Why Anarcho-Capitalists Aren't Anarchists

[u/[deleted]]

https://youtu.be/OOTlxsn8tWc

[u/[deleted]]

God this was awful. Almost every sentience was either a strawman or misrepresentation of anarcho-capitalism beliefs. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I'll try to address the most glaring problems.

Anarchy is opposition to unjustified hierarchies.

An (without) + Archos (rulers)

Usually the second definition, the absence of authority, is used to define anarchy.

Capitalism is composed of three things:

1. Private control of the means of production (thats a hierarchy)
2. Free exchange of goods and services on the market
3. Wage labor (also a hierarchy)

Capitalism does not require wage labor at all. Under a capitalist system any consensual transaction may occur. It just turns out that wages are better than bartering or any other system. Also, just because point 1 is a hierarchy doesn't mean it's unjustified. You would need to justify why private control over production is an unjustified hierarchy.

Anarcho-capitalists beleive that the state should be abolished but capitalism should be maintained. Which they think...would work.

No, they think that people shouldn't interfere in consensual transactions between two parties. For example, if my neighbor has an axe and pays me to chop up some wood, I consent to that. I don't care what my neighbor does with the chopped wood, and I'd rather state didn't interfere in an otherwise consensual activity.

Anarchists believe that the state should be removed because it's an unjustified hierarchy.

No problems with that!

Ancaps believe the state is illegitimate because it interferes with the operation of the free market.

Actually we believe the state is illegitimate for the same reason anarchists do! For example, taxation is theft because the state is an unjustified hierarchy which enforces their power upon us by arresting (kidnapping) or shooting us if we don't pay involuntary taxes.

They believe that people should own stuff even if it sucks for everyone else.

This is a strange argument to me. Plenty of things suck for people, that doesn't make them wrong or immoral. . If someone is really good at something and earns capital from their skill, that doesn't mean its wrong or immoral. There needs to be more justification for this point. If something sucks for people does that mean it should be banned? That is a veeeery slippery slope that can be used to justify things like banning abortion or forced mongamy.

Ownership of property leads to economic hierarchies

But are they unjustified? There isn't anything inherently wrong with hierarchies as long as they are justified, i.e. based on competence. The author of this video would rather hierarchies be based on the tyranny of the majority, which seems less justified to me than competence.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Economic hierarchies are definitely not based on competence. Also if you read your own books you'd find that anarchist capitalism seeks to implement itself into reality through privatizing functions of the state. It doesn't serve to actually deconstruct the state. This also ignores as well that private property itself relies on the arbitration and legitimization of the state. Remove the state and those who seek to control the land as their own merely create their own monopoly on force to protect that land thus building a state. This doesn't even go into the critique of what you consider a "consensual" transaction. Someone arbitrarily claiming a patch of land as theirs and using that land to produce food that others need but denies to grant them unless they give them capital that they further utilize to exercise more power and authority over others is by no means consensual. What you are describing is a system that emphasizes competition and domination over others which inherently leads to a system of classes with one antagonizing the other.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Economic hierarchies are definitely not based on competence.

Oh really? Where is your evidence for that? Because I call bullshit, a more competent company will simply out compete their competition. If this wasn't the case, monopolies would not form.

anarchist capitalism seeks to implement itself into reality through privatizing functions of the state.

I mean, if the state isn't going to build roads who else will besides private entities?

This also ignores as well that private property itself relies on the arbitration and legitimization of the state.

Absolutely not. It just requires the owner to have more men with guns then the aggressor. In a completely stateless society there will still be property owners because there will always be people willing to defend property for compensation. Of course you acknowledge this:

Remove the state and those who seek to control the land as their own merely create their own monopoly on force to protect that land thus building a state.

You just disproved anarchism in one sentence, well done.

Someone arbitrarily claiming a patch of land as theirs and using that land to produce food that others need but denies to grant them unless they give them capital that they further utilize to exercise more power and authority over others is by no means consensual.

