[mikema63]

i think ill keep libertarian, it sounds cooler

i can just rationalize it by telling myself that the socialism that was originally meant is still technically possible in my little ideology.

as to rich you do seem to have a distorted view of libertarians. seems to be a common problem.

[Paradigm]

i think ill keep libertarian, it sounds cooler

That's fine. I was talking to some of my fellow anarchists and saying we should copyright the word "libertarian," thus making you guys finance the revolution by continuing to use it. But then, that would probably violate our emphasis on prefigurative politics.

as to rich you do seem to have a distorted view of libertarians. seems to be a common problem.

What he said described Von Mises perfectly:

[youtube]tkQfK8hn0ds[/youtube]

[mikema63]

That's fine. I was talking to some of my fellow anarchists and saying we should copyright the word "libertarian," thus making you guys finance the revolution by continuing to use it. But then, that would probably violate our emphasis on prefigurative politics.

an anarchist pulling a copyright

edit: an angry moment by mises is hardly evidence that i and most libertarians think milton friedman that stupid socialist. was funny though

[grassroots1]

I think classical liberal is a term that would be more specific and cause less confusion.

[onemalehuman]

If I am not allowed to own my own little shack and do what I want in my own little shack or plot of land then I am not without rulers, it is an idiotic notion to say so.

Oh yeah and capitalists dont rule you, you just enter their property and use their equipment because the reward for doing so is higher than producing on your own, it is trade, you give your labor, the ''capitalist'' gives you access to his equipment and thereby allow you to earn a vastly higher salary than you could earn on your own. It is no more a ruling relationship than a husband and wife being together because they both gain something from the relationship and cooperation.

but this is the core of trading real for reality. This is the divide of ingoring and being ignorant of the new artificial rules applied by theory and theology creating a social justification ignoring is OK but being ignorant of language has no excuse.

This then translates to humanity being superior to remaining a sole human ancestor passing through the compounding moment details are never duplicated and results function as usual which is inversely proportioned from reality's means to an end game of word play all sides of the ruling class employ upon the subjects of civic debate within civil codes of specific design to confuse the Hell into each generation becoming part of Eternity's results compounding now as always naturally balancing everything here on this planet of self contained molecular masses of gaseous, liquid, and mineral states of atomic balance creating the fields of universal constants to energy cannot be created or destroyed as details are never duplicated using the same self contained mass of matter having three states of 120 characteristics added together all the time.

So, when all sides of debate center their arguments between theory and theology while both are incomplete understanding of the ttotal sum single moment, what is the results of multiplying fractions?

It only leads further to never understanding the original point of separation real from reality. Simple compounding interest is the most powerful force in the universe as it can exchange gendered lifetimes to act as society's child every generation until self extinction corrects tipping the scales of natural balance taking place all the time here, NOW.

edit, this theoretical argument is between political and economical axioms leaving out spirituality/religions so this is 2 out of 3 points of separating real from reality as all sides hope nobody notices the ignoring of the whole field of everything adding together.
This is why democracy never worked or will ever function within how real functions all the time.

[SecretSquirrel]

I think classical liberal is a term that would be more specific and cause less confusion.

classical liberal is a broader term than (and spans) anarchist or libertarian

[KlassWar]

Thoughts?

I'd actually welcome anarcho-capitalism (as a short, painful and transitory phase into anarcho-communism): Without the militarized protection of the State and its pigs, the bourgeois would last exactly 20 minutes before being overthrown, expropriated, crushed and forgotten.

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of class enemies willingly blowing up the means of their own class rule.

[Rei Murasame]

KlassWar truly understands my pain, prophetically.

To my middle class friends[?]: please stop this anarcho stuff. Getting trampled by finance capital hurts a lot and we need to do something about that; getting trampled by the proletariat also will really hurt a lot, so we kind of need to not let that happen either.

Do you guys see the problem here?

[grassroots1]

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of class enemies willingly blowing up the means of their own class rule.

I don't think it would happen this way. I think the rhetoric of anarcho-capitalism will be used to further attacks against working people (eliminating labor standards, regulation, social services, the minimum wage, lowering taxes on the rich while increasing them on the poor), while the basic structure of force that forces people to abide by property rights could remain. This is the most frightening thing about anarcho-capitalism, which would probably more accurately be termed fasco-capitalism.

[KlassWar]

Anarcho-capitalists are ready and willing to turn their own security forces into a bunch of warring tribes. The dismantling of the State would make arms control impossible. Nothing would stop the proletariat from arming themselves to the damn teeth... Then you've only gotta wait for the first labor dispute and the whole ancap deal comes crashin' down.

As soon as their thugs do not command a defacto monopoly on organized violence and terror, game's over and the bourgeois lost.


In short? Although the right-'libertarians''s economic programme must be fought on the beaches.... Their attempts to weaken or dismantle the repressive apparatus deserve our undivided support. Temporary alliances of convenience in order to dismantle the police State are probably merited... And nothing stops us from different aliances of convenience to stop the libertarians' abysmal economic programme.

