I reject the premise that right-wingers can be anarchists. I don’t care what they call themselves. Anarchism is a left-wing movement, fundamentally.
anarcho-capitalism is actually corporate fascism
A bit debatable on the individual level but that’s likely what it would lead to. Some ancaps are weirdly anti-corporate though. They think somehow big powerful corporations were created by the state. Which is true in some cases but clearly not in others.
All corporations are created by the state. Corporations only exist because of the laws that create them. Without that special legal status it’s pretty much impossible to grow to the sizes most corporations do.
The same is true for private-property and capitalism in general, which is why “anarcho-capitalism” is so absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree!
I’m not sure I fully agree… some corporate entities are large enough to be self reinforcing. In practice they may end up recreating the state, but I don’t think it’s necessary impossible for large corporate structures to emerge in a stateless society. Of course, the nature of the stateless society is a very important variable here. A society that is hostile to accumulated wealth and social domination would make this much more difficult.
A corporation is a legal construct. While it’s theoretically possible for a single business to grow very large, most of the exploitation and legal cover provided by the simple act of incorporation becomes nearly impossible.
Plus without a state to push down competition, it becomes a lot harder to monopolize a market. Ideally there wouldn’t even be a market to monopolize, but that’s a different discussion altogether.
Incorporation is just a formality required by law. Corporations could still exist through internal cooperation without that, as long as there is no outside force that disrupts them.
In the absence of the state, a corporate structure can pursue its own coercive methods to maintain market dominance. And of course, some markets are naturally prone to monopoly due to the barriers to competition.
Anything the state can do, a large enough corporation can do as well. So this logic just doesn’t add up.
But without a state above them to reinforce laws the corporation would have to enforce them. So they don’t have to follow their own laws, and thus become something else. More like a warband of kingdom or junta.
What do you think is the quality that would make such an organization still be a “corporation”?
Are large street gangs (Crips, etc.) not an example of a huge corporation operating outside the benefits of the law?
A corporation by definition benefits from the law.
Corporations are businesses that have been given the the legal rights of a person. As if they had a body. Or corpus, if you will.
Personally, that just feels like semantics to me. They’re a structured group of people that exists to generate profit. Whether they technically meet the definition of a corporation doesn’t change what they’d be like under anarcho-capitalism.
Yes, shockingly, the definitions of words are semantics!
And to literally ask if something meets a definition then try to dismiss the response as semantic while offering your own incorrect definition is fantastically silly.
Gangs are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit illegally.
Unincorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally.
Incorporated businesses are structured groups of people that exist to generate profit legally with the special legal status of personhood.
Part of the point @mark3748@sh.itjust.works was making is that corporations are nearly identical to other organizations, even illegal ones, except they have a legal status that lets them do far more damage.
No. Not all organizations are corporations.
Sometimes states are created by corporations. Eg, Canada and the Hudson Bay Company
Except that they were literally given a monopoly and funding by the British monarchy:
A royal charter from King Charles II incorporated “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudson’s Bay” on 2 May 1670.[6] The charter granted the company a monopoly over the region drained by all rivers and streams flowing into Hudson Bay in northern parts of present-day Canada.
And the HBC did nothing to induce the state to act in such a way? The King just decided, hey, I like these HBC folks, I’m going to give them an entire nation, because I’m swell.
They had some prominent backers as the article explains, but regardless of that the fact remains that HBC was created by a state with the clear goal to establish a another client state through it (hence the monopoly rights). Britain’s rivalries with France probably also played a role as France was the dominant colonial power in that area at the time.
It’s just latter-day feudalism. Their program is to Make Landlords Lords Again.
If they didn’t blatantly steal ideas from the left and twist it to support rich people, where would they get ideas? Have you stopped and considered how mentally bankrupt they are?
Removed by mod
Back The Blue supporters jamming to Rage against the Machine for decades then suddenly getting upset at the band.
Same vibes as when they got mad at Green Day for trashing Trump. Like they never paid attention at all.
But a punk band trashing a right-wing president? That’s never happened before!
It’s not like their most widely recognized song was written to trash a right-wing president /s
So what else do you call not-having-a-government-ism?
Anti-statism. Anarchism is against all hierarchy. Including class.
Anarchism. A king is a government.
The terms “right wing” and “left wing” are quite nebulous, anyways.
