I don't understand why anarcho-capitalism is often not considered a legitimate form of anarchism. It seems like a reasonable progression of American individualist anarchism, and a lot of the intersectionalist politics directed negatively toward anarcho-capitalism seem to stem from collectivist and communist anarchists who attempt to rationalize all previous forms of anarchism as being strictly within their range of political thought. They also seem to not understand that anarcho-capitalism isn't even really an advocation of what most of you perceive as capitalism. It's much closer to just general market anarchism, only with an expansion on Benjamin Tucker's concept of property norms that eventually came to be known as the NAP, which was devised by Murray N. Rothbard. Add in a stronger belief in spontaneous order, and you get anarcho-capitalism. The largest issue with anarcho-capitalism is its branding- the actual name itself, because it's highly misleading and shitty to the point where it almost comes off as a bourgeoisie ideology. And while many ancaps (and later in life, even Murray himself) have become sympathizers of the bourgeoisie (refer to Hoppean ancaps and the ones that support partyarchy), there are still a ridiculous amount of ancaps and left-Rothbardians who do not sympathize with what you often label as the bourgeoisie (refer to agorist ancaps). In fact, they really oppose the same general enemy, they just usually call them corporatists if they're not full-on statists*. And if you really look at most of the other popular forms of anarchism, you would find just as many bourgeoisie sympathizers within ideological circles such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, yet they don't seem to get called out as "nOt bEiNg TrUe AnArChiStS". Instead, they get applauded for partaking in this constant cycle of circle-jerking and using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
*agorism has its own class-theory, so I imagine that agorist ancaps tend to use terms related more to that.
Anarchists are against oppressive hierarchies. Capitalism is inherently an oppressive hierarchy. Mental gymnast yourself all you want, though.
Alexander Cooper
Because you're a bunch of pikies who want a private state and don't call it that. You're not anarchists, you're neo-feudalists. Pick one, and only one. Excuse you, all the first anarchists were based around stateless socialism, then you come in here and rip everything off and slap a yellow coat of paint and call it 'anarchism.' You're the political equivalent of creationists who couldn't get their bullshit past the scientific community, so they renamed themselves 'creation """""scientists""""" ' as if changing the name somehow legitimizes your bullshit. It is capitalism, you're just swapping in government oppression for corporate oppression. LOL no. Mutualism is the only form of market anarchism there is. Tucker renounced his views on property after reading Stirner. Also reminder Tucker thought it was OK for a mother to throw her baby into a fire because it was considered her property. Fuck your "non-agression" principle. You are not anarchists, period. Now read some fucking theory.
anarchism is about getting rid of rulers and hierarchy, and you can't have capitalism without hierarchy.
Jace Evans
No it isn’t, capitalism in all forms is radically anti-individualist, since it subjects the vast majority of people to servitude in a hierarchy backed by violence. Unless of course you unironically consider Ayn Rand to be an individualist and not just a sociopath. Read some actual classical liberal theory to get an idea of what individualism actually is. John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is a good place to start, and when properly considered you’ll come to the conclusion that not only is socialism compatible with individualism, it’s the system that is.
Having capital reproduction and accumulation along with commodity production to the extent that the whole economy is founded on it (capitalism) requires a significant amount of private property, and thus a state to defend it. To create a system like you envision that’s actually sustainable would require morphing it into something more akin to Mutualism, distributism or neo-feudalism.
That ancaps almost always go with neo-feudalism says a lot about their ideology.
Brandon Reyes
Wrong. Feudal Denmark and Gaelic Ireland were essentially stateless, yet they operated on a system similar to what anarcho-capitalists advocate (which technically isn't even really capitalism, but it is what anarcho-capitalists ironically advocate). And if you have issues with their purely ceremonial monarchs or "rulers," then you should have even more of an issue with anarcho-communist Catalonia, which was more of a corrupt confederacy ruled by commune councils that essentially practiced statism and acted completely against the idea of voluntary association.
Re-read the original post.
Oh boy, this is a more lengthy one. First off, there is not such thing as a "private" state, so that entire comment was bullshit. Also, feudalism is involuntary and enforced by the state.
Secondly, you talk about corporate tyranny and how anarcho-capitalists would promote corporate oppression. This assertion is completely moronic considering that corporations are literally products of the state itself. In the eyes of anarcho-capitalists, they might as well be the state.
Third, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were not even socialists, they just generally opposed statism and unjustified hierarchies.
Tucker was very much still an anarchist then.
I will admit, that is absolutely abhorrent, and I believe Rothbard had similarly disgusting views when it came to parenting also. However, most ancaps do not find these views or sorts of actions to be moral at all. In fact, your example would violate the NAP and warrant the community's right to attack that mother or punish her in some form. Let me remind you that anarcho-communists in anarchist Catalonia banned cigarettes and killed innocent comrades for just vaguely appearing to be promoting bourgeoisie symbols.
Also, Stirner's entire ideology is a spook.
Brody Sanders
Historically speaking, capitalism was created involuntarily, and is enforced by the state. Just because you replace state police with McPolice™ doesn't change the fundamental nature of the system.
Further, the twisted logic used by ancaps to justify how capitalism is voluntary can be used to explain how feudalism is voluntary.
Ayden Robinson
I mean, it could easily be said that socialism requires the formation of a state or several states.
The Soviet Union and "anarchist" Catalonia eventually fell under the tyranny of statism and state-capitalism.
Imagine being THIS illiterate. Read the fucking .pdfs, they refute your point, faggot. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Can't find anything on either of those assertions. Fuck off. Confirmed for not having read Stirner, otherwise you'd know it's not an ideology. You're retarded and a a neo-feudalist. Kill yourself, state-apologist.
