're a tempting target because of how contradictory their ideas seem from the outside.

This really is the crux of it. They are just such low-hanging fruit when examining capitalist-apologism, especially when debating Laissez-Faire Capitalism. They take Laissez-Faire ideology to its horrific logical end and showcases its completely inconsistent logical bases. Thus it becomes a lynchpin to argue against nearly all Laissez-Faire advocates.

Essentially they take the internally inconsistent notion of the Abortion/Gun Rights debate as a standard for everything.

While AnCaps may be a "blip", they do represent exactly why the much larger and rather prevalent notions of Laissez-Faire capitalism is/are so flawed.

12
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

What's the inconsistent standard you are referring to?

5
TheLateThagSimmonsGrilled Cheese Mutualist•

Which one? Jesus Harold Christ, where do we start?

  • Supply and demand dictates CEO wages, so it's fair
  • Supply and demand suddenly absent when discussing the abolition of minimum wage/welfare which would flood the market with low skill labor
  • Capitalism is "voluntary" because everyone can quit and start their own business
  • Owners/CEOs pay is justified because owning/running a business is an incredibly rare skill that very few people possess
  • Nearly everything about land rights; this is such a big subject filled with inconsistencies that it's almost impossible to get started.
  • Wage labor is "voluntary" because you are always free to quit
  • Income taxes are "involuntary" even though you are always free to quit
  • Pretty much every form of taxation being "involuntary" despite the market/act associated with it being "voluntary" (I will concede that the estate tax does not apply, but none of them will ever face that so it doesn't matter).
  • The NAP; alone this is one of the most internally inconsistent ethical concepts I've come across; addressing this requires a whole post which we've done about two dozen times.
  • They make fun of "socialists" for being ignorant of economics, when they really just mean social-liberals.
  • However, they themselves are some of the most economically ignorant people out there.
  • Reputation would serve as its own market regulator
  • They make fun of "socialists" who condemn capitalism while using iPhones and computers
  • They make fun of social-activists opposing sweatshops while wearing clothes made in sweatshops
  • They themselves claim to oppose "crony-capitalism" more than any other vocal group; their homes are filled with products, their lives are covered in services, all made by "crony-capitalist" enterprises when there are locally made non-crony alternatives.

Do we have to keep going? I have work to do.

7
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

I was referencing whatever abortion/gun rights thing you were referring to.

1
End-Da-Fed•

Him: How do I get to point B?

You: C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y and Z you %4$*&&(^ idiot!!!!

1
CatWhisperer5000PBR Socialist•

Where are you where you're meeting ancaps in real life? I've literally never met one in person.

3
TheAvalonianMarket Socialist | Transhumanist•

There's one or two in every larger software company. I think I missed out on the Rothbard 101 class when I did my degree?

2
S_T_PCommunist (Marxist-Leninist)•

Why are socialists so fixated on ancaps?

Start by proving that this is actually true.

7
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Well, at the least the perception is easy to get. So I think there is something to it. Especially here on this sub, and r/libertarian.

1
Guncriminalu/CheapShill did nothing wrong•

r/libertarian just full of alt-right trolls and various low-information "hit and run" idiots from r/all and r/news.

4
namesrueLeft Libertarian | Anarcho-Bokononism•

"Hit and run idiots" is a beautiful phrase. Thanks for that.

4
Guncriminalu/CheapShill did nothing wrong•

That's what they are. They show up, post a dumb comment and are never seen again.

4
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Lately. Happens to every sub really.

1
HhturaNationalist, Ecology, Progress•

It's the most visible extreme of liberalism, and its adherants are some of the most visibly uninformed people on the internet, so whenever they do anything there's a good chance it'll produce something to laugh or facepalm at.

5
End-Da-Fed•

Most Socialists can't stand AnCaps becuse of the following:

  1. It's never been done before

  2. Most AnCaps cannot articulate their positions very well.

  3. It's very similar to traditional Marxism except for the collectivism, opposition to certain hierarchies, opposition of private property ownership, and opposition to bloody revolution.

