Anarcho-capitalism makes no sense

[Adamede]

Hey folks,

There have been a few posts that have covered Ancaps pretty well, but I would like to give my two cents. "Anarcho-Capitalism", is a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron. Illogical and Nonsensical... Rubbish.

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. It opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Anarchy means without rulers, and therefore the hierarchical structured and exploitative nature of capitalism is not compatible in any way shape or form with Anarchism.

Typically in an Anarchist society (Mutualism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism & Collective Anarchism) businesses would operate as workers co-operatives through the use of direct democracy and workers self management. This is the opposite to capitalism where a small number of people control a private enterprise, imposing their will on a larger number of workers.

If we were to imagine what an "Ancap" society looks like, the state would be replaced with large monopolistic conglomerates and we would all be working in sweatshops until we expired from exhaustion earning 10 cents an hour... if we were allowed to earn anything at all. There would likely be a privately funded secret police, which would be needed to keep the surplus labour population (the unemployed) in check. It would be a highly stratified society as well as overtly racist and sexist.

The closest example we have to an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society from history are the Nazis.

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

[The Marlborough]

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

Considering that anarchism as an idea and state of society prior to Proudhon's usage goes back nearly 300 years before his, saying anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist is a bit wrong. Also you have cases such as Kowloon Walled City existing which are, at the least, closer to the kind of ideas proposed by anarcho-capitalists than they are to other forms of anarchism.

[Calofas]

Wrong. I already posted a number of historical examples. You just using here anarcho-capitalism as something to attribute to your nr 1 historic enemy.

Your historic examples predate the birth of capitalism. I can't comment on the Free State Bottleneck, because I have never heard of it. It sounds really interesting though and I will go read up on it. However your example of Somalia during its period as a failed state isn't what I would call Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism gives the idea of rampant unimpeded free trade, not warlords murdering people who are possible suppliers, customers or employees. In any Anarchic society there would still be order and law, of which there was clearly none.

And the number 1 historic enemy of Anarchism...well there's quite the choice to choose from, the Marxist-Leninists, the Stalinists, the Liberals, the Capitalists, the Fascists, the Nazis...the list goes on!

Yes.

Wouldn't businesses not exist in mutualist, anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and collective anarchist societies? Corporate bodies would, but not businesses.


This is blatantly false. Like, seriously. You can't just take a label and say "but they wuz nazis!!1!!!"

Corporate bodies, is probably a better terminology for what I was meaning in all honesty. However, a business is just a commercial activity or a person's regular job, profession or trade. A sole trader who's occupation as the only carpenter in a village and reaps the full rewards of his labour (regardless of how he is being rewarded as it could be a moneyless society), you could still call that a business.

Hey if you don't like the historical comparison I made, then give me a better one. I still say that Anarcho Capitalism is rubbish. Not a real thing. It is closer to the far right than anything on the left.

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

This is just wrong. The Nazi's were funded by big business who were terrified of another attempt of a socialist revolution. The far right is where the industrialist, the capitalists and the rich run to when scared of socialism. Lenin called it capitalism in decay after all. And in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century he compares the US economy to that of Germany under Hitler, and do you know what, capitalists flourished! The economy grew quicker under Hitler than FDR. The German stock market out performed the UK, US and France. Whilst most wester democracies where nationalising businesses or providing government jobs programmes the Nazi's were transferring ownership and privatising industry. Thanks to the capitalist policies of Hitler, the 1930s were a great time to be a capitalist in Germany.

Considering that anarchism as an idea and state of society prior to Proudhon's usage goes back nearly 300 years before his, saying anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist is a bit wrong. Also you have cases such as Kowloon Walled City existing which are, at the least, closer to the kind of ideas proposed by anarcho-capitalists than they are to other forms of anarchism.

I said that Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, because it opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Capitalism evolved from Feudalism and Slavery. Capitalism inherited the system of exploitation and the power dynamic from previous economic systems Employer-Employee, Master-Slave, Lord-Peasant. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist because we are dealing with the same hierarchical structure and the power dynamic of the surplus of labour being controlled by a minority over the majority.

I have to give it to you though! Kowloon Walled City is probably the best example modern example we have. However, there are numerous examples of governmental bodies providing services including, drinking water, sewage, education needs for children were provided for and the police did have jurisdiction, however they often did not enforce licensing laws.

...I really wish I added the caveat that I am not a professor of philosophy or Noan Chomsky, this was just my two cents...

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

The Nazis were many things. Ancap was not one of them lol.