Having “less government” eventually crosses a threshold into having “no functional macro government at all”.
What you do after that threshold is entirely open ended.
Anarchism is not owned by one political group, the ideation of what comes next is. (In leftist groups, collectivism via willful participation, focused on meeting the needs of all members of the group. In right groups, what amounts to libertarian bartering and more insular communing.)
Anarchism is about opposition to all oppression and unjust hierarchies. If you are pro-capitalism, pro-patriarchy, pro-white supremacy, or pro-nationalism, you aren’t an anarchist. Sorry.
And if you aren’t any of those things, what affinity do you have with the political right?
Are you asking me? Or being hypothetical?I’m none of those things, nor an anarchist, I’m just capable of reading the definition .
If that was directed at me, Kinda shitty you assumed that about me as i made a complete abstract statement, without showing my favor.
- a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.
the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.
My previous comment aligns, especially with the second definition.
Many, many on the right want far less government and less of anyone telling them how to organize their communities. they absolutely want a new version of the world with small and increasingly absent governance. The fact that they are shitty doesn’t discount their desire for anarchist changes in macro governance.
Frankly, your descriptions of what you believe “true” anarchism proves my point. A right aligned person could come in and confidently describe their key points as they believe just as well.
MY core point was that it’s the transition to micro governance, free of external systemic pressure is not isolated to leftist ideals, edit though, it could be! In your post collapse world.
Chill, it’s just a rhetorical you, directed at any who identify with it. If you don’t, then that’s fine. I know nothing about your ideology.
Anarchism is unique to the left though. I’ve never met someone in the right who doesn’t subscribe to some kind of hierarchical domination of other people, usually one of multiple of the examples I gave. If they don’t, then in my view they are confused about their own ideological position.
If you destroy some hierarchies and not others, the systems newly freed from competition for dominance in society will rapidly expand and replace them. Anarchism has always been about opposition to capitalism as much as to the state. You can’t just abandon one of the core tenets and still claim to belong—although the first ancaps were never anarchists. They were capitalists who discovered a clever and dishonest way to advocate for their own dominance over society.
Just saying it was pretty leading, when I worked hard to keep my comment neutral. Clarifying if I’m being put in a box is not being triggered or whatever.
The point is after the dissolving of macro scale government, all bets are off on what’s next. Neither the left or right has ownership of the idea of “absence”
Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.
But I think you are confused about what is meant by anarchism. We’re talking about a specific political movement, not a mere absence of government.
It’s no worries we cleared that up, we are just chatting about an interesting but potentially loaded topic.
I understand anarchism as it is known in leftist groups has a well defined ethos and criteria.
My point is that that the core motivation isn’t unique, others have their own interpretation. The desire to reduce macro scale government is certainly not unique to leftist groups. And those.other groups have their own well defined ideation around the ideal post transition society.
Having “less government” eventually crosses a threshold into having “no functional macro government at all”.
What you do after that threshold is entirely open ended.
I think that is where you leave what anarchists define as anarchism. It doesn’t end there, it’s not open ended. If you end up with some town or camp that is ruled by a leader and/or a priesthood and police force to keep law and order, it’s not anarchism. If you can own land and impose your vast property rights so others don’t have anything, you’re not anarchist.
Exactly how a voluntary collaboration of anarchists is supposed to work to avoid quickly growing small systems of power again (chiefs or warlords) I never figured out so don’t ask me. Best answer is that “because the people already overthrew the existing power structures they will have an easier time preventing future power structures”. So I think they assume the belief system is powerful enough so that once people are indoctrinated, they would reject any systems of control again. How such an indoctrination is achieved and maintained would be my next question.
Of course there are theories like anarcho-syndicalism. And I think in generally anarchism is understood as merely being of a mindset that any authority has to justify itself or be abolished, but necessary authority is not. So you’d still pay taxes for roads and schools.
more ramblings
Personally I believe that without AGI and a powerful and benevolent and incorruptable mind a la “The Culture” any ideology is just window dressing and temporary. If humanity wants someone to watch the watchers, we need to build the perfect watcher that can do that.
What about anarcho-capitalism?