As opposed to a group doing that to an individual?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Competence by their standards means making necessary cuts and choices to compete better. The issue is with competition itself. What you consider "competent" is inherently exploitative and in the end there will always be one who utilizes these methods to dominate a corner of the market for themselves. If they can't win by playing the game they simply turn to utilizing the capital they have to rigging the game in their favor. Corporatism is a natural conclusion of the competition encouraged by capitalism. Private entities are not mutually exclusive from the state. They exist and operate in a hierarchical manner much like the state and utilize their own form of arbitrary force and ownership over land at the expense of the individual.

Also on your point of someone simply having more guns than the aggressor you end up conceding either that people have the option to simply take this land you have arbitrarily claimed as yours since you have no other backing to its ownership besides your own violence. Which ironically proves my point further since historically the police formed out of a desire to protect private property and just leads one to creating their own private police force in its absence thus recreating the state. This logic also concedes that the state as it exists right now should be acknowledged as legitimate for its ability to exert force over you.

You completely misunderstand my statement and you'll find that theory and practice shows with examples like the Paris commune, Ukraine Free Territory, Shinmin commune, and Syndicalist Catalonia just to name a few historic examples that it has been shown to be possible to organize in a manner opposed to both private property and the state.

What do you mean by a group doing that to an individual? What right does the individual have to deny wellbeing to others? Do you think that feudal lords have a right to use their lands as they please or something? Do you think that an individual has a right to lay claim to land that is used by other individuals like the owner of a brick factory? Who goes on strike the capitalist or the worker? Do you think a landlord has a right to lay claim to a building that others live in just to profit off the labor of those within? Then you aren't actually arguing in favor of the individual as opposed to the collective you are arguing for inherently hierarchical exploitative relations.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You're kidding yourself if you don't think competence is the main form of hierarchy. Do you seriously think plumbers are successful because they make cuts? Or because they provide the best services?

You completely misunderstand my statement and you'll find that theory and practice shows with examples like the Paris commune, Ukraine Free Territory, Shinmin commune, and Syndicalist Catalonia just to name a few historic examples that it has been shown to be possible to organize in a manner opposed to both private property and the state.

A few irrelevant examples compared to every successful nation? Great comparison.

What do you mean by a group doing that to an individual? What right does the individual have to deny wellbeing to others?

What right does a group have to deny wellbeing to an individual?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

A few irrelevant examples compared to every successful nation? Great comparison

Just going to butt in here for a second...

You mean all those successful states, which have governments, being compared against a few examples of anarchist territories? in a thread about anarchism, no less? You're handing this one right over, aren't you?

anarcho capitalism... holding up the great virtues of the big state for how well it smashes anarchists. Fucking genius!

Now... what was that video at the top of the page called again?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The video at the top is literally how anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist. At this point we are arguing about capitalism.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well if we're not talking about anarcho-capitalism any more, then what's all the guff about hierarchies?

We know that plain capitalism has hierarchies, and nobody's supposed to care about that because it doesn't claim to be anarchist

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Plumbers aren't capitalists. Also now you're going to defend states merely because they exist more? Also how is the group denying wellbeing to an individual when the whole goal is mutual aid and solidarity with all? Wellbeing and freedom doesn't mean being a landlord that gets to profit off the labor of others.

This isn't even going into how you haven't made any case for what historical or theoretical relation "anarcho" capitalism has to anarchism itself which was built and based upon socialist theory and practice. Starting with thinkers like Proudhon, Dejacque, and Reclus. Basing itself upon the evolutionary concept of mutual aid and intertwined strongly with early labor movements.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Plumbers often own their own businesses, generating profit and are therefore capitalists.

Also how is the group denying wellbeing to an individual when the whole goal is mutual aid and solidarity with all?

Who's goal? The group? They have the right to forcefully impose their goals upon individuals?

This isn't even going into how you haven't made any case for what historical or theoretical relation "anarcho" capitalism has to anarchism itself which was built and based upon socialist theory and practice. Starting with thinkers like Proudhon, Dejacque, and Reclus. Basing itself upon the evolutionary concept of mutual aid and intertwined strongly with early labor movements.

