What is Anarchism?

[an anarchist]

Question. What is Anarchism?
Question. Can a socialist and a capitalist both be anarchists?
If you ask Google what the definition of anarchism is, it says belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
What is the difference between a socialist and a capitalist? A capitalist thinks all property should be privatized, while a socialist thinks all property should be public. Simplification, sure, but each position has a lot of implication.
Me thinks that if there is public property, that implies an existence of a State. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Joining RF, I’ve been surprised to find that people are telling me that anarchism implies socialism. I’ve also been surprised to have been told that capitalism is not anarchist. This site has given me lots of surprises, though, the first one being the surprise that I’m not that smart.
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Are there any anarcho-socialists here? If so, how would a socialist society exist in the absence of the State? Do we understand anarchism differently? Or are we both anarchists, with different economic view points? Can you counter by saying private property implies the existence of a State?

 

[Heyo]

Question. What is Anarchism?
Question. Can a socialist and a capitalist both be anarchists?
If you ask Google what the definition of anarchism is, it says belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
What is the difference between a socialist and a capitalist? A capitalist thinks all property should be privatized, while a socialist thinks all property should be public. Simplification, sure, but each position has a lot of implication.
Me thinks that if there is public property, that implies an existence of a State. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Joining RF, I’ve been surprised to find that people are telling me that anarchism implies socialism. I’ve also been surprised to have been told that capitalism is not anarchist. This site has given me lots of surprises, though, the first one being the surprise that I’m not that smart.
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Are there any anarcho-socialists here? If so, how would a socialist society exist in the absence of the State? Do we understand anarchism differently? Or are we both anarchists, with different economic view points? Can you counter by saying private property implies the existence of a State?

Anarchism is the absence of an authoritative ruler. Not less, not more. It is not the absence of a state nor is it the absence of law or rules.
Aside from the discomfort with authoritarianism, an anarchist can have all kinds of opinions about ownership. When you imagine the political compass, anarchists populate all of the bottom of the graph. (Though, especially in the US, those on the right prefer the label "libertarian".)

I am on the left bottom side of the compass, though I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I prefer the label anarcho-syndicalist. I recognize that anarcho-capitalists exist, I just think they are wrong. Private ownership of production facilities gives power to the owner, too much power for my taste.

No power - for no-one!

 

[SomeRandom]

From what little I know as a baby wannabe anarchist, anarchists seem to absolute hate anarcho- capitalists on principle alone lol
Not that I hate anyone, like believe whatever you like, I don’t really care.

But in my limited understanding, anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be “actual anarchism” because they are literally against capitalism from the offset. Seeing the entire system as “unjust.”

Anarcho-socialism is seemingly more accepted in anarchist spaces, possibly because socialists generally take at least some umbrage with capitalism. To some extent.

Im not saying that’s fair. Just what I’ve witnessed.

Though I freely acknowledge my limits with regards with actual political theory.
(I’ll get my homework done soon, okay?)

 

[joe1776]

Question. What is Anarchism?
Question. Can a socialist and a capitalist both be anarchists?
If you ask Google what the definition of anarchism is, it says belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
What is the difference between a socialist and a capitalist? A capitalist thinks all property should be privatized, while a socialist thinks all property should be public. Simplification, sure, but each position has a lot of implication.
Me thinks that if there is public property, that implies an existence of a State. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Joining RF, I’ve been surprised to find that people are telling me that anarchism implies socialism. I’ve also been surprised to have been told that capitalism is not anarchist. This site has given me lots of surprises, though, the first one being the surprise that I’m not that smart.
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Are there any anarcho-socialists here? If so, how would a socialist society exist in the absence of the State? Do we understand anarchism differently? Or are we both anarchists, with different economic view points? Can you counter by saying private property implies the existence of a State?

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor which, in my opinion, must be governed. So, I can't see how anarchy is possible.

How much power should the government have? This, to me, is an easy question to answer. If the government is an efficient decision-making system, making the right policy decisions, it should have all the power it needs to implement those policies. If it is a corrupt and inefficient system, it should have no power at all. It should be abandoned.

The problem facing the world is that we have yet to invent an efficient governing system. The best we can say is that some governments aren't as bad as others. So, we can't dump the existing systems yet.

As for the economy, currently the mixed economies are the best we can do. The free market works OK dealing with manufactured products because it's more difficult to sell fraud. Services, like health care, are better done by socialist means even if they are poorly managed because the fraud in a market-based system is massive.

 

[an anarchist]

But in my limited understanding, anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be “actual anarchism” because they are literally against capitalism from the offset. Seeing the entire system as “unjust.”

