What sort of anarchist are you?

[Airstrip 100]

Nobody has the right to own private property.

Simple, because they didn't earn it.

That's the problem.

[Arajaka]

How is property exploitative when workers voluntarily engage in property exchange?

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.'
-Rosseau

If I put a gun to your head and make all kinds of demands which you then proceed to comply with, aren't you complying voluntarily, too? I mean, you have a choice, right? Participate in my demands, or I blow you away. I'm giving you a choice! Any decision you make is entirely free.

Workers the world over are likewise 'free'. Free to sell their labor power to the parasitic classes, or free to starve.

Personally, I see anarchism as opposition to all forms of tyranny - whether public tyranny or private tyranny.

[Distruzio]

Nobody has the right to own private property.

Simple, because they didn't earn it.

That's the problem.

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

[Airstrip 100]

Nobody has the right to own private property.

Simple, because they didn't earn it.

That's the problem.

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

You can't control who owns their body.

The property that I am talking about is mainly land.

[Arajaka]

Nobody has the right to own private property.

Simple, because they didn't earn it.

That's the problem.

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

No. You are your body. The notion of 'owning' a body comes from the confused Cartesian metaphysics of Locke, who argued that we own property the way the mind owns the body. If you reject mind/body dualism, the foundations of 'private property' themselves become suspect.

[Sovereign Rulers]

I suppose you're right. "Stole" might not be the right word, but it was used by social anarchists a lot earlier before the right wing libertarians started to use it. I fully acknowledge that we have a mixed economy and that the state plays a major role in modern capitalism, but I fail to see how capitalism in general would work out without a state.

Anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." Which is not restricted to specific persons or positions but rather the principle of oppressive coercive rule. Anarchists do not oppose hierarchy, they oppose the institutionalized oppression of the monopolist. The ultimate monopolist is the State. Not necessarily gov't. Gov't can be rules and cultural norms that are voluntarily submitted to. The State is the monopoly of coercive power. Any anarchist who considers hierarchy as his opponent has failed to follow his logic to the end. He has being short-sighted and naive.

When we say "capitalism" we mean a market of mutually beneficial exchanges free of intervention and coercion. Most of us see no need to alter the word "capitalism" or abandon it as the prefix "anarcho-" implies free of the State - freedom from coercion and monopoly.

In other words, anarcho-capitalism is not contradictory as it holds opposition to the State and individual prosperity through mutually beneficial exchanges as paramount to the pursuit of liberty. Surely you have no opposition to two or more individuals freely exchanging their own property free of coercion and compulsion? Neither do we.

Now, many leftists assume that laissez faire is exploitative. They are wrong. It literally means "leave us alone!" And, when applied to the economy, mean business activities free from gov't interventions. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism. Therefore our approach in AnCap cannot be said to mirror the statist quo. Unless the leftist opines the statement that "property rights are exploitative."

The AnCap would respond, as I have in this thread many times, "how?" I've yet to see an actual answer. And I am an active poster on the RevLeft forum as well. This observation holds even there. When I ask "how" property is exploitative, I usually get a confused blurb about someone owned it before the worker had a chance to own it therefore when the worker mixes his labor with it, it should be his. Which is simply silly. Such responders neglect to consider factors of production other than labor. They imply a God-given, intrinsic value of a product, merely b/c it was created by labor (a rather obviously strange position to take considering the usual anti-theistic approach leftists have). No matter how many mud pies you make, no matter how much time you spend making them, they will still be worthless. They also ignore with this silliness the obvious fact that workers voluntarily contract for their labor. How is property exploitative when workers voluntarily engage in property exchange?

I'll quote L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation."

and David Weick's summarization: ""Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique."

This is pretty much repeated in different forms by every social anarchist in their works ranging all the way back to Proudhon. Where did you get your definition?

The option to "voluntarily" selling your labour is not being able to afford either food or shelter. I would not call that a viable option at all.

[The Parkus Empire]

Anarcho-statist.

[Distruzio]

How is property exploitative when workers voluntarily engage in property exchange?