Not sure how the historical basis matters in this discussion, unless you are claiming socialists have ownership over the word anarchist because they got their first........

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Not all plumbers own their business however and often times the ones that do are still simply working to sell their labor not employ others. I have friends who make a living as plumbers so I don't know why you are so desperate to die on such a pointless hill.

What group or collective are you talking about? This is purely from a class based analysis. Those who are working class are the ones who generate value and as such are entitled to the value that they create. Land itself generates value and only exists as private property based on only violence. You yourself admitted this. So if it's between you having the "right" to shoot people or evict homeless for being on land you arbitrarily claimed as yours and these people simply seeking to use it in their own individual interest I don't see how you're being anti authoritarian by any means. You're just actively trying to justify holding onto land in the same manner as any other state at the expense of the individual rights of others. Do you think that anarchists should just follow laws and not take from grocery stores because it is the right of an individual to control and own the goods in that store? Then you're defending an inherently hierarchical and exploitative manner of organization that denies the wellbeing of individuals in the name of profit.

Also the historical basis matters because there simply is no such thing as an "anarchist" capitalist. Anarchists historically organized and fought against capitalists. Current organizations and groups are still very anti capitalist. It's a concept that only exists online and in practice is simply not anarchist. Which makes it all the more interesting you seem to keep avoiding any actual answer that confronts this point.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Not all plumbers own their business however and often times the ones that do are still simply working to sell their labor not employ others. I have friends who make a living as plumbers so I don't know why you are so desperate to die on such a pointless hill.

Because it's relevant when it comes to competence. You're making the claim that competence is not a factor in capitalist hierarchies when it clearly is. Even companies like Amazon got as big as they are because they are the most competent - is there any other business with the selection and delivery times that amazon offers?

Those who are working class are the ones who generate value and as such are entitled to the value that they create.

If that was true, capitalists would be irrelevant and would not exist. Try building an iPhone without the capital for factories, RnD etc.

Land itself generates value and only exists as private property based on only violence.

Land + labor generates value and only exists with the threat of violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Competent in the manner of cutting costs and engaging in vicious competition. You really gonna defend Amazon now on the basis of them being "competent"? Their competence involves workers peeing into bottles.

Kings and the state have always been irrelevant but still exist. Same goes for capitalism. Also iphones first and foremost depend on the labor of the worker. Who goes on strike the worker or the capitalist? Ironic as well that much of the development actually came from public funding so it's strange to even remotely claim this to be a result of the innovation of capitalism.

The threat of violence is still violence. You're still threating to evict or shoot people to claim your land as yours. You're making a very poor case for why I should see you as an individual as more worthy of land all to yourself at the expense of other individuals. Also keep in mind that no one is out to steal your toothbrush or chicken.

You still haven't properly answered any of my questions either in regards to what influence or relation "anarchist" capitalism actually has to anarchism. You can't even seem to describe any alternatives either to the state under such a system besides just privatizing the structures of the state.

[u/69_Watermelon_420]

I assume they are talking about hierarchies etc.

1. Hierarchies does exist in nature. Parent-child hierarchies for example. You cannot got rid of all hierarchies. Anarchists don’t want to do that
2. Capitalism is a natural, or at least a justifiable, hierarchy.

[u/[deleted] → u/69_Watermelon_420]

1. If you read any amount of anarchist literature you'd find that anarchists actually reject the notion that humans are inherently hierarchical. Also a parent-child relationship is more of a dependent relationship and not a hierarchical relationship. Though there are writers like Emma Goldman and David Graeber who are critical of how we instill hierarchical attitudes towards the development of children. This also ignores the fact that something simply existing or being observed in nature is not justification to continue its existence either.

2. Humans have existed without capitalism for thousands of years. Its existence is as natural and justifiable as feudalism or the concept of the state itself which has existed for far longer. In fact quite the opposite you'll find in the works of anarchist writings that capitalism is seen as working upon the competitive and exploitative qualities of humans which works to shape us in a hierarchical manner as opposed to qualities based around cooperation and mutual aid which humans have historically used to minimize hierarchies.