  4. It's anti-Statist

  5. It's asserts moral fact claims

  6. It easily exposes the logical hypocrisy of excuses used to prop up Statism.

  7. It involves Capitalism

What Socialists don't realize is that anarchism is accepted as a core value in numerous nonpolitical spheres in society where anarchy is not only valued but firmly defended, such as dating, career choices, education, who to marry, whether or not to get an abortion, choosing to be monogamous or polyamorous, and so on.

If anarchism is dismissed as “bad” in any sphere of society for any excuse then those same excuses also apply to other spheres as well.

Unless the Socialist criticizing Anarcho-Capitalism is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the Ministry of Careers, The Dept. of Education to choose your high school and college, etc., then that proves there is value of anarchy in certain spheres.

Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalism cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

4
YogSothothIsMyHomeyI like communes and co-ops•

Well in most of history who you married, where you worked and whether you could abort your fetus was decided for you, so the relative anarchy today is what needs defending surely? Many economically liberally social conservatives would agree with that.

6
End-Da-Fed•

Many economically liberally social conservatives would agree with that.

Well sort of. They crave anarchy in their personal life but hypocritically shudder at the very notion of political anarchy.

To me that hesitance and bigotry is just as ignorant and oppressive as when people were breaking down barriers for greater personal anarchy.

4
YogSothothIsMyHomeyI like communes and co-ops•

Historically political anarchy just leaves a power vacuum and you may like the next regime less than the old one. Better the devil you know.

3
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

Historically political anarchy just leaves a power vacuum

No it doesn't. The infighting that occurs exhausts the resources and energy of people because they believe some asshole has to be at the top of some pecking order. The problem is the power hungry, not this mythical power vacuum.

2
TheLateThagSimmonsGrilled Cheese Mutualist•

It's never been done before

This isn't an objection, just a statement to remind you guys to stop angling for credit for something that never happened.

Most AnCaps cannot articulate their positions very well.

You are a prime example.

It's very similar to traditional Marxism except for the collectivism, opposition to certain hierarchies, opposition of private property ownership, and opposition to bloody revolution.

How is it similar to Marxism?

It's anti-Statist

No it's not. They just rename the State to something else. You are proof of this with your stupid DIO concept which is exactly the State minus one minor element but maintaining every other problematic aspect.

The rest of the more put-together AnCaps are even worse with their support of the State (but just calling it something else).

It's asserts moral fact claims

Praxeology is a literal pseudoscience. Not just a soft science like psychology, criminology, economics, and sociology. A literal, real life, complete, pseudoscience.

It easily exposes the logical hypocrisy of excuses used to prop up Statism.

Again with the false-dichotomy. A false-dichotomy that yourself don't even escape.

It involves Capitalism

Just the worst parts.

4
End-Da-Fed•

This isn't an objection, just a statement to remind you guys to stop angling for credit for something that never happened.

That word salad is still an objection.

You are a prime example.

I am one of the exceptions.

How is it similar to Marxism?

Stateless.

No it's not. They just rename the State to something else. You are proof of this with your stupid DIO concept which is exactly the State minus one minor element but maintaining every other problematic aspect.

In order for DIO's to be remotely considered a State equivalent or State substitute it would require the same characteristics as the State...so that's permanently debunked.

Praxeology is a literal pseudoscience.

I wouldn't know if that's true, since you're full of shit most of the time, but moral fact claims are not Praxeology. Perhaps you learnt that from a Sociology 101 class?

Again with the false-dichotomy. A false-dichotomy that yourself don't even escape.

Not an argument, which means when discussing things with you, you've admitted I was correct.

Just the worst parts.

Statism is the only "worst part". I seek to rectify that.

1
TheLateThagSimmonsGrilled Cheese Mutualist•

That word salad is still an objection.

"Capitalism creates all the greatest things in life! It's also never existed."

In order for DIO's to be remotely considered a State equivalent or State substitute it would require the same characteristics as the State...so that's permanently debunked.

99% identical, you've merely privatized it.

