By: Anarcho

Anarcho
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:09:53 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. What is it with "anarcho"-capitalists?

Spooner was an entrepreneur. He believed everyone should be an entrepreneur to the extent possible. Correct me if I am wrong, but entrepreneurs are Individualists not Collectivists.

If the entrepreneur is working by herself, then there is no collective. If she is working with others then there is a group of people, a collective. The question then arises -- is the entrepreneur the boss or is it an association? If she is the boss then she governs the others, there is a hierarchy. Anarchism is against all forms of archy, including the hierarchy of wage-labour... capitalism, in other words.

To quote Proudhon:

Workers’ Associations are the locus of a new principle and model of production that must replace present-day corporations [...] The principle that prevailed there, in place of that of employers and employees [...] is participation, that is, the MUTUALITY of services supplementing the force of division and the force of collectivity.

extend the principle of mutuality that unites the workers of each group to all the Workers’ Associations as a unit, and you will have created a form of civilisation that, from all points of view — political, economic, aesthetic — differs completely from previous civilisations

So that is anarchism covered...

Spooner is only "anti-capitalist" if you use Marx's antiquated definition of capitalism. He believed in private property, and the private, individual ownership of the means of production.

Ah, right, so Spooner is only anti-capitalist if you use the socialist definition of capitalism, the definition which Proudhon used in 1840 in What is Property? Thank you for agreeing with the FAQ.

DK what it is with you "lleftists". Anarcho-capitalism is simply totally free markets.

And so you "rightists" completely miss the point of anarchism -- property is power.

Either people are free to exchange goods and services without 3rd party interference, or they are not.

Shame, then, that capitalism was born of so-much state intervention (i.e., a 3rd party!) which ensured the many had no choice but to toil for the owning few.

I prefer to own my own home and land, and my own tools of my trade.

Nice. Go make some cars with your tools.

Whatever decision you make for yourself, is entirely your decision.

Within a social context routed in inequalities of property and so power. That you ignore this shows that you have little grasp of the reality around you.

These are all *personal preferences* and no relevance in describing "anarchy".

Voluntary slavery is still slavery (and apparently perfectly alright with many "anarcho"-capitalists!). Wage-labour is still hierarchy. Capitalism can never be anarchist.

Deal with it -- call your authoritarian ideology something else and stop trying to misappropriate the word anarchist.