The Ancap-Ancom Divide.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

I am a Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalist/Agorist, whatever. I have been active at discussing my view, and like to make people (especially statists) question their viewpoints.

I love debating Anarcho Communists and Syndicalists because we wind up agreeing 99% of the time. I have many great Ancom friends.

Yet, there is a brutal divide in the anarchist school of thought between Ancoms and Ancaps. Add in the other anarchist schools and it becomes positively ridiculous the amount of infighting.

YET, I do not see why there is any. A true anarchist feels no need for a state.

Therefore, all of us would form communities based upon voluntary association, then trade amongst each other. Or stay away from each other. Doesn't really matter which.

So why all the infighting? We are friends are we not? Our common enemy is the state. Without it, we are free.

[Kainesia]

They are as insane and unworkable as each other.

How can you have communism without a government to enforce it?

How can you eliminate the entire public sector and not destroy the economy?

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I don't see the point in labeling ideologies as "anarcho capitalist" or "anarcho communist." In an anarcho communist society, there is no state to ensure that the profit motive is banned. Likewise, in an anarcho capitalist society, there is no state to ensure that collectives and co-operatives don't exist. Frankly, there's just anarchism.

[Skeckoa]

From the point of an anarcho_communist, it really just boils down to the definition of "property" and "force".

Ancoms do not recognize private property. Recognition of such is fundamental to ancapitalism.

Ancaps define "rulers" as political ones (and anarchy as being "without rulers"). Ancoms consider bosses as rulers as well (and anarchism as "freedom from hierarchy"). Chomsky called it "unaccountable tyranny" Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

Ancoms can believe in violent revolution in order to achieve anarchy, all though not all do. Ancaps do not because of the respect for private property. This is why left anarchist break windows in protests, its annoying and twists the money making teat of those in power (not all, mind you). Ancaps most likely wouldn't because breaking a 7-11 window is damaging property unfairly.

Ancoms would support state actions that support workers as means to a free end as opposed to the ends in on themselves. Ancaps would usually not support things like government labor laws or minimum wage and consider them government force and a bastardizing of capitalism.

There are generalizations mind you. Feel free to correct me. Be nice.

EDIT: As for coexistence, the Ancap believes that coexistence is an option given that everything is voluntary . Ancoms consider capitalism abusive, hence, it can not exist in a free anarchic world.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

I don't see the point in labeling ideologies as "anarcho capitalist" or "anarcho communist." In an anarcho communist society, there is no state to ensure that the profit motive is banned. Likewise, in an anarcho capitalist society, there is no state to ensure that collectives and co-operatives don't exist. Frankly, there's just anarchism.

And that is what I think.

You are right on.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I don't see the point in labeling ideologies as "anarcho capitalist" or "anarcho communist." In an anarcho communist society, there is no state to ensure that the profit motive is banned. Likewise, in an anarcho capitalist society, there is no state to ensure that collectives and co-operatives don't exist. Frankly, there's just anarchism.

And that is what I think.

You are right on.

Then the main difference between us is as to whether or not we desire such societies.

[Kainesia]

I don't see the point in labeling ideologies as "anarcho capitalist" or "anarcho communist." In an anarcho communist society, there is no state to ensure that the profit motive is banned. Likewise, in an anarcho capitalist society, there is no state to ensure that collectives and co-operatives don't exist. Frankly, there's just anarchism.

Well the idea of anarcho capitalism is to basically not give a flying fuck about what people do with their resources, if they want to form communes and co-operatives, ANCAPS aren't too bothered about that.

The problem is without government and taxes there is no government spending, and that will mess up the economy big time. Aggregate demand will fall through the floor. Nobody will benefit from anarchy of any kind.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

From the point of an anarcho_communist, it really just boils down to the definition of "property" and "force".

Ancoms do not recognize private property. Recognition of such is fundamental to ancapitalism.

Ancaps define "rulers" as political ones (and anarchy as being "without rulers"). Ancoms consider bosses as rulers as well (and anarchism as "freedom from hierarchy"). Chomsky called it "unaccountable tyranny" Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

Ancoms can believe in violent revolution in order to achieve anarchy, all though not all do. Ancaps do not because of the respect for private property. This is why left anarchist break windows in protests, its annoying and twists the money making teat of those in power (not all, mind you). Ancaps most likely wouldn't because breaking a 7-11 window is damaging property unfairly.

