Anarcho-Capitalism isn't the "true anarchism"... but neither is Anarcho-Communism
View this post on Hive: Anarcho-Capitalism isn't the "true anarchism"... but neither is Anarcho-Communism
View this post on Hive: Anarcho-Capitalism isn't the "true anarchism"... but neither is Anarcho-Communism
Thank you for this thorough and insightful post, Kenny. I'm always interested in how others think and what factors influence their conclusions. There's so much to mull over here, on both (all?) sides. It would be cool to have a video series--open discussions on the principles and economic possibilities of anarchism with two hosts to represent a capitalist and an anti-capitalist point of view. The trouble would be to keep it from spiraling into a debate. But I think it could be done, and would prove educational.
Having lived the first portion of my anarchist career, in my late teens and early twenties, as more of a left (but adjectiveless) anarchist, I can relate to a lot of what you're saying here because that's how I would have thought about things back then. I've read works by most of the left-anarchists you refer to, and all of them way, way prior to even hearing about Mises or Rothbard.
I no longer agree that land ownership is illegitimate, or that profit is inherently exploitative, or that a worker's life is involuntary due to the fact that he "must either work or starve". I no longer see capitalism as an inevitable consolidation of wealth, property, and power to an elite few, as I did then.
I've lived with anarchists in collectives and squats, with just myself in rented apartments, and with family on property we purchased. I've lived "outside of the system", trying to avoid money to the best of my ability and relying on sharing and barter for my sustenance, and I've worked for employers, and I've worked for myself. I've seen the pros and cons of all different kinds of living and working situations, and none are perfect. To me, anarchism is about individual choice, and so I would never personally endorse an anarchist society in which mutualists couldn't base their lives and economic behavior on mutual aid or communists on the commune or capitalists on investment and the free exchange of money for goods and services.
But the more I've examined these philosophies, the more I am convinced that capitalism (with its focus on property rights as a moral imperative) is the only one that could accommodate all others. Mutual aid societies, worker collectives, and communes can all exist within an anarcho-capitalist economy, or adjacent to it. Individuals whose preferences led them to reject property or land ownership could practice their values within that system. But individuals whose preferences led them to embrace property or land ownership (especially for profit) could not practice their values within, for instance, a mutualist system. Perhaps the two could peacefully co-exist side-by-side; I don't know. Maybe that is what the adjectives of anarchism all lead to--an anarchism of regions; one where mutualism is practiced, one where capitalism is practiced, one that is a big commune, etc. etc. LeGuin would have had a field day with that.
I think that could very easily be done, and would actually love to see it play out as something where it's always two different schools of anarchy, with one mediator, so we could have AnCap vs AnSyndicalist, AnMutualist vs AnCom, AnCap vs AnCom, etc. The more people can be introduced to the wide variety of schools of thought within anarchy (and constantly reminded of the similarities), the more new ideas will come from it.
It's funny, because the more I interact with, read, listen to capitalists, the more convinced I am that it is not a viable option, with its focus on personal betterment, "profit motive", the built-in incentive to consolidate power.
Only if they "claim" land before it's all become owned through someone mixing their labor with it one time and owning it indefinitely. If we started with a completely unclaimed planet and everyone could start spreading out and claiming land, that would be one thing, but how could we make it work when we're starting from the point of a tiny % of people owning most of the land already? Is property gained illegitimately (through the state) removed from the current owners?
That makes the most sense, both logistically and socially, as why would anyone want to live with people who have completely different understandings of what is important in life and how to operate in interpersonal situations? As long as everyone's an anarchist (meaning they believe in the sovereignty of each and will not initiate violence), then all of those different models would be able to just leave each other alone peacefully.
I see the necessary healing of trauma, exploration of self (and Self), moving from belief sets based on fear & lack into those based on love & abundance removing most of the need for what these different economic models claim to offer, as the human race becomes more empowered and enlightened.
In anarcho-capitalist philosophy, it's generally understood that homesteading is how property is originally claimed, and that in a situation with finite land like we have on earth, eventually all or most of the land available will have already been homesteaded and become private property, and future generations of people will obtain land through barter, monetary transaction, bequeathment, gifting, etc. This is how it works (for the most part) in propertarian societies, even statist ones, but there are some exceptions in our present scenario. Namely, "publicly owned" land would be considered illegitimate and available for homesteading after the dissolution of the state.
I tend to agree with @kafkanarchy84 that such transfers of ownership should occur at a local level, where the federal government (if we are talking about publicly owned land in the states) simply releases ownership of said property and those who are already using it mixing their labor with it (most likely locals who hunt, fish, hike there, etc.) would be able to retroactively homestead it, while unused portions or places that were built specifically for government use like office buildings and federal courthouses would be available for new homesteading. In that scenario, perhaps the Rainbow community would be able to show retroactive homesteading of any lands that are used for gatherings.
