FinnMacCool
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 153
- Location
- South Shore of Long Island.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Anarcho-Capitalism is a rather recent thing, but anarchists who also called themselves socialists have been around since the 1800's. I, unlike most anarchists, do not try to deny "anarcho"-capitalists the right to call themselves anarchists, however I also do not like that these "anarcho"-capitalists are trying to claim anarchism as their own. And no, I do not have any evidence to support this. It comes from my own personal experience with dealing with these people.
Thats all well and good, but the problem is their methods and politics are radically different. Theres no way you can call both of them "anarchists".
This thread is still on the first page and already it's making my head hurt.
This thread is still on the first page and already it's making my head hurt.
Care to explain why? Or are you just going to continue to make statements like this without providing anything to even remotely bring about discussion?
Why would there be a need to "enforce" anything? THat's the whole point. If someone wanted to be a "capitalist", power to them, but there would be no point unless more people followed capitalism in which case there probably would never have been a revolution to begin with.
Why would there be a need to "enforce" anything? THat's the whole point. If someone wanted to be a "capitalist", power to them, but there would be no point unless more people followed capitalism in which case there probably would never have been a revolution to begin with.
Okay. How about this? If anarchism is against capitalism, then how do anarchists, without the use of government, enforce the absence of capitalism, or the use of any other economic system?
What would they follow other than capitalism? There would have to be a re-engineering of humanity. Capitalism is so ingrained into most of our psyche.
So anarchism isn't inherently anti-capitalist.
I don't agree with the idea that we would have to "re-engineer" humanity. But in a not so distant past, democracy was talked of in the same light as anarchism, and look what happened. I think that agitation and organization is the best chance we got. Even if it is hard, that's no reason why we shouldn't continue to do it, if these are the ideals for which we truly believe in.
It is, but it is also anti-oppression.
anarchism works on the idea that private ownership of land, capital, and property are cancelled. So if some guy is a capitalist and says "Hey guys, how about you guys build stuff for me and I'll give money to you so you can buy other things. But don't forget, I own everything you make!" If it was an anarchist society, people would think he's either crazy or something.
And then what? Would they then all go back to tilling their personal gardens on the land they don't own until someone who is bigger than them comes along and decides to take it?
You're examining this from the wrong angle. How do you enforce capitalism without government? None of the trappings we associate with the free market-- currency, stock exchange, real estate-- can function without a government to enforce them.
How can you say always?
Really. Why have all the anarchist or socialist attempts failed since the dawn of Capitalism? Because when the revolution is over the people begin to acquire capital once more. For there to be any successful anarchist, sans capitalism, then there has to be either a Dickens change of heart on a mass scale, or there has to be a gap between the revolutionary class, and the first to live in a complete capital-less society.I don't agree with the idea that we would have to "re-engineer" humanity. But in a not so distant past, democracy was talked of in the same light as anarchism, and look what happened. I think that agitation and organization is the best chance we got. Even if it is hard, that's no reason why we shouldn't continue to do it, if these are the ideals for which we truly believe in.
So the statists aren't to be oppressed in an Anarchist society? That's funny.It is, but it is also anti-oppression.
Really. Why have all the anarchist or socialist attempts failed since the dawn of Capitalism? Because when the revolution is over the people begin to acquire capital once more. For there to be any successful anarchist, sans capitalism, then there has to be either a Dickens change of heart on a mass scale, or there has to be a gap between the revolutionary class, and the first to live in a complete capital-less society.
Regardless of how much you try, you cannot teach a monkey enough to become fully human.
So the statists aren't to be oppressed in an Anarchist society? That's funny.
It's hard to argue against this because I find that it is simply a matter of perspective. To quote Durruti. "We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute. " I feel just because an idea hasn't succeeded yet doesn't mean that it is not possible.
So a true anarchist world is impossible because it would require every single person to be in support of anarchist principles. Otherwise it would be the rule of a majority; oppression of the minority.If the people don't want anarchism, then they shouldn't have it. It's that simple.
I don't see what the point of that was. Obviously we don't agree, but you don't have to be condescending either.That's really cute.
Not every person. Just enough people so that capitalism would not be needed or wanted. Those who do want capitalism can have it, but they will probably never get it because who would want to be owned?So a true anarchist world is impossible because it would require every single person to be in support of anarchist principles. Otherwise it would be the rule of a majority; oppression of the minority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?