[Atheris]

Yes.

Wouldn't businesses not exist in mutualist, anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and collective anarchist societies? Corporate bodies would, but not businesses.


This is blatantly false. Like, seriously. You can't just take a label and say "but they wuz nazis!!1!!!"

Corporate bodies, is probably a better terminology for what I was meaning in all honesty. However, a business is just a commercial activity or a person's regular job, profession or trade. A sole trader who's occupation as the only carpenter in a village and reaps the full rewards of his labour (regardless of how he is being rewarded as it could be a moneyless society), you could still call that a business.

Hey if you don't like the historical comparison I made, then give me a better one. I still say that Anarcho Capitalism is rubbish. Not a real thing. It is closer to the far right than anything on the left.

The examples Nakena posted are pretty good.

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

This is just wrong.

No it isn't.

The Nazi's were funded by big business who were terrified of another attempt of a socialist revolution. The far right is where the industrialist, the capitalists and the rich run to when scared of socialism.

The Nazis practiced fascist corporatism, not capitalism. In fact, the Nazis directly discouraged, fought against, and even denounced capitalism by shutting down independent businesses and preventing a free market economy.

Lenin called it capitalism in decay after all.

Lenin was a moron.

And in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century he compares the US economy to that of Germany under Hitler, and do you know what, capitalists flourished!

Capitalists didn't flourish. Nothing flourised. The Nazi economy was utter rubbish.

The economy grew quicker under Hitler than FDR.

Yeah, but it also sucked.

The German stock market out performed the UK, US and France. Whilst most wester democracies where nationalising businesses or providing government jobs programmes the Nazi's were transferring ownership and privatising industry.

To fund the giants that would fund the war machine. In Nazi Germany, any orporation that didn't fund the war industry was trustbusted. This is basic google.

Thanks to the capitalist policies of Hitler, the 1930s were a great time to be a capitalist in Germany.

They really, really weren't. The Nazi economy was terrible.

[Major-Tom]

I'll never understand anarchs-capitalists. Like, if you're concerned about "big government" and state infringement on your personal rights, then just call it a day and be a libertarian. No need to advocate for something truly bizarre and concerning.

[The Liberated Territories]

This is literally just a circlejerk thread

well there are no more libertarians left on NS, and this is par the course

[Joohan]

No shit, it's not supposed to. It's utopianism for dumb upper middle class white people who have no actual problems.

Hmm... weird. The same people also tend to support socialism

[Stylan]

No shit, it's not supposed to. It's utopianism for dumb upper middle class white people who have no actual problems.

Hmm... weird. The same people also tend to support socialism

Not really. Young upper-middle class kids might, but their parents certainly do not.

[Orostan]

No shit, it's not supposed to. It's utopianism for dumb upper middle class white people who have no actual problems.

Hmm... weird. The same people also tend to support socialism

Yeah, some of them do, but the difference is that every socialist movement in history that takes power and wins isn't led or fought for by those people. The upper middle class wasn't fighting for the Soviets in 1917 or the Chinese Communists in 1949.

[Joohan]

Hmm... weird. The same people also tend to support socialism

Yeah, some of them do, but the difference is that every socialist movement in history that takes power and wins isn't led or fought for by those people. The upper middle class wasn't fighting for the Soviets in 1917 or the Chinese Communists in 1949.

Well there really wasnt much but a tiny minority of a middle class in either China or Russia round the time of their revolution. Save for the ruling class, it was really just a tiny middle class and a massive working class population from which support could be drawn from.

[Orostan]

Yeah, some of them do, but the difference is that every socialist movement in history that takes power and wins isn't led or fought for by those people. The upper middle class wasn't fighting for the Soviets in 1917 or the Chinese Communists in 1949.

Well there really wasnt much but a tiny minority of a middle class in either China or Russia round the time of their revolution. Save for the ruling class, it was really just a tiny middle class and a massive working class population from which support could be drawn from.

Okay, and?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'll never understand anarchs-capitalists. Like, if you're concerned about "big government" and state infringement on your personal rights, then just call it a day and be a libertarian. No need to advocate for something truly bizarre and concerning.

They don't care about authoritarianism. They usually just don't want a government that can help others out.

[The Lone Alliance]

Most forms of Anarchy make no sense.

[Eahland]

Anarchocapitalism is the religious belief that paying to have a civilization is bad, because the mystical powers of the free market will keep Lord Humongous from killing you and taking your stuff.

[Adamede]

Wrong. I already posted a number of historical examples. You just using here anarcho-capitalism as something to attribute to your nr 1 historic enemy.