There are other exceptions. Sometimes a piece of property goes unused or abandoned for so long that it becomes clear the owners (if they are still alive) do not care about it. In an instance like that, you might try contacting the owners and if none are found, go ahead and homestead the land. If someone turns up later who claims to have ownership rights to the land, the matter could be settled through arbitration. There have been at least two such properties that have entered my awareness in the past few years near where I live.
Related to this topic is your point from the article that:
As I pointed out above, this is already the way things work in post-raw land propertarian societies, and that has not resulted in people being unable to obtain land or in land ownership consolidating into the hands of a few.
There are several reasons for this. First, people change their minds. Sometimes we think we want to have an apartment in the city, and then later on we decide we'd rather have a little farm in the country. So we put the apartment up for sale and go looking for a farm to buy. Second, wealthy families tend to grow poorer as generations pass. (Tend to. There are of course exceptions to this, and most of them are royalty or in some other way state-connected.) This means that they end up having to sell their mansions, break up their country properties into smaller parcels, etc. And thirdly, ordinary people move up and down the economic ladder throughout the course of their lives. So we might start out renting and later become a landlord, then experience some kind of financial or health trouble and sell off our rental properties, and use the part of the proceeds to buy a one bedroom house for our personal use.
Real estate changes hands all the time in a capitalist society, and not only the wealthy have access to it. Many of the very poorest people on the planet count their privately owned land as their most important asset in life. It feeds them, shelters them, and is the only thing they will be able to pass onto their children. The greatest bane of their existence is likely to be property tax.
Furthermore, in free markets the hurdle to owning land for the first time is not "massive", as you put it, but just regular-old challenging, as is everything in life that is worth doing. If it were that difficult to become a real estate owner, there would be basically no real estate market.
EDIT: I forgot to address this question:
Yes. Absolutely. If the "owner" can be shown to have obtained the property through illegitimate means (paid for with tax money, obtained through eminent domain or conquest) the property should be returned to its rightful owners, or, if none can be located, made available for homesteading.
Oh, I don't know, Kenny...you and I disagree about a lot but I would gladly have you as my neighbor. :)
I do not accumulate wealth for selfish reasons however, not saying you suggested that, but the opposite. Good and moral people must seek and accumulate wealth, or only the opposite type of people will. My production and the fruits of it have to be mine too, or I am the slave of others. My production requires my effort, and my effort requires my time. My time is literally my life. I build wealth to better the world through it. The more wealth I have too, the more good I can do with it. The more wealth I have, the more charity I can give to worthy causes.
Hi. That's a very well researched article, thank you. The point of rules is to reduce the likelyhood of conflicts. If you do not have clear and simple rules on who owns a piece of Land, you will have more conflicts. It might not be ideal, but maybe ideal is not the correct word and "utopian" is. I'd rather have someone buy a piece of Land and have every lifeform on it protected as the Buyer pleases instead of having lots of conflicts about the Land because people say there is no way of legitimately own Land.
People keep bringing up the idea that if we do not have agreements on acceptable behavior, then conflict will ensue.. which may be true. That does not, however, mean that those agreements have to be a specific one (like capitalistic land ownership), but simply that there must be agreements.
Exactly. Voluntaryism is open to other philosophies as long as all human interaction is voluntary. It is live and let live. The same cannot be said for large swathes (almost the entire, I dare say) anarcho-communist community.
I’ve actually received nerdy veiled death threats from more than one of these folks for suggesting I should be able to run a cookie shop from my house if I please.
Very silly.
The crux of this piece was basically around that concept, that ANARCHY doesn't require anyone to conform to any given economic model, and that those who are attempting to say it can't be real anarchy without their specific adjective are sort of missing the point.
Thanks for the shout out, brother! Sadly, I feel you’re sorely mistaken in some areas. Regarding Murray Rothbard’s statements on individual liberty and property you said:
I’m not sure he was saying they are synonymous, but they are, like it or not, inextricable. I’ll explain why in a second. But I’d like to quote you again first:
This is the logical fallacy known as “appeal to tradition” and says nothing about the veracity of the claim that being anti-free market capitalism is not an anarchist position.
Do you consider the space upon which your residence rests to be your property? If not, it logically follows that anyone at anytime may use that space for any purpose, with or without your permission, does it not? Is that okay with you?