Perhaps you learnt that from a Sociology 101 class?

Why don't you ask your made-up "wife".

Not an argument, which means when discussing things with you, you've admitted I was correct.

Yeah, that's how pointing out logical fallacies work. It does not end the argument, it's pointing out that the argument is flawed and therefore you must re-set and re-present your argument without the logical fallacy.

That's the whole point: You failed to present an argument and I pointed that failure out. Thus literally "not an argument."

Statism is the only "worst part". I seek to rectify that.

By keeping just the worst parts of the State and getting rid of the only functional aspects? Everything about your stupid DIO concept is still exactly the State only less functional and more oppressive.

3
End-Da-Fed•

99% identical, you've merely privatized it.

How is something that's not remotely similar magically "99% identical"?

Why don't you ask your made-up "wife".

Well if you can't link where there was a contradiction then I'm right (again).

Yeah, that's how pointing out logical fallacies work.

You shitposting is not pointing out a logical fallacy, I'm afraid.

By keeping just the worst parts of the State and getting rid of the only functional aspects? Everything about your stupid DIO concept is still exactly the State only less functional and more oppressive.

How is something that's not remotely similar the the State magically "still exactly the State"?

1
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

Do you realize Ancaps (you) don't want to get rid of the state, you just want to privatize what it does you fucking moron.

1
nate23401•

I think it has something to do with the fact that libertarianism is a product of the left, not the right.

Today, when you hear the word anarchist, people generally think of right-wing ancaps. This has only been the case since the 1970s with the rise of the American libertarian movement. Left-libertarianism (or as I like to call it — libertarianism) originated during the Enlightenment.

Remember how Orwell warned against changing the meaning of words to render their original meaning obsolete? I don’t think it’s a mystery why the American libertarian movement was founded by rich, right wing billionaires.

4
RandomCapitalistOP•

It's no coincidence that Orwell was criticizing the left ;)

1
ARandomNameInserted•

Orwell fought for Revolutionary Catalonia and wrote a book about it( "Homage to Catalonia")lol.He was a "leftist". He was just a libertarian communist who criticized authoritarianism in general, but specifically stalinism and other forms of left-authoritarianism.

I know you're trying to make it seem like it's the leftists who hijack words and meanings but the word liberatarian literally originated from french anarchists.

8
RandomCapitalistOP•

I'm not trying to make anything seem like anything, I'm pointing out the irony in someone bitching about the authoritarian right using doublespeak and referring to a book about how the authoritarian left is notorious for doublespeak.

I don't really give a fuck who the first person to name the Moon was, I know for sure they weren't an expert on it.

2
furryflip•

1984 isn't just about the authoritarian left. It's about what Orwell called bureaucratic collectivism - basically an umbrella term for the authoritarian regimes that popped up in the wake of World War 1.

7
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
BakuninsWorld•

He was a communist you dumb fuck, he was criticizing what the Soviet union was doing

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

So.... Exactly what I said then.

Thanks!

3
kajimeikoPolitical Agnostic w anti-state, agorist and egoist leanings•

Did he declare himself a communist or a socialist? Wasn't he more for socialist democracy rather than the orthodox marxist communist position (ie, abolition of private property, exchange economy, class society, the state)? I thought he called himself a socialist (with the distinction from communist being meaningful in this case)

(To be clear i have read homage to catalonia and down and out in paris and london so i am familiar with orwell's leftism to an extent)

2
BakuninsWorld•

No clue what he identified as, just threw that out, socialist democratic is a good guess

1
TheFeretWhy can't we just get along?•

Orwell's position changed over the course of his life. When he wrote Homage, he was much more in line with a revolutionary anarchist's way of thought. By the time of his death, he had conceded more towards the DemSoc side.

Orwell was never particularly extreme, but always extremely critical. He never aligned with Marxism, but held many of the same ideals. He was staunchly anti-authoritarian, above all else, for his entire life. My favorite part about Eric Blair is that no label can accurately describe him in his totality except that one, anti-authority.