A capitalist, such as myself, views capitalism as nothing more than voluntary exchanges. Are these other anarchists against voluntary exchanges? I wonder. Perhaps the socialist has a different definition of capitalism than the capitalist does, because again, the capitalist defines it simply as “voluntary exchange”. How can one be against that?

 

[SomeRandom]

A capitalist, such as myself, views capitalism as nothing more than voluntary exchanges. Are these other anarchists against voluntary exchanges? I wonder. Perhaps the socialist has a different definition of capitalism than the capitalist does, because again, the capitalist defines it simply as “voluntary exchange”. How can one be against that?

I see your point.
I think because anarchists on average tend to view capitalism as a structure with inherent force.
Like you can technically choose not to participate, sure. But the consequences are usually pretty dire, so much so that the choice is often literal poverty and starvation vs participation and living. So the “free will argument” is seen as more of a front, in a way. Like the choice is merely an illusion, one that carries such a detriment for choosing to opt out, the choice given is by definition a forced or coerced one.
If that makes sense?

So in that way, I don’t know if anarchists are willing to give the benefit of the doubt that such agreements are completely voluntary from the outset

 

[an anarchist]

Anarchism is the absence of an authoritative ruler. Not less, not more. It is not the absence of a state

Doesn’t the existence of a State imply a authoritative ruling class?

(Though, especially in the US, those on the right prefer the label "libertarian".)

Ahh libertarians. I was the secretary for the local party when I was fresh out of high school. Didn’t do much, and quickly became too radical of an anarchist to allow myself to be involved with the political system. There’s a joke I heard once. “What’s the difference between a minarchist (libertarian) and an anarchist? About six months.” This was pretty much true for me.

I am on the left bottom side of the compass, though I wouldn't call myself a socialist. I prefer the label anarcho-syndicalist. I recognize that anarcho-capitalists exist, I just think they are wrong. Private ownership of production facilities gives power to the owner, too much power for my taste.

Let’s say I was able to acquire a scarce resource through original appropriation. In an ancap society, it would be viewed that there are no valid competing claims to said resource, once I’ve mixed my labor into it. Anyone who would attempt to claim ownership of the resource that I appropriated is viewed as an authoritarian figure in this model. In an anarcho-syndicalist society, would my claim to a resource not be viewed as valid, even if I have mixed my labor into it? Let’s say there was a body of water. I used my labor to purify it for drinking. In your model, that water would not be mine? Would I be viewed as the authoritarian figure in your model if I attempted to sell the water? I’m just trying to get a better understanding.

 

[savagewind]

I think that anarchism is to rule one's self. It could work if people were naturally good. I think that they are not.

 

[an anarchist]

I think that anarchism is to rule one's self. It could work if people were naturally good. I think that they are not.

The economic model of anarcho-capitalism only takes for granted that man acts in their own self interests. It doesn’t require man to be moral to work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Definition of anarchism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2) the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2) procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Definition of capitalism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

It appears that anarchism & socialism are irreconcilable
because government control is necessary.
Anarchism & capitalism are possible, but without
government, it would be the wild west type of chaos.

 

[savagewind]

Not Chaos if people will learn to be the other person.

 

[an anarchist]

It appears that anarchism & socialism are irreconcilable
because government control is necessary.

This was my thinking going into making this thread.

Anarchism & capitalism are possible, but without
government, it would be the wild west type of chaos.

I’ll never say that an anarchist capitalist society would be a utopia. But I do believe we live in a technocratic totalitarian dystopia in the present day. I don’t think Ancapistan would be a dystopia.

 

[Left Coast]

Definition of anarchism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2) the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2) procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Definition of capitalism | Dictionary.com
noun
1) an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

It appears that anarchism & socialism are irreconcilable
because government control is necessary.

As far as I understand it, in libertarian/anarchosocialist thought, they actually don't see states as ultimately necessary. They prefer other forms of collective control.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

Anarchism & capitalism are possible, but without
government, it would be the wild west type of chaos.

Agreed!

 

[Heyo]

Doesn’t the existence of a State imply a authoritative ruling class?

Ahh libertarians. I was the secretary for the local party when I was fresh out of high school. Didn’t do much, and quickly became too radical of an anarchist to allow myself to be involved with the political system. There’s a joke I heard once. “What’s the difference between a minarchist (libertarian) and an anarchist? About six months.” This was pretty much true for me.