Ancoms would support state actions that support workers as means to a free end as opposed to the ends in on themselves. Ancaps would usually not support things like government labor laws or minimum wage and consider them government force and a bastardizing of capitalism.

There are generalizations mind you. Feel free to correct me. Be nice.

But see, I visualize a world where, once the state is overthrown, that communes and market communities can peacefully coexist.

When I talk to ancoms in real life, that is typically how they see it as well. On the internet you get a lot of BS from extremists.

[Skeckoa]

From the point of an anarcho_communist, it really just boils down to the definition of "property" and "force".

Ancoms do not recognize private property. Recognition of such is fundamental to ancapitalism.

Ancaps define "rulers" as political ones (and anarchy as being "without rulers"). Ancoms consider bosses as rulers as well (and anarchism as "freedom from hierarchy"). Chomsky called it "unaccountable tyranny" Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

Ancoms can believe in violent revolution in order to achieve anarchy, all though not all do. Ancaps do not because of the respect for private property. This is why left anarchist break windows in protests, its annoying and twists the money making teat of those in power (not all, mind you). Ancaps most likely wouldn't because breaking a 7-11 window is damaging property unfairly.

Ancoms would support state actions that support workers as means to a free end as opposed to the ends in on themselves. Ancaps would usually not support things like government labor laws or minimum wage and consider them government force and a bastardizing of capitalism.

There are generalizations mind you. Feel free to correct me. Be nice.

But see, I visualize a world where, once the state is overthrown, that communes and market communities can peacefully coexist.

When I talk to ancoms in real life, that is typically how they see it as well. On the internet you get a lot of BS from extremists.

I'm just typing out anarcho_communism as I understand it. Not that I disagree with you or anything, this is just what I have encountered from the dozen internet companions and some train station preachers in the Bay Area I talk to.

It'd be like an abolitionist "coexisting" with slave plantations. Sounds silly, doesn't it? That's how it sounds to ancoms.

[Kainesia]

From the point of an anarcho_communist, it really just boils down to the definition of "property" and "force".

Ancoms do not recognize private property. Recognition of such is fundamental to ancapitalism.

Ancaps define "rulers" as political ones (and anarchy as being "without rulers"). Ancoms consider bosses as rulers as well (and anarchism as "freedom from hierarchy"). Chomsky called it "unaccountable tyranny" Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

Ancoms can believe in violent revolution in order to achieve anarchy, all though not all do. Ancaps do not because of the respect for private property. This is why left anarchist break windows in protests, its annoying and twists the money making teat of those in power (not all, mind you). Ancaps most likely wouldn't because breaking a 7-11 window is damaging property unfairly.

Ancoms would support state actions that support workers as means to a free end as opposed to the ends in on themselves. Ancaps would usually not support things like government labor laws or minimum wage and consider them government force and a bastardizing of capitalism.

There are generalizations mind you. Feel free to correct me. Be nice.

But see, I visualize a world where, once the state is overthrown, that communes and market communities can peacefully coexist.

When I talk to ancoms in real life, that is typically how they see it as well. On the internet you get a lot of BS from extremists.

Without a state, what stops one group from taking over all the others and forming a new state?

[Liberty and Linguistics]

From the point of an anarcho_communist, it really just boils down to the definition of "property" and "force".

Ancoms do not recognize private property. Recognition of such is fundamental to ancapitalism.

Ancaps define "rulers" as political ones (and anarchy as being "without rulers"). Ancoms consider bosses as rulers as well (and anarchism as "freedom from hierarchy"). Chomsky called it "unaccountable tyranny" Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

Ancoms can believe in violent revolution in order to achieve anarchy, all though not all do. Ancaps do not because of the respect for private property. This is why left anarchist break windows in protests, its annoying and twists the money making teat of those in power (not all, mind you). Ancaps most likely wouldn't because breaking a 7-11 window is damaging property unfairly.