Ancaps aren’t anarchists any more than buffalo have wings. Anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy, and capitalism is inherently hierarchical.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I need clarification how capitalism is inherently hierarchical. I know that for example starting from a state where everybody has the same “capital” things tend be be distributed unequally because more capital grows at a larger rate than less capital. But this is more something that emerges from capitalism rather than an inherent property.
Well if it naturally gravitates to inequality, l would call it an inherent property.
capitalism is a system of production in which the means of production are held as private property by a capitalist class. with the abolition of the state will necessarily come abolition of private property, so capitalism cannot exist in anarchy.
Humanity is inherently hierarchical.
That’s a huge claim. Do you by any chance have a review paper on that? I’d guess that if that’s the case there should be plenty of anthropological evidence that early hunter gatherer tribes were hierarchical.
That’s exactly what was meant.
Amazon’s Human Resources Department buys all the land around where you stand, kills you of you violate the NAP by trespassing, and then barters for your unending indentured servitude in exchange for food and water.
Anarcho-capitalism is like taking the worst parts of feudalism and chattel slavery, but with fewer human rights.
Removed by mod
No one said they are the “true enemy”. US “Libertarians” (another stolen term) are largely irrelevant and just propped up by billionaires like Peter Thiel. They are the court-jesters of the oligarchs and deserve ridicule for being so naive and not noticing it. “Natural allies” for what? In boot-licking?
I’m just talking about word definitions here. If you support hierarchical dominance of some humans by others, you aren’t an anarchist by any reasonable definition.
That doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate on certain issues, though of course I’ll have to use my judgment as far as whether that collaboration does more harm than good, as I do in all cross-ideological collaboration. But our ideological differences are not very trivial so I don’t agree that we are natural allies either.
If you’re tired of having this argument just stop calling ancaps anarchists. It’s not accurate and even big papa Rothbard admitted as much in unpublished writings.
Books banned, women and children forced to give birth against their will, total depredation of the environment, oligopoly, corruption, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and fascism.
Other than the book banning, that sounds like your average libertarian to me.
Have you seen any of the Mad Max movies?
Jesse plemons was awesome in this scene, but I’m not sure if the character is someone leftist anarchists want to model themselves after lol
That’s what I thought. The meme is backwards.
Defintely not. Right up there with right wingers using villians as their icons in memes. Although, I can’t tell if that’s a deliverate choice or ab ignorant one.
Meth Daemon: “Paris Commune of 1927 or Shanghai Commune of 1928?”
Wagner Moura: “Neither. They both deprived the aristocracy of their rightfully contracted private property.”
Meth Daemon: “Die Heretic!”
Must be Emo
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed that movie.
It was insanely good! And no one I know went to see it!
It was amazing. What
areI mean would the media do while a country tears itself apart?I’m a fan of Alex Garland. I probably went into it a bit too hyped, and still thoroughly enjoyed it.
Have been trying to figure out what movie it is. Can you give me a tip?
Civil War
Thanks! For some reason (and I admit I was barely paying attention when it was released) I had the impression it was to some degree a right-wing propaganda film. I’m guessing if it’s being memed here it’s probably not. 🙂
Will check it out!
I expected it to be a lot more political in focus but it is straight up a movie about war. The grim, the mundane, the absurd and the horror of war. I think the closest inspiration I would say is Apocalypse Now.
Sounds interesting in any case, thank you!
Why is the Gadsden flag placed alongside a thin blue line flag? Those symbols are mutually exclusive. I would also strongly question the intent of the valknut symbol.
Ancaps are not ideologically consistent.
I would hesitate to call this only an inconsistency; it’s really more of an example of cognitive dissonance.
I feel like we shouldn’t bully the dead husk of niche ideology. It must feel terrible to have virtually zero support for your politics and frustratingly pace around in the anonymous niche web communities because everyone in real life would just laugh.
It must be hard to have such views and grasp at straws daily reading some same scraps of Wikipedia with examples where for 56 days the system worked as intended.
I’m not gonna feel sorry for a bunch of dudes who fantasize about being the next Kyle Rittenhouse.
Mind you my comment isn’t exclusive to ancaps. There are tons of ppl screaming in the wind their whole life and dying without even realizing how stupid and misguided it all was. This is tragic, extremism is a cult for isolated from society. The last sliver of hope of a tortured mind
I feel like we shouldn’t bully the dead husk of niche ideology.