1
JackVanadiumAnarcho Capitalist•

I'm an ancap so let me summarise from what I've read. Note that a lot of what has been said is them arguing against us and jot explaining why it's us. This is the important part.

  1. It is the most far departed from socialism (pure capitalism)
  2. We still use the word "anarchist" to describe ourselves, the think we hijacked the term.
  3. We are libertarian, they believe true libertarians are leftists
  4. There is objective logic behind the ideology, saying "hey corporatists, why do you support x" can often result in claims of a strawman as everyone has different views (as does asking socialists why they support y or communists z)

I'm not going to try to get into a debate about who we the true anarchists or libertarians but you can probably guess my views, whenever I've talked about it before it ends up being "the word was invented here and supported neither position" followed by "but in x time period it became popular to support me" and then "that's after y time period when it supported me" etc. etc. with nobody agreeing on what would be needed to fill the burden of proof before doing it.

3
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

2 and 3 basically say they're butthurt over intellectual property.

0
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

especially once it's realized that "Property is Theft"

0
cavilier210Anarcho-Capitalist•

No, your very existence is theft. Every pound of food you eat, every gallon of water you drink, every breath of air you take is a resource that could have been used by someone else. The problem with your kind is you believe everything is controllable, and that you have a right to everything. Life must be constant pain for you. No wonder so many of you guys suffer from mental health issues.

1
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

The problem with your kind is you believe everything is controllable,

better get back to those Freud textbooks. You're clueless.

2
yhynyeAnti-Capitalist•

Probably the same reason ancaps are so fixated on socialists.

That presumably being the reason you think this shitposting, and all your other shitposting, is worthwhile.

3
AnthonyParchman•

Because they ignore all negative market externalities, and pass them off as somehow the fault of the state. The logical conclusion of an ancap society is a single vertically integrated mega cooperation with central planning, you invented socialsm and in the process destroyed the environment, and killed millions.

3
RandomCapitalistOP•

Oh that's reasonable thanx

0
BernardMandavilleCapitalism is a complex adaptive system•

From what I've seen there is a kind of young person(15-25) wants to understand politics and find an ideological club to belong to. Most of them join based on online interactions. In the case of Ancaps there seem to be very few who were persuaded by reading Machinery of Freedom. By contrast many objectivists were persuaded by reading Atlas Shrugged. Because many ancaps don't have any grounding in the ideas they represent, it makes them easy targets for questions that may well have an answer if they ever bothered to look.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

Seems to me that ancaps, even young ones who are poor at debating, present a much more concise body ethic than socialists who can't even agree on what socialism or capitalism mean lol

3
BernardMandavilleCapitalism is a complex adaptive system•

That one is a bit hard to judge, generally the knowledge base is poor so you see a lot of people flipping between ideologies like TV channels as they never really learn any of the arguments required to become more fixed. It is possible that no existing ideology offers a satisfactory explanation of political systems, and it is just sunk cost fallacy holding people in place. That said some ideologies are more obviously wrong than others, just harder to tell which is right.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

Agreed.

Too many people are look for one ideology to "bind them all"

1
BernardMandavilleCapitalism is a complex adaptive system•

What I would like to see is ideologies broken down to there starting axioms and analytical methods and then their conclusions built up. What I have noticed is most ideologies, if not all, do not make explicit acknowledgement of their starting assumptions such that new converts do not even realise they are making those assumptions.

1
PanRagonFair men judge content, wicked men judge flairs•

Rothbardian ethics arent even a very dramatic departure from the deontology of socialists, just the addition of property rights.

Well, that may be part of the reason why. For people that are so far away on the spectrum, they draw from a lot of the same to come to their conclusions. When the conclusions end up being so wildly different, that can be pretty frustrating.

Also, if you just really hate capitalism it’s a lot easier to rag on the guys that love it a lot rather than those that love it in moderate doses.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

It can't be overstated that the "capitalism" ancaps support has nothing to with the Platonic metaphysical construct of capitalism that Marx conjured up and socialists continue to fear.