Ancoms would support state actions that support workers as means to a free end as opposed to the ends in on themselves. Ancaps would usually not support things like government labor laws or minimum wage and consider them government force and a bastardizing of capitalism.

There are generalizations mind you. Feel free to correct me. Be nice.

But see, I visualize a world where, once the state is overthrown, that communes and market communities can peacefully coexist.

When I talk to ancoms in real life, that is typically how they see it as well. On the internet you get a lot of BS from extremists.

Internet an-coms always tell me that there will be no desire for markets once the "ebul state" is overthrown. Unfortunately, they don't realize that unless every single member of an anarchist society is chill with the idea of co-existing on communes, that markets and states will form again. The same can be said for anarcho capitalism. Without a state, who's stopping disgruntled people from forming a state?

[Conglomerate of Iron]

I don't see the point in labeling ideologies as "anarcho capitalist" or "anarcho communist." In an anarcho communist society, there is no state to ensure that the profit motive is banned. Likewise, in an anarcho capitalist society, there is no state to ensure that collectives and co-operatives don't exist. Frankly, there's just anarchism.

Well the idea of anarcho capitalism is to basically not give a flying fuck about what people do with their resources, if they want to form communes and co-operatives, ANCAPS aren't too bothered about that.

The problem is without government and taxes there is no government spending, and that will mess up the economy big time. Aggregate demand will fall through the floor. Nobody will benefit from anarchy of any kind.

Did you just mention "aggregate demand"?

Lol. Please do not mention such Paul Krugman bs ever again. Keynesian economics are what happens when you write theories while smoking crack cocaine.

Government does not create wealth, it only steals it.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But see, I visualize a world where, once the state is overthrown, that communes and market communities can peacefully coexist.

When I talk to ancoms in real life, that is typically how they see it as well. On the internet you get a lot of BS from extremists.

Internet an-coms always tell me that there will be no desire for markets once the "ebul state" is overthrown. Unfortunately, they don't realize that unless every single member of an anarchist society is chill with the idea of co-existing on communes, that markets and states will form again. The same can be said for anarcho capitalism. Without a state, who's stopping disgruntled people from forming a state?

I actually have no problems with small city states, as long as no empires form and try to take my land.


If they do I am blowing things up. Just sayin.

[Arcturus Novus]

Personally, a society without a state seems like it'd fail, IMO. But for the topic's sake, I don't think two groups with economic ideologies on two opposite ends of a spectrum are going to get along very well, despite their common anarchist interests.

[Skeckoa]

Without a state, what stops one group from taking over all the others and forming a new state?

This thread is about comparing ancapism and ancomism, not about explaining what they are or how it would work, so I will try to minimize the explaining.

People are free to make states, they just have to be voluntary. Here is a short article on this, this question pops up a lot

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Personally, a society without a state seems like it'd fail, IMO. But for the topic's sake, I don't think two groups with economic ideologies on two opposite ends of a spectrum are going to get along very well, despite their common anarchist interests.

Actually, if you kindly took a look at anarchist theories, you would see a stateless society is very possible. It has happened before if you look at history. Anarchist Catalonia is an example, and Iceland was an anarchist area for a while.

[Atomic Utopia]

Well the idea of anarcho capitalism is to basically not give a flying fuck about what people do with their resources, if they want to form communes and co-operatives, ANCAPS aren't too bothered about that.

The problem is without government and taxes there is no government spending, and that will mess up the economy big time. Aggregate demand will fall through the floor. Nobody will benefit from anarchy of any kind.

Did you just mention "aggregate demand"?

Lol. Please do not mention such Paul Krugman bs ever again. Keynesian economics are what happens when you write theories while smoking crack cocaine.

Government does not create wealth, it only steals it.

It also corrects for the externalities of various actions and invests in a police force to defend all businesses, not just those that can pay.

And please do not tell me that the police company in an ancap society would work for free.

[Farnhamia]

Personally, a society without a state seems like it'd fail, IMO. But for the topic's sake, I don't think two groups with economic ideologies on two opposite ends of a spectrum are going to get along very well, despite their common anarchist interests.

