[Happyhippo]

It`s kind of shameful, but I haven`t read much criticism of Anarchism. Probably because we`re such a small group that no one cares about. The only criticism I`ve really read are just by anarchists responding to criticism against Anarchism. Which is not a great way to learn.

It`s probably a bit broad as no anarchist is the same, but if you have some sources to good criticism of Anarchism in general, that would be great. I suppose I look at myself as an Anacho-Syndicalist, so any specific criticism of that would also be great. I could probably search the internet and find tons of criticism, but my time on this planet is limited, so I guess it`s less timeconsuming to just ask here:) Apologies for the extra work you have to do, though.

[Monsieur Psychosis]

Well, there is this:



This is an old edition from the '70s I had the luck to find in a used book store; unfortunately the more recent U.S. edition has a remarkably hideous cover, and I dare not post it here. Some of the contents may be on marxists.org but it's nice to have them in one place.

[Happyhippo]

Fantastic. I`ve actually read some of Marx` and Lenin`s writing on Anarchism, so I know I`m about to get my behind handed to me I agree it`s awesome to have it all in one place.

[ThePublicOpinions]

http://mises.org/daily/2096


http://mises.org/daily/2197



http://blog.mises.org/7904/bastiat-prou ... te-online/

[grassroots1]

Ew, not that kind.

I read part of Chomsky on Anarchism, which is a collection of essays, but that was quite a while ago.

[SecretSquirrel]

If you assume one axiom, the Non-Aggression Principle, then voluntaryist anarchism becomes manifestly the "right" ideology.

Why then waste time reading about it or about criticism of it?

[Fasces]

Define aggression.

[Suska]

just read this if you want to know more
http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[SecretSquirrel]

just read this if you want to know more

...about bullshit and ignorance (socialism) masquerading as anarchism

[Suska]

Sure Squirrel... Some people like to read more than "voluntarism is all you need to know" - I for one don't really care how concise you can make your proposal, I want to know the history and read from the great thinkers, not fap to how genius it is to say as little as possible and still sound like a Libtard.

[SecretSquirrel]

Genius? I'm not sure how the concept that you DO NOT USE PHYSICAL COERCIVE AGGRESSIVE FORCE AGAINST OTHERS is genius.

Because that = voluntaryist anarchism

[Suska]

The supposed genius here is in how you don't like it when people want more than just your political fortune cookie.

The AFAQ is a good primer, if you want more try Proudhon and Chomsky.

[grassroots1]

Anarcho-capitalism is a fairly new ideology, your appropriation of the word anarchism is the new thing here, I think.

[SecretSquirrel]

As a voluntaryist I am sure many of my positions would be fully compatible with anarcho capitalism, though not all. Perhaps that is why you lump me in there.

And as for Anarcho Capitalism, it is much older than socialist anarchism, dating back to ancient chinese philosophy.

[grassroots1]

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=132406&p=13746921#p13746921

[Paradigm]

I don't have so much a well-defined argument against anarchism as a cautious skepticism of their claims. I have yet to see a convincing plan for a workable stateless society.

[SecretSquirrel]

I don't have so much a well-defined argument against anarchism as a cautious skepticism of their claims. I have yet to see a convincing plan for a workable stateless society.

To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved... To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified.

[Happyhippo]

As a voluntaryist I am sure many of my positions would be fully compatible with anarcho capitalism, though not all. Perhaps that is why you lump me in there.

Another reason is your way of defining aggression. Voluntarists should define aggression much wider than your "physical harm" in my opinion, as me luring you into a trap and then giving you the option of me leaving you there to die or helping you out in exchange of you becoming my slave has absolutely zero to do with voluntarism. A lot of authority that arises in a society without a state can take the form of the above example and anarcho-capitalism is ripe with these examples. It`s very easy to lump you in with AnCaps because of this, even though your view on property isn`t absolute.

In short, you are just an apologist for some people with power without questioning how they got that power.

Your non-aggression axiom isn`t an axiom either. You rely on the concept of self-ownership, which isn`t a self-evidently true statement even though I too believe in it, and you justify it by assuming there is a Deity who have given us self-ownership (And thus assume there is a God of some sort, once again you just assume shit) Then you assume that physical harm is the only aggression there is, once again it`s not self-evidently true.

I don't have so much a well-defined argument against anarchism as a cautious skepticism of their claims. I have yet to see a convincing plan for a workable stateless society.

This makes sense to me. To me, anarchism is nothing more than a way to analyze human action, society and history through a lens of hierarchy, which is why the criticisms posted from Mises.org are absolutely garbage. Marx and Engels understood anarchism much better and thus I find their criticism much more convincing.
The fact that we don`t have a blueprint for our society is a weakness, I agree, but I actually agree with SS for once:

To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved

That doesn`t make us convincing, though

[TropicalK]

Happyhippo is not looking for critiques of anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism. He is concerned with anarcho-syndicalism which is of a vastly different nature.

From what I've read, they are believers in the labor theory of value which is entirely discredited.

[Happyhippo]

Happyhippo is not looking for critiques of anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism. He is concerned with anarcho-syndicalism which is of a vastly different nature.

From what I've read, they are believers in the labor theory of value which is entirely discredited.

Actually, any criticism of what can reasonably be put in the libertarian socialism camp is welcome. After all, it`s better to read and think too much than too little