[Rei Murasame]

The amount of damage wrought along the way though, is the thing. The Anarcho-capitalists will have by that time damaged people's health and quality of life in ways that would take decades to recover from, and furthermore, they would have people thinking certain thoughts that are not conducive to social organising, so wouldn't that be a bad thing for you?

[KlassWar]

Quite true: Taking over after an ultracapitalist collapse and a dark age of no-holds-barred pillage is one of the least appealing victory scenarios: About as nasty as ending up ruling over the ruins after a decades-long revolutionary war. (The good victory scenarios go from riding the wave of popular discontent right to an overthrowal (best) to a bloody revolution) It would be much better for the proletariat to become top dog. without first needing to suffer total collapse on their own skins as a wake-up call. The sooner working class consciousness gets critical mass, the better.

Then again, capitalism has already inflicted enough damage that it'll take generations to recover from it. We've survived centuries of capitalism and we would survive a full-blown socioeconomic collapse. Whether we'll have to endure more punishment before we win is basically up to the masses. How much are they willing to endure before risin' up and saying enough is enough? That's what we'll all have to suffer.

As for the unproductive thoughts, I'm not particularly worried: Backward moralism require an iron fist to enforce. As long as they stop smashing the nail that stands out, their crappy reactionary bourgeois society will crumble. Their liberal bull is likely to get discredited by its abysmal results. Besides, if a brazen ethos of pure self-interest is preached, those that preach working class supremacy are gonna have a field day.

[Kman]

^That is a very nice story Klasswar, it is too bad that the real world doesnt work like you describe it.

[mikema63]

cant you guys just go live somewhere else? build your own society a few miles away and anyone dissatisfied with either could move, no need to arm the proletariat if they can just leave to go live in your wonderful workers paradise, that way nobody has to actually die.

eliminating labor standards, regulation, social services, the minimum wage, lowering taxes on the rich while increasing them on the poor

you do realize the "no government" part of anarcho-capitalism means no taxes at all.

I'd actually welcome anarcho-capitalism (as a short, painful and transitory phase into anarcho-communism): Without the militarized protection of the State and its pigs, the bourgeois would last exactly 20 minutes before being overthrown, expropriated, crushed and forgotten.

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of class enemies willingly blowing up the means of their own class rule.

why violence? why not just make your own society away from ours.

[Someone5]

cant you guys just go live somewhere else? build your own society a few miles away and anyone dissatisfied with either could move, no need to arm the proletariat if they can just leave to go live in your wonderful workers paradise, that way nobody has to actually die.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the ruling class will not relinquish control of any territory, nor allow such a society to function within its borders without bowing to the will of the state. In short, there is no where to go. And even if there were, the ruling class would simply demand that it too fall under their control and stake their claim by force.

you do realize the "no government" part of anarcho-capitalism means no taxes at all.

Pretty sure that why the poster was talking about "anarcho-capitalist rhetoric"; the anarcho-capitalism would be used a as a thin justification for harsher looting of the working class by the property-enforcing state.

why violence? why not just make your own society away from ours. :?:

Because capitalists can't allow that to happen; they can abide no functional alternative to their system--otherwise their fiction about capitalism being the lesser evil shows itself to be false and the basis for their rule collapses.

[SecretSquirrel]

voluntaryism

[anticlimacus]

One must also consider that "being without rulers" can also include democratic organizations . It doesn't mean that there are no elected decision making bodies. Anarchism rejects any centralized state and centralization of power. It does not seem difficult it conceive of a world without a centralized state apparatus, even if difficult to achieve.

Ancaps, of course, as has been well expressed by others in the thread, have no problem with "top down" authoritarianism--just as long as it's done under the guise of "freedom" of free markets. And on that note, what's ironic is that the original debate was between socialists: The question was who was the true socialist, the anarchist or the Marxist etc. , not who was the true anarchist the capitalist or the leftist...

[nucklepunche]

Why is it that no stateless society in history has had an institution of private property?

[MaxStirner]

Anarcho-capitalists, while being against the state in its current (or some other theorized) form, uphold a set of arches, absolute values or axioms that cannot ever be denied or even questioned. Of course I am talking about their concepts of property and private property rights. Anarchism in its most abstract sense seems to be an-arche, without authority, without absolute rules, so i'd say it's hard to be an anarchist if you dogmatically restraining yourself that way.

Yet to refute myself... I don't believe that any group has a copyright on the term "anarchy". Seriously. Who gave me or you that exclusivity?

So let us all be called anarchists. What we seem to have in common is that we are against the state, whatever that might mean. Some are sworn to private property rights, some are not, its all good.

[Someone5]

Why is it that no stateless society in history has had an institution of private property?

Private property is dependent upon a state, or at least central organizations acting in the same basic capacity as a state. Without an organization to record property claims, adjudicate property disputes, and enforce property claims against violation, how can private property even exist?

Why is private property a problem for stateless models? Because private property is built upon a foundation of force, coercion, and central authority. It can't exist without it.