In order to enjoy and exercise self-ownership, property rights are necessitated. Your body takes up space and requires scarce resources to live. If you cannot acquire and claim exclusive ownership over unowned resources (property) your body will die or you will be violated by others for said resources. Violent conflict is made inevitable in the absence of property norms. It thus stands that to not believe in ownership of property is to reject individual self-ownership.
Anarcho-Capitalists are for voluntary free trade. Full stop. It seems the capitalism you take issue with is the crony capitalism of the state, which I agree is abhorrent. Life is such that even in the absence of corruption, nature demands we work for our survival or die. Nobody has a positive right to make demand on another man to supply his needs.
I would like to say in closing that veganism, animal/sentient being self-ownership is something my views are evolving on, and I thank you for pointing out that aspect.
By the way, you’re blogging right now on a capitalist-incentivized platform in the interest, at least in part, of receiving monetary rewards! ;)
This is very well written man, and brings up some very good points, everyone wants to claim anarchism as their own, and each side has many reasons to claim that their economic preference is the only path to anarchism, but even if this were the case, it isn’t productive for us to throw these types of things in the faces of those who disagree with us. We should build bridges through compassion, lead the way through positive example, and find ways to coexist despite differences in economic, cultural and spiritual preferences.
Thanks brother! That was my whole point, to poke a little fun at both sides and remind everyone that we don't really know what the answer is, just that we know it isn't force & coercion. The only thing that is bumming me out a little bit is that many are responding to little bits & pieces of the post as though I was putting forth one model or the other, rather than stepping back and seeing the larger picture I'm laying out... Never mind on FB where nobody seems to be doing anything more than looking at the meme and commenting on that haha
I find your words to be very refreshing to my mind and ears. I appreciate your ability to step back and observe what is going on... and I look forward to discussing with you somewhere in the future. Hopefully an hour or two discussion at the least!
I recall an earlier conversation we had about the word "capitalism" we had at the house. I don't like the word either... I looked into it. But it appears many of these words are just boxes people either find themselves in or strive to be in without really ever really examining why the box? What do people outside the box think? Beyond the trigger language... when one can have meaningful conversations with people. What is it they are really after? Do they even know? Maybe if we start asking each other questions we start actually wondering about the things that really confine us? Maybe that's a discussion to be had regularly?
And apparently it's true the labels on the boxes seem float over time which should be a clue to how few even are paying attention.
I'm with you in looking for more understanding of what freedom truly is. That many of those things that we have problems with are actually about issues we have with ourselves... and that we have a choice in what we choose to believe. We can examine our beliefs, we should. We can demonstrate our beliefs and SHOULD! People, absent the influence of what the powers the should not be call "news", seem to get along fine together. LET'S TRY it!
But it should be pointed out that this society has been inundated with subconscious programming to such a level that it's truly unbelievable once one steps back. Much of our struggles are a result of these bad programs running in our subconscious. We are constantly shooting our own selves in the foot... but don't see it. (This is one of the areas I think people really need to spend some attention on... btw)
On property rights... my thoughts are changing. I've considered your words in the past as well as what you wrote and feel there's certainly room for experiments. It would be best for everyone to conduct and examine those together in my mind.
And finally a word on cooperation... may it be given at least a 50/50 chance in every opportunity. Is it too much to ask for people to look past the very simplest of veils? Why is it so hard? People have been so conditioned with conflict, competition or fear. They rarely ever consider interaction as an opportunity.
I appreciate your effort to explain. Your message was received here! It's appreciated greatly! I will be more vigilant to take those opportunities and grow!
I forgot to mention... in regard to people and surviving... our potential is so much greater! The fact that so many are stuck trying to scratch out simply living each day while less than 100 people own 60% of the assets in the entire world is so f***ing ridiculous!!! Those 100 people should be shunned by the world community for being mentally ill. But people still seemed to be fooled into believing they are their leaders.
If we work together, build trusting honest relationships and dream big, the sky is the limit!
Woah that is an amazing read, I'm going to have some bookmarks to dig through with those links... I got my introduction into anarchism through Anarcho-Capitalism, but quickly found myself looking into its long history. I unfortunately feel like a lot of left and right wing anarchist fail to realize that anarchism is an always evolving philosophy. Like anything, when given new information you need to adapt.
Precisely, and so much the reason why I wrote this! So many on both sides of the fence have never looked into the other side (and don't seem open to it), thus effectively stalling out the growth & evolution of the philosophy, which requires constant integration of new data and the synthesis of opposing viewpoints.