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.'
-Rosseau

If I put a gun to your head and make all kinds of demands which you then proceed to comply with, aren't you complying voluntarily, too? I mean, you have a choice, right? Participate in my demands, or I blow you away. I'm giving you a choice! Any decision you make is entirely free.

Workers the world over are likewise 'free'. Free to sell their labor power to the parasitic classes, or free to starve.

Personally, I see anarchism as opposition to all forms of tyranny - whether public tyranny or private tyranny.

Don't see where I can dispute that! Understanding that the parasites are the political classes and not the "capitalists" or bourgeois.

[Distruzio]

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

You can't control who owns their body.

The property that I am talking about is mainly land.

Then how is land defined? How does one abolish that which they cannot define? You say you cannot that which you do not own, which implies a perspective on property. How is that property defined, according to you? How would you abolish it? I'm not attacking you. I'm asking.

[The Harrowlands]

The only kind of anarchy I've ever been attracted to is anarcho-monarchism, which, as I understand, was the sort of thing J.R.R. Tolkien was into, apparently he used it for the Shire in LOTR.

[Conscentia]

You Scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

Anarcho-Syndicalist
60%
Anarcho-Communist
45%
Anarcha-Feminist
45%
Anarcho-Capitalist
30%
Anarcho-Primitivist
25%
Christian Anarchist
20%

I'm not an anarchist, but I can see how it could be desirable. I just don't like the idea of no government. I am pro-Democratic Technocracy/Meritocracy.

If you ignore the words Anarcho, Anarcha and Anarchist this is a reasonable representation of my beliefs.
(The 20% Christian part would be from my opinion that religion is not true but still contains wisdom which can be recycled and used in a secular society.)

[Jello Biafra]

Anarcho-communist, though I am sympathetic to anarcho-primitivism, anarcha-feminism, and particularly anarcho-syndicalism.

Is there any major difference between syndicalist and communist? Or is it purely aesthetic? I consider myself to sympathise with both those tendencies of the anarchist movement..

EDIT: I am an avowed Anarcho-Trotskyist

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the power of the labor unions can be used to bring about the revolution. An anarcho-communist could also believe this, but anarcho-syndicalists could technically also be mutualists.

[Distruzio]

I'll quote L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation."

and David Weick's summarization: ""Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique."

This is pretty much repeated in different forms by every social anarchist in their works ranging all the way back to Proudhon. Where did you get your definition?

I got it from the dictionary. Which was just a less reactionary way of defining that which the two quotes you cite express succinctly - Anarchism is anti-State. Not necessarily anti-hierarchy (still waiting on that definition, by the way).

The option to "voluntarily" selling your labour is not being able to afford either food or shelter. I would not call that a viable option at all.

Is the individual condemned to work at a single firm for all eternity? Does the individual not have any other marketable skills which he might offer a competing employer? Why is the only option "work or starve?" Obviously, in a market economy, there are many options available to even the most disabled of workers. Even those mentally or otherwise physically impaired can offer their services to employers for a price. I'd like a source for where this single option of "work or starve" exists in a market economy.

[Distruzio]

The only kind of anarchy I've ever been attracted to is anarcho-monarchism, which, as I understand, was the sort of thing J.R.R. Tolkien was into, apparently he used it for the Shire in LOTR.

I'm anarcho-monarchist.

[Jello Biafra]

Nobody has the right to own private property.

Simple, because they didn't earn it.

That's the problem.

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

No. Ownership is an invalid concept.
However, people have personal property (not private property) over their bodies because they use them.

[Distruzio]

Would you suggest that one doesn't have the ability to "earn" your own body? Does no one own their body?

No. You are your body. The notion of 'owning' a body comes from the confused Cartesian metaphysics of Locke, who argued that we own property the way the mind owns the body. If you reject mind/body dualism, the foundations of 'private property' themselves become suspect.

How so. I also reject the notion that my mind, my soul, and my body are separate parts of a whole. Yet I still accept private property. I've never considered this to be an impediment, nor have I ever come across this argument before! How do you substantiate this?