Your historic examples predate the birth of capitalism. I can't comment on the Free State Bottleneck, because I have never heard of it. It sounds really interesting though and I will go read up on it. However your example of Somalia during its period as a failed state isn't what I would call Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism gives the idea of rampant unimpeded free trade, not warlords murdering people who are possible suppliers, customers or employees. In any Anarchic society there would still be order and law, of which there was clearly none.

And the number 1 historic enemy of Anarchism...well there's quite the choice to choose from, the Marxist-Leninists, the Stalinists, the Liberals, the Capitalists, the Fascists, the Nazis...the list goes on!

Yes.

Wouldn't businesses not exist in mutualist, anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and collective anarchist societies? Corporate bodies would, but not businesses.


This is blatantly false. Like, seriously. You can't just take a label and say "but they wuz nazis!!1!!!"

Corporate bodies, is probably a better terminology for what I was meaning in all honesty. However, a business is just a commercial activity or a person's regular job, profession or trade. A sole trader who's occupation as the only carpenter in a village and reaps the full rewards of his labour (regardless of how he is being rewarded as it could be a moneyless society), you could still call that a business.

Hey if you don't like the historical comparison I made, then give me a better one. I still say that Anarcho Capitalism is rubbish. Not a real thing. It is closer to the far right than anything on the left.

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

This is just wrong. The Nazi's were funded by big business who were terrified of another attempt of a socialist revolution. The far right is where the industrialist, the capitalists and the rich run to when scared of socialism. Lenin called it capitalism in decay after all. And in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century he compares the US economy to that of Germany under Hitler, and do you know what, capitalists flourished! The economy grew quicker under Hitler than FDR. The German stock market out performed the UK, US and France. Whilst most wester democracies where nationalising businesses or providing government jobs programmes the Nazi's were transferring ownership and privatising industry. Thanks to the capitalist policies of Hitler, the 1930s were a great time to be a capitalist in Germany.

Considering that anarchism as an idea and state of society prior to Proudhon's usage goes back nearly 300 years before his, saying anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist is a bit wrong. Also you have cases such as Kowloon Walled City existing which are, at the least, closer to the kind of ideas proposed by anarcho-capitalists than they are to other forms of anarchism.

I said that Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, because it opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Capitalism evolved from Feudalism and Slavery. Capitalism inherited the system of exploitation and the power dynamic from previous economic systems Employer-Employee, Master-Slave, Lord-Peasant. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist because we are dealing with the same hierarchical structure and the power dynamic of the surplus of labour being controlled by a minority over the majority.

I have to give it to you though! Kowloon Walled City is probably the best example modern example we have. However, there are numerous examples of governmental bodies providing services including, drinking water, sewage, education needs for children were provided for and the police did have jurisdiction, however they often did not enforce licensing laws.

...I really wish I added the caveat that I am not a professor of philosophy or Noan Chomsky, this was just my two cents...

No. The Nazis weren’t anarchists at all, let alone ancaps.

[Kowani]

Wrong. I already posted a number of historical examples. You just using here anarcho-capitalism as something to attribute to your nr 1 historic enemy.

Your historic examples predate the birth of capitalism. I can't comment on the Free State Bottleneck, because I have never heard of it. It sounds really interesting though and I will go read up on it. However your example of Somalia during its period as a failed state isn't what I would call Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism gives the idea of rampant unimpeded free trade, not warlords murdering people who are possible suppliers, customers or employees. In any Anarchic society there would still be order and law, of which there was clearly none.

And the number 1 historic enemy of Anarchism...well there's quite the choice to choose from, the Marxist-Leninists, the Stalinists, the Liberals, the Capitalists, the Fascists, the Nazis...the list goes on!

Yes.

Wouldn't businesses not exist in mutualist, anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and collective anarchist societies? Corporate bodies would, but not businesses.


This is blatantly false. Like, seriously. You can't just take a label and say "but they wuz nazis!!1!!!"

Corporate bodies, is probably a better terminology for what I was meaning in all honesty. However, a business is just a commercial activity or a person's regular job, profession or trade. A sole trader who's occupation as the only carpenter in a village and reaps the full rewards of his labour (regardless of how he is being rewarded as it could be a moneyless society), you could still call that a business.

Hey if you don't like the historical comparison I made, then give me a better one. I still say that Anarcho Capitalism is rubbish. Not a real thing. It is closer to the far right than anything on the left.