Posters above pretty much said that already but I just want to make it more snarky.
Tyler King
Just suck Pinochet's cock already.
Aaron Thompson
Of course, Lords aren't the state, its the King that's the state. Retard
James Nelson
Also Capital needs the backing of a state authority in order to enforce the tokens of debt that is money, are you this economically illiterate? Oh wait of course you are you're a fucking ancap. Read some history books too retard, Ireland and Scandinavia had states, you yourself said so, fucking retard I swear to god
Jack Roberts
Why do you need Ancapistan when you can already sell your kids (you just won't get away with it)?
Tucker was an anarchist but not a capitalist, obviously. There's a difference, read the thread replies. gg
Tyler Hill
OP doesn't understand the history of the state and capitalism.
tl;dr The entire system has been built by imperialism, plunder, ruin and theft by force, throwing the poor either into factories or prisons.
Then the capitalists needed the state. The rest is history.
Adrian Cooper
OP, as someone who was an AnCap before reading more than 3 books let me reply.
—-
Anarchism is anti-state socialism. The first person to use the term to refer to a political ideology rather than simple statelessness was a socialist. Proudhon. Calling yourself an Anarcho-Capitalist just because you're anti-state is like a ☭TANKIE☭ calling themselves an Anarcho-Statist because they share the stance of anti-Capitalism with Anarchists. You can't ignore half an ideology if you're going to take the name of said ideology. Those American Individualist Anarchists still embraced Socialism as seen by their advocacy of co-ops, opposition the the monopoly of land by a small elite, self-employment, and the LTV.
—-
Benji was an Egoist who realized the only 'right' one could hold over property was through force, but thought that if everyone agreed to Proudhon's occupancy and use things could go smoother. There's no such thing as a universal natural right to 'private property' which lays the foundation for the NAP.
—-
Anarcho-Capitalists are either socialists who don't know it yet, or proto-fascist corporate apologists. See C4SS as an example of the former. If you legitimately see the PURE CAPITALISM™ advocated for by SEK3 and other left-Rothbardians as very close to what legit Market Anarchists advocate, what's the point in keeping the term "Capitalism"? If SEK3 wasn't tied down to AnCap thought, Agorism would be much cooler.
—-
Again, why make up new terms like "Corporatist"? If you're truly advocating for the same thing, re-branding is useless (unless you're tryna pull some entryist shit to convert some AnCaps in which case go ahead). And sure, there are some dumbfuck AnComs that advocate for dumbfuck things, but the ideology in itself isn't one that tries to create an entirely new lexicon to justify itself.
Anarcho-Capitalism would quickly evolve into mutualism as there would be nothing to protect private property. Property norms would quickly turn into occupancy and use.
Low key like ancaps more than other anarchists who are just liberals with Molotov fetishes
Ancaps are consistently anti imperialist
Ancaps are often synopsis with the sovereign citizen ideology that would make bourgeois law very difficult to implement
Is it reactionary? Ofcourse it is. But so is Christian Socialism. Hell so is Marxist Leninism. Id rather have practical end results than romanticizing.
Speak for yourself You can be as 'anti-imperialist' as you want but it means nothing if the ideology you're pushing actually leads to imperialism. Soverign citizen movement is psuedolegal bullshit and never holds up in court, anyone advocating it is a moron. Besides, we're here to abolish these legal constraints, not replace them provately. Also, reminder police in the US are given special training to deal with soverign citizens.
Ancap proper is against the existence of corporations, since they are state creations.
Charles Gomez
Corporations couldnt feasibly exist without a state as opposing corporations would simply fund goon squads to commit sabotage and Murder their workers and burn down the rivals factory and sheit as the state would not be Present to regulate these Corporations and Guarantee both sides Property Rights
So no Corporations (And Capitalism as we know it in a general sense) can not function without a state but in that case why even bother calling yourself a AnCap? Why not be a Post-Leftist Anarchist? or a Mutualist at that point?
Joshua Smith
anarcho-cybernihilism
Asher Roberts
Not only is ancapism not a legit form of anarchism there is an argument to be made that classical anarchism and crude leftist anarchism can no longer be considered a legit form of anarchism.
If you simply look at the anthropological definition of a state society for instance many anarchisms outside the post-left positions fail at being modern anarchist positions. AnCapism fails at even the basic Proudhonian bare minimums, there's no way you can have capitalism without a significant multi-level state let alone without a more formative state like over a dozen US military bases in Syria. Keeping in mind the fact that some anarchists argue that being and anarchist also means being against Capital as such along with being against the more perennial anthropological defined state.
But yeah, AnCaps ain't anarchists and are pretty bad libertarians.
Caleb Mitchell
I think our friend is arguing that sovereign citizens are effective in gumming up the mechanisms of the law, not in defeating it by its own logic.
Josiah Roberts
Why does this meme persist? Anarchism is anarchism, you don't get to include a "but x" footnote.
Anarcho-Capitalism is a Form of Anarchism and all anarchist should be shot
Isaiah Stewart
That looks exactly like my dog but retarded.
Justin Perez
You need dialectics. The history of the Soviet Union cannot be understood in a bubble, it was a nation under siege culturally, economically and militarily from its birth right up to its collapse. There were internal problems with the Soviet system, sure, but you can’t pretend that it’s natural evolution was always to be some authoritarian garrison state and simply ignore the unrelenting aggression against it.
Anthony Baker
Ancap falls apart the moment you take land into account. How is current land supposed to be divided between people? What if people accumulate land and basically form feudal estates since property rights means the landlord becomes the state? There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism.
Michael Walker
Ancaps are just lumpenproles who made up a system that would allow them to become capitalists.