3
Falsum2Democratic Socialist •

Because they keep showing up in this subreddit. Honestly, I'd rather be debating traditional statist neoliberal capitalists.

2
Lothspell•

What is the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarcho-Capitalist? About 6 months.

2
cogentcomity•

What would replace democracy?

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

I'm not sure something should necessarily replace democracy but at least something should compete with it. People just voting on shit seems pretty archaic to me but it's inescapable that someone seem to worship the practice.

1
cogentcomity•

Well what else would you do? Voting on Trump vs Clinton is useless, obviously, because your vote doesn't matter. What I'd prefer is a sort of direct democracy (everyone votes on issues/laws directly) that has additions to it so it's not the "mob rule" everyone is so scared of. But I'm really curious what you'd suggest and what's wrong with voting as a concept.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

I'd rather just no one else got to vote on what I can or can't do as long as I'm not harming them

1
cogentcomity•

So are you an anarchist? And there's other things to vote on. But I think it's better to keep laws as libertarian as possible while providing a common good.

2
NihilisticHotdogMinarchist•

It's literally mob rule. Just because you deify it doesn't make it something different.

How about embracing minarchism? People acting freely without the coercion of others?

1
cogentcomity•

Who says direct democracy (done well) and people having liberty are mutually exclusive? You're assuming everyone will leave you alone. Every country will leave an anarchist territory alone. Stability doesn't require coercion unless what you're doing hurts others.

What would a minarchist society be like? If that's the only thing unifying people then it sounds pretty unstable.

What am I deifying?

2
kajimeikoPolitical Agnostic w anti-state, agorist and egoist leanings•

I'm not familiar enough with the idea to give a clear overview but Patchwork systems has been proposed. The idea is that with the death of nation states, city states could arise + a proliferation of small competing systems. If you don't like one system you exit and find one that suits you better. Obviously a socialist would see this as competing fiefdoms but i have seen some post leftists play with the idea as well as Nrx people.

1
cogentcomity•

I think that could be interesting and something similar would likely arise in a direct democracy anyways, but for those systems to be cut off from each other (not under one "state") seems highly illogical. They'd all want the military and the same currency at the very least. Besides, there's no way we can go back from states. Especially since America is so nationalistic anyways.

1
Dopecheez-Centrist/Left Capitalist •

There are plenty of non-democratic countries you can move to. The competition you seek already exists.

0
RandomCapitalistOP•

u/metalliska is this some alt account you made to make it seem like you're not the most retarded person in existence?

3
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

Dopecheez has some dope cheese

0
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

Because unlike other liberals, ancaps are completely ignorant of the system they support.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

Oh okay

1
RaminelwolfFuck you and get the fuck out of my way•

Why do you hate freedom?

0
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

movement" that wants to be left alone

By privatizing more and more commons.

So why are internet socialists so utterly fixated on ancaps who mean so little?

It's mainly on this debate sub and on r/libertarian in my experience.

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

What "commons" are you referring to?

I thought Real Socialists viewed the State and it's ownership as just another type of Private Property?

2
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

I thought Real Socialists viewed the State and it's ownership as just another type of Private Property?

Good point. My perspective is that there can (and are) commons between States (such as oceans, pastures, and "air") where people conform to non-hostile rule that isn't directly governed by Money nor Politics.

An "An-cap" might seek to monetize that as soon as possible in the coin of their State.

What "commons" are you referring to?

Digital commons, Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctioning, SeaSteading, Asteroid Parking Lots

1
RandomCapitalistOP•

Good point.

LOL... TFW you have to remind a socialist what theyre actually supposed to fucking believe every time they contradict themselves

None of the "commons" you've listed other than the ocean are fucking commons you idiot.

2
metalliskaMutualist-Orange•

pastures are definitely commons you idiot

2
RuzihmAnti-Capitalist•

They are hilarious. i can't help but think of the story of the ancap who visited some Greek anarchists and got beat up for standing up for property while saying "stop! you're violating the NAP"

hahahaha

2
RandomCapitalistOP•

Solid argument

1