👏👏👏 Extremely well done. I call myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, (maybe I'll stop doing that. Maybe at this point I'm doing it out of laziness.) although land ownership has always been the thing that gets me. I don't know how land can be done.Where I've come to as an Anarchist is that we don't know how any of this can be done. We're just going to have to hold the intention of utmost freedom and the highest good for all and let it unfold from there. The way is in our vortex, and all we have to do is just keep living and letting our preferences be made. That's just for you since you're an Aber. I think you're the first Aber Anarchist I've met. 🙂🤚 So I'll give ya a follow.
Thanks for putting this together. I think right now focusing on this decentralization movement is the best thing we can do. This is the answer to our vortex in a major way. I think we just keep at it and let it unfold beautifully. We're moving into drastically different times, and I've kind of come to the conclusion that these ideas like socialism and communism and capitalism are going to be a thing of the past. With the blockchain and technology I think we're moving into a different reality entirely.
P.S. I'm resteeming this post and sharing it on facebook.
Thank you so much for this comment, you certainly felt my underlying message to a greater extent than many. I feel that anarchy is, at it's core, largely based on the understanding that we don't know what's best, especially for anyone else, and that's why we should all keep from forcing (whether through physical violence or not) our own beliefs, perceptions, and desires onto others.
I also feel like leaning into decentralization, open-source, and a desire for a wider variety of solutions is going to work best for us in the long run, as we are not trying to direct the physical manifestation so much, and focusing on clearly visualizing that world we want and following the inspired action towards it :-)
Any plans on being at Rainbow this year? I ask because it's going to be out in the Appalachians.. and I see as THE greatest tool for manifesting the world of anarchy available right now.
Huh. I might be interested in going. :)
I have a hard time referring to myself as ancap but I tend to agree most with what they have to say. One area I disagree with them on however is the concept of land property and its permanence, as opposed to other forms of capital which can be abandoned. This is the major flaw in Rothbard's thinking in my opinion. If you can abandon a shovel on the side of the road, why can't you abandon the land itself?
I think he drew this distinction in order to avoid the then arbitrary task of defining when exactly someone might abandon their land, but in so doing he made an arbitrary distinction between different forms of property. Land can indeed be abandoned and our concern should be with defining when that quality has occurred, not with protecting the rights of people who have neglected their property to such a great extent.
The reason I think that property needs to exist however is because of the nature of philosophy and the systems we construct using it. Philosophy as it pertains to governance is exclusively centered on the problem of how humans should interact with one another. As such, it must consider some way of respecting the boundaries of a person's physical body and the products of their labor. Without this, society can't exist at all. In fact, no biological creature can survive without at least carving this out of nature for itself. A philosophy of governance is about mutually respecting that need in your fellow human beings and systematically encoding it into a set of just rules. I can't see a practical way around private property ownership if we're to achieve this.
I’ve come to many of these same conclusions intuitively, never been one to get deep into political philosophy. Thank you for providing a more “left brained” presentation of an opinion that I often want to voice but am not always prepared to debate simply because of how many hours there are in the day.
I’ve never liked identifying with anything, though the A word is closest I’ll get, I was a bit confused when I came here and saw it tagged on to capitalism, and also when people called me communist for not really buying into such a rigid idea of property (as if contracts and ownership mean anything outside of our human conception of the world). As I hinted, I am not incredibly well read on the subjects. I’m just for minimizing hierarchy and rules as much a small possible while allowing the community as a whole to serve as a government would only when conflicts arise.
It’s not like people are calling me communist left and right, I feel steemit is a fairly open minded bunch of libertarians for the most part, disagreeing respectfully.
What I’d like to see is cooperation between different ideologies with the common goal of peaceful and cooperative experimentation. We should be testing out all kinds of modes of living and social interaction and building peaceful relationships with those who experiment differently than we do, also helping others to build their experiments even if they aren’t exactly how we'd like to experiment.
Get rid of the vile relationship between corporations and government, remove government entirely, and then corporations don't have the power they have today. The fascism in other words would end. I have no problem with companies and private enterprise. My problem is when corporations control governments.
I do not like labels myself. Nonetheless, I hear these terms quite often as my hubby likes to identify himself as an anarcho-capitalist... I just think I am more in the neutral zone. If that is even possible hehe! I should read more about this. recently I started reading up on the Venus project and love it.... but like they mention before a system like that could work we need unlimited supplies of resources so we can cater to all people. One thing is clear though... we don't need a government and I love self-governance of communities... like it still happens a lot here in Cambodia. Great share!
This was sort of a REALLY long way of saying "stop identifying with labels and other people's thoughts, and start having your own" haha!
Certainly, self-governance is the most resilient, adaptable, and sustainable option, as well as the most morally sound.
Thanks for the comment!