[Sovereign Rulers]

I'll quote L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation."

and David Weick's summarization: ""Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique."

This is pretty much repeated in different forms by every social anarchist in their works ranging all the way back to Proudhon. Where did you get your definition?

I got it from the dictionary. Which was just a less reactionary way of defining that which the two quotes you cite express succinctly - Anarchism is anti-State. Not necessarily anti-hierarchy (still waiting on that definition, by the way).

Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique. This quote specifically mentions that anarchism is more than anti-statism. What is there to define? Anti-hierarchy, opposing hierarchy.

Is the individual condemned to work at a single firm for all eternity? Does the individual not have any other marketable skills which he might offer a competing employer? Why is the only option "work or starve?" Obviously, in a market economy, there are many options available to even the most disabled of workers. Even those mentally or otherwise physically impaired can offer their services to employers for a price. I'd like a source for where this single option of "work or starve" exists in a market economy.

I suppose that's why the movement statistics between classes is so low, or perhaps you blame the state for that?

[Karakna]

You Scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

My results"

Anarcho-Syndicalist
65%
Anarcho-Primitivist
35%
Anarcho-Capitalist
25%
Anarcha-Feminist
20%
Anarcho-Communist
15%
Christian Anarchist
0%


Anarcho-Feminism seems like some anti-male bullshit, to be honest.

[Conscentia]

The only kind of anarchy I've ever been attracted to is anarcho-monarchism, which, as I understand, was the sort of thing J.R.R. Tolkien was into, apparently he used it for the Shire in LOTR.

I'm anarcho-monarchist.

I 'googled' anarcho-monarchism. I found not a single understandable definition. Please provide a simple definition.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm anarcho-monarchist.

I 'googled' anarcho-monarchism. I found not a single understandable definition. Please provide a simple definition.

Anarchy with people in charge for not but ceremonial purposes.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

You Scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

My results"

Anarcho-Syndicalist
65%
Anarcho-Primitivist
35%
Anarcho-Capitalist
25%
Anarcha-Feminist
20%
Anarcho-Communist
15%
Christian Anarchist
0%


Anarcho-Feminism seems like some anti-male bullshit, to be honest.

It's anarcha-feminism for one. It's only "anti-male" in the sense that it rejects male privilege, which doesn't discriminate against men, even if it provokes butthurt among misogynistic traditionalists.

[Distruzio]

I'm anarcho-monarchist.

I 'googled' anarcho-monarchism. I found not a single understandable definition. Please provide a simple definition.

Economic anarcho-capitalist who favors dandyism as a cultural rejection of egalitarianism and rejects democracy as tyranny and anti-civilization.

[Karakna]

You Scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

My results"

Anarcho-Syndicalist
65%
Anarcho-Primitivist
35%
Anarcho-Capitalist
25%
Anarcha-Feminist
20%
Anarcho-Communist
15%
Christian Anarchist
0%


Anarcho-Feminism seems like some anti-male bullshit, to be honest.

It's anarcha-feminism for one. It's only "anti-male" in the sense that it rejects male privilege, which doesn't discriminate against men, even if it provokes butthurt among misogynistic traditionalists.

If it didn't seem to imply men were evil, and the source of all problems maybe I would agree.

[New Rogernomics]

Anarcho-Capitalist, though I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist; as it's still an ordered system with a economic and social hierarchy.

[Distruzio]

Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique. This quote specifically mentions that anarchism is more than anti-statism. What is there to define? Anti-hierarchy, opposing hierarchy.

Once more, I agree that it is more than mere Statism.

The definition I await, is the definition for hierarchy. What do you mean when you say you oppose it?

I suppose that's why the movement statistics between classes is so low, or perhaps you blame the state for that?

The only classes I see are the political class (the expropriators) and the taxed class (the expropriated). Businessmen can be one or the other or even both a differing times or in differing circumstances. So can the welfare recipient. Aside from that, I'd need proof that movement between classes is rare. B/c the last time I checked, poor in America, is fucking opulent in most of the world.