Actually, if you kindly took a look at anarchist theories, you would see a stateless society is very possible. It has happened before if you look at history. Anarchist Catalonia is an example, and Iceland was an anarchist area for a while.

Catalonia was never anarchist. There were Anarchists in the Catalan government, a choice between what they considered the lesser of two evils, the State or the State Run By Franco.

[Kainesia]

Well the idea of anarcho capitalism is to basically not give a flying fuck about what people do with their resources, if they want to form communes and co-operatives, ANCAPS aren't too bothered about that.

The problem is without government and taxes there is no government spending, and that will mess up the economy big time. Aggregate demand will fall through the floor. Nobody will benefit from anarchy of any kind.

Did you just mention "aggregate demand"?

Lol. Please do not mention such Paul Krugman bs ever again. Keynesian economics are what happens when you write theories while smoking crack cocaine.

Government does not create wealth, it only steals it.

Sorry, but what qualifications do you have in economics? It's not rocket science, government creates jobs and pays wages, people receive wages and spend it.

Why do you think the U.S government is running a deficit? Because they are putting more money into the economy than they are taking out. That doesn't sound like stealing to me.

You take away the public sector, and you destroy millions of jobs, and with no government welfare either, then you really will have anarchy. The burning, looting kind.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Personally, a society without a state seems like it'd fail, IMO. But for the topic's sake, I don't think two groups with economic ideologies on two opposite ends of a spectrum are going to get along very well, despite their common anarchist interests.

Actually, if you kindly took a look at anarchist theories, you would see a stateless society is very possible. It has happened before if you look at history. Anarchist Catalonia is an example, and Iceland was an anarchist area for a while.

These are horrible examples. Catalonia was in a state of war, and was hardly successful. Granted, the war wasn't caused by the lack of a state. Rather, the war caused a lack of a state with conflicting ideologies trying to take control over the region. Some areas were controlled by anarchists, others by statist Francoists, and some by socialists.

Medieval Iceland lacked a state, yes. But, they also lacked a significant population and any real ideological differences.

[The New Sea Territory]

Oh Jeebus.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Did you just mention "aggregate demand"?

Lol. Please do not mention such Paul Krugman bs ever again. Keynesian economics are what happens when you write theories while smoking crack cocaine.

Government does not create wealth, it only steals it.

It also corrects for the externalities of various actions and invests in a police force to defend all businesses, not just those that can pay.

This is off topic, but I will humor this momentarily.

The business owner not only can have a private security force, but can have a gun and have the employees possess firearms.

Besides, that police force is cutting into their revenues by forcibly jailing pot smokers and taxing the businesses to pay or it.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Did you just mention "aggregate demand"?

Lol. Please do not mention such Paul Kruwagman bs ever again. Keynesian economics are what happens when you write theories while smoking crack cocaine.

Government does not create wealth, it only steals it.

Sorry, but what qualifications do you have in economics? It's not rocket science, government creates jobs and pays wages, people receive wages and spend it.

Why do you think the U.S government is running a deficit? Because they are putting more money into the economy than they are taking out. That doesn't sound like stealing to me.

You take away the public sector, and you destroy millions of jobs, and with no government welfare either, then you really will have anarchy. The burning, looting kind.

All of which is funded through theft from businesses that actually produce marketable goods and services.

Privatize roads, police, etc. People will be hired from private sector.

[The New Sea Territory]

Ancaps have no philosophical issue with hierarchy as long as its voluntary. Ancoms have a different view of what is "voluntary".

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure."

-Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

Anarchists of all shapes and sizes generally see "voluntary" the same.

Social Anarchists see capitalism as coercive due to its exclusive nature as an economic system. Where mutualism, collectivism, syndicalism, communism and primitivism can coexist, capitalists generally speaking are unwilling to do so, outside of the NSG Ancap Community. If capitalism is the only system that can exist, it is, by it's existence, coercive.

[The New Sea Territory]

Catalonia was never anarchist. There were Anarchists in the Catalan government, a choice between what they considered the lesser of two evils, the State or the State Run By Franco.

There were de facto anarchist territories of Catalonia.