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

This is just wrong. The Nazi's were funded by big business who were terrified of another attempt of a socialist revolution. The far right is where the industrialist, the capitalists and the rich run to when scared of socialism. Lenin called it capitalism in decay after all. And in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century he compares the US economy to that of Germany under Hitler, and do you know what, capitalists flourished! The economy grew quicker under Hitler than FDR. The German stock market out performed the UK, US and France. Whilst most wester democracies where nationalising businesses or providing government jobs programmes the Nazi's were transferring ownership and privatising industry. Thanks to the capitalist policies of Hitler, the 1930s were a great time to be a capitalist in Germany.

Considering that anarchism as an idea and state of society prior to Proudhon's usage goes back nearly 300 years before his, saying anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist is a bit wrong. Also you have cases such as Kowloon Walled City existing which are, at the least, closer to the kind of ideas proposed by anarcho-capitalists than they are to other forms of anarchism.

I said that Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, because it opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Capitalism evolved from Feudalism and Slavery. Capitalism inherited the system of exploitation and the power dynamic from previous economic systems Employer-Employee, Master-Slave, Lord-Peasant. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist because we are dealing with the same hierarchical structure and the power dynamic of the surplus of labour being controlled by a minority over the majority.

I have to give it to you though! Kowloon Walled City is probably the best example modern example we have. However, there are numerous examples of governmental bodies providing services including, drinking water, sewage, education needs for children were provided for and the police did have jurisdiction, however they often did not enforce licensing laws.

...I really wish I added the caveat that I am not a professor of philosophy or Noan Chomsky, this was just my two cents...

This is, for the record, a vast oversimplification of piketty’s work and the historical circumstances

[Mathuvan Union]

No shit, it's not supposed to. It's utopianism for dumb upper middle class white people who have no actual problems.

Or you’re seeing it in the wrong light.
I disagree with Anarcho-capitalism being an Anarcho-syndicalist but it’s not limited to the upper middle class. You all think democracy is great yet North Koreans likely think ‘Democracy is dystopian ideal that is very stupid and will never work’ simply because they live in a highly authoritarian society.
You probably live in a country with a organised and centralised government and therefore don’t understand why anything other than that would exist.
Anarchy isn’t simply chaos, no.

[Cisairse]

The Nazis where many things, but a caps aren’t one of them.

This is just wrong. The Nazi's were funded by big business who were terrified of another attempt of a socialist revolution. The far right is where the industrialist, the capitalists and the rich run to when scared of socialism. Lenin called it capitalism in decay after all. And in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century he compares the US economy to that of Germany under Hitler, and do you know what, capitalists flourished! The economy grew quicker under Hitler than FDR. The German stock market out performed the UK, US and France. Whilst most wester democracies where nationalising businesses or providing government jobs programmes the Nazi's were transferring ownership and privatising industry. Thanks to the capitalist policies of Hitler, the 1930s were a great time to be a capitalist in Germany.

anarcho-capitalism is when you're capitalist and the more capitalist you are the more anarcho-capitalist you are

when you're a whole lot of anarcho-capitalist, that's nazism

[Cordel One]

I don't believe there's any such thing as "libertarian right" as rightist ideologies are hierarchial.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

I don't believe there's any such thing as "libertarian right" as rightist ideologies are hierarchial.

Why not? Hierarchy and liberty can go hand in hand and do so in many places. I think you’re talking about equality moreso than liberty

[Cordel One]

I don't believe there's any such thing as "libertarian right" as rightist ideologies are hierarchial.

Why not? Hierarchy and liberty can go hand in hand and do so in many places. I think you’re talking about equality moreso than liberty

You can't have liberty when you're below a more powerful class.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Anarcho-capitalism isn’t even anarchist as it doesn’t so much as advocate for the abolition of the state so much as it advocates for the shifting of governmental state power from the traditional ‘nationstate’ to privately owned corporations that wouldn’t act like any less like states in the absence of the nationstate as they would carve out territory, impose rule, govern and function as any other state would.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Why not? Hierarchy and liberty can go hand in hand and do so in many places. I think you’re talking about equality moreso than liberty

You can't have liberty when you're below a more powerful class.

Even anarchist realize you can.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Why not? Hierarchy and liberty can go hand in hand and do so in many places. I think you’re talking about equality moreso than liberty

You can't have liberty when you're below a more powerful class.

Yes you can, unless you're starving and destitute. Regardless, Anarcho-Capitalism is detrimental to liberty. It not only would let people starve to death but these "anarchists" tend to support authoritarianism whenever it suits them.