Let’s say I was able to acquire a scarce resource through original appropriation. In an ancap society, it would be viewed that there are no valid competing claims to said resource, once I’ve mixed my labor into it. Anyone who would attempt to claim ownership of the resource that I appropriated is viewed as an authoritarian figure in this model. In an anarcho-syndicalist society, would my claim to a resource not be viewed as valid, even if I have mixed my labor into it? Let’s say there was a body of water. I used my labor to purify it for drinking. In your model, that water would not be mine? Would I be viewed as the authoritarian figure in your model if I attempted to sell the water? I’m just trying to get a better understanding.

Property is theft. -  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

In anarcho-syndicalist view there can be no ownership of natural resources, not by the individual and not by the state. (That's, by the way, how it was seen by many tribes, at least the nomadic ones. When Europeans came and wanted to purchase land from them, they couldn't understand what they meant. How could one sell what one doesn't own?)
So, the water isn't yours. It is OK when you get compensated for your work but at no point has the water been yours. If you think it is, think about how you came into possession of it, you stole it from the earth.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I understand it, in libertarian/anarchosocialist thought, they actually don't see states as ultimately necessary. They prefer other forms of collective control.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia



Agreed!

The kind of stateless structure in that article is a construct
that doesn't happen in reality. Government & countries are
emergent properties of humans. To propose otherwise is
is as impractical as proposing that all humans be healthy,
intelligent, industrious, & honest. Just not gonna happen.

As I see it, individuals can voluntarily associate to form
a socialist relationship. But this would only be libertarian
as long as people freely contract for it, & can leave if they
want. This could happen within a larger economy that a
capitalist country has.
Socialism as a country-wide system cannot be voluntary
because if people could opt for free economic association,
then capitalism would be a malignant cancer. Thus, all
socialist states must make capitalism a crime.

 

[joe1776]

A capitalist, such as myself, views capitalism as nothing more than voluntary exchanges. Are these other anarchists against voluntary exchanges? I wonder. Perhaps the socialist has a different definition of capitalism than the capitalist does, because again, the capitalist defines it simply as “voluntary exchange”. How can one be against that?

"Voluntary exchange" is a sanitized description of what actually takes place. The problem is that in ANY competition, all else equal, if you can cheat and get away with it, you'll win. In my estimation, if we could somehow wring the fraud out of the American economy, the economy would collapse.

 

[Left Coast]

The kind of stateless structure in that article is a construct
that doesn't happen in reality. Government & countries are
emergent properties of humans. To propose otherwise is
is as impractical as proposing that all humans be healthy,
intelligent, industrious, & honest. Just not gonna happen.

Oh, I agree. The same criticism can be leveled at all versions of anarchism, whether socialist or capitalist. They're largely unrealistic pipe dreams IMO.

As I see it, individuals can voluntarily associate to form
a socialist relationship. But this would only be libertarian
as long as people freely contract for it, & can leave if they
want. This could happen within a larger economy that a
capitalist country has.
Socialism as a country-wide system cannot be voluntary
because if people could opt for free economic association,
then capitalism would be a malignant cancer. Thus, all
socialist states must make capitalism a crime.

The idea, IIRC, would be that the people of a country would collectively decide to outlaw private property through democratic means. Then, in Marx's vision, the state itself would slowly become unnecessary as people freely collectively associate.

The whole thing is quite unrealistic to me, but that's the basic jist. I don't see us ever eliminating a state entirely - if anything we may one day expand it to form a global one.

 

[joe1776]

Socialism as a country-wide system cannot be voluntary
because if people could opt for free economic association,
then capitalism would be a malignant cancer. Thus, all
socialist states must make capitalism a crime.

In my vision of the future, supply and demand will be governed primarily as a computer-assisted matchmaking problem. Money will be eliminated which will reduce crime and corruption to near zero. There would be no reason for citizens to opt for "free economic association" because, as cooperative citizens, their needs will be met equally and sufficiently by their society.

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea, IIRC, would be that the people of a country would collectively decide to outlaw private property through democratic means. Then, in Marx's vision, the state itself would slowly become unnecessary as people freely collectively associate.

When "the people" collectively decide, this is
the majority having their way with the minority.
So it's not voluntary for many.
Marx...what a dreamer...believing that human
nature will be different from what history shows.

 

[joe1776]

when "the people" collectively decide, this is simply
the majority having their way with the minority.
So it's not voluntary for many.

Not voluntary? What does that mean? Seems to me a matter of trying to reach the right decision.

If there are two sides to an issue of morality, the collective conscience (intuitive moral sense) of the majority should rule. If the issue is one of reason, the facts (evidence) that convinces the majority should rule.