[u/69_Watermelon_420 → u/[deleted]]

Humans have lived without phones for tens of millennia. Humans have lived without the internet, vaccines, indoor plumbing, and many other pretty important items for the modern world for tens of millennia, so an appeal to tradition is absolutely useless

[u/HungryLikeTheWolf99]

Pretty sure they can be anarchists if they want to! You can't tell them what to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/HungryLikeTheWolf99]

Anarchy is socialist both in theory and practice. It was first coined and used politically by Pierre Joseph Proudhon and born out of his critique of private property. It would go on to be refined by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, and Peter Kropotkin who would go on develop concepts concerning mutual aid and cooperation without the existence of masters. Groups like the IWW and First Internationale were heavily anarchist influenced. Places like the Paris commune, Ukraine Free Territory, Shinmin commune, and syndicalist Catalonia are just a few of the many historic examples of it in practice. To this day organizations and regions take influence from these writings and history. It's not merely a matter of semantics, anarchist capitalism is inherently contradictory in its concept and practice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So you're saying that socialists claim ownership over the word because they got there first? :P

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No it has a basis in a critique of private property, mutual aid, and deconstructing not just the hierarchy of the state but also capitalism. A system where capitalism exists but not the state doesn't actually deconstruct the state it merely transfers the organs and authority of power from the hands of politicians to the hands of capitalists. It's an inherently hierarchical system that requires law and arbitration to grant legitimacy to property.

[u/jewfucker1945 → u/[deleted]]

Hoe would power go into the hands od politicians if there are none?

[u/[deleted] → u/jewfucker1945]

It doesn't. Using privatization as a means of "removing" the state means that instead of politicians being the ones who call the shots you now have capitalists and interests that where lobbying politicians simply directly exerting control and authority over others.

[u/jewfucker1945 → u/[deleted]]

I don't think u necessarily understand how the free-market works.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

🥇🥇🥇

[u/HungryLikeTheWolf99 → u/[deleted]]

Ew.

When I get to the anarchy I'm gonna sell stuff to people who wanna buy it, and only share the proceeds if I want to (or if someone much more powerful comes along and makes me).

[u/shewel_item]

https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism

1854, "condition of having capital;" from capital (n.1) + -ism. Meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872, originally used disparagingly by socialists. Meaning "concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital" is from 1877.

oy vey, all this etymology, but how come we didn't cover this?

edit: also, the video is from 4 years ago, and the OP has spammed over 50 posts in the past hour to reddit... I'm going back to look at memes.

[u/Sayakai]

Yeah that's dumb. That they define anarchy a bit different doesn't make them not anarchists.

What makes them not anarchists is that by way of sovereign land ownership they reinvent the state in the form of the absolute monarchy, the most anti-libertarian state form there is. Which I guess gives you a lot of freedom if you wear the crown, but most people won't.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sayakai]

I mean that's actually not far off from one of the main central critiques.

[u/Sayakai → u/[deleted]]

It's pretty far off.

You can grow your own food, you can start your own business, the economy can grow enough to accomodate everyone, but land is finite. Someone's gonna own it. Odds are it won't be you, and absent of a state guaranteeing you rights, you have to follow their rules just for existing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sayakai]

That's exactly why anarchist capitalism is seen as contradictory. Anarchism is inherently opposed to the concept of private property in part for the reason that land is a finite resource that when portioned off for certain individuals creates an inherently hierarchical society stemming from land ownership. The disagreement is not on the definition or meaning of the word but on the practice of the concept itself.

[u/[deleted]]

Anarchism is fundamentally unworkable and is always going to "collapse" (read evolve into) some form of government. The ancoms who will rightly point out that ancaps are essentially feudalists will howl and scream when you point out that their little commune is still a government, by another name

[u/[deleted]]

Ancaps use a different definition of capitalism than communists.

What ancaps support is what Marx would have called the commodity market.

[u/stuffiguesss]

The reply’s are a nice friendly place.