Would you mind clarifying exactly what “niche ideology” you are referring to? It’s not immediately clear to me.
EDIT (2024-08-10T19:15Z): I think this comment of yours clarifies that you are referring to ancaps?
I refer to all weird online political views. Bloodthirsty leninists, self righteous ancaps, remote and depressed collapsniks and all else not fitting in the society and desperate for some form of hope in the quasi theological salvation of dusty political manifestos.
You would seldom find them irl unless they already took ar15 and are going for it. A natural extension of school shooters except the whole society is the class. If someone starts to lecture you on some maoism or the like better try to get on their good side
It must feel terrible to have virtually zero support for your politics and frustratingly pace around in the anonymous niche web communities because everyone in real life would just laugh.
I mean … ancap ideology is not about having support of this kind anyway. Which matches stoic philosophy somewhat.
There are flaws to ancap ideology, even terminal ones, but you are not pointing them out.
Standard libertarian/ancap combo. Don’t tread on me (the Gadsden flag), tread on my enemies (the thin blue line flag). The valknut signals who those enemies are (blacks and immigrants) just in case the thin blue line by itself wasn’t explicitly racist enough.
Standard libertarian/ancap combo.
The presence of a thin blue line flag and a valknut symbol indicates that they are neither libertarian nor ancap.
Why is the Gadsden flag placed alongside a thin blue line flag? Those symbols are mutually exclusive.
You should tell that to the endless sea of car bumpers and flagpoles I see flying both those flags and a Trump flag.
I would if I could.
I live in Southern Oregon and it’s gotten to the point that I’m actually a little surprised when I don’t see them side by side on pickups or flagpoles. On the way through Camas Valley or somewhere between the 5 and the coast, IIRC, there is a flagpole that has those, a thin green line flag and a Trump flag, just to really confuse everyone.
It’s truly baffling. Perhaps not that they don’t seem to understand, at the most fundamental levels, what they are so passionate about, but that they are so eager to let everyone know.
I’ve seen this in the wild. I always ask myself “who do you think does the treading?”
The intent of the symbols may be diametric but the stupidity of the right to co-opt and repurpose any symbol is a historic tradition.
Did Nazis co-opt the valknut? I know it’s Norse, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, just couldn’t find anything from some quick searching.
I’m not sure. I’ve honestly never seen it prior to this post. My knowledge of its use as a symbol of white supremacy comes from its Wikipedia article, so there’s a high probability of my ignorance on it.
Can I get a guide to all those logos, please?
The yellow and black flag is the ancap (anarcho-capitalist) flag. The rattlesnake is a libertarian icon and says “don’t step on me”. Bitcoin was built out of a libertarian idea that the government was to blame for the 2008 GFC because they somehow regulated the banks too much, so a decentralized digital currency was the best way to get around that regulation. ETA: the black and white US flag with the blue stripe is the “thin blue line” flag, flown by supporters of the police, typically a symbol used by the right wing of America. The three interlocking triangles form the valknut, a symbol used by ancient Germanic people’s, and currently used by people who identify with Germany and the Vikings; white supremacists make up a large group who fit this description.
The red and black flag is an anarchist flag, a combination of two older anarchist flags: the black flag and the red flag. The ancap flag is descended from this one, replacing the red with gold (because gold is a very old and widely used form of currency, and money good, government bad). The purple and black one is the anarcha-feminst flag, and they also use the pink and black flag, but it’s primarily seen as the queer anarchist flag. I’m sure I don’t need to explain the LGBT+ flag. All Cops Are Bastards (ACAB) is a popular slogan amongst anarchists because cops are the strong arm of the state, and as such Black Lives Matter is a movement that a lot of anarchists strongly identify with and support.
this comment having a single upvote is a crime
Top panel: Gadsden flag (no step on snek!) with anarcho-capitalist black stripe, Bitcoin logo, “blue lives matter” boot-flavored US flag, “better dead than red” anticommunist Gadsden flag, and a tri-something-or-other that’s a Norse symbol co-opted by Nazis who are legally prohibited from using a swastika. Altogether: Ayn Rand’s fanclub.
Bottom panel: black power first, feminist… power fist?.. “all cops are bastards,” self-explanatory BLM, three flavors of anarchism, oddly subdued anarchism circle-A, and a transgender flag with what I think is the same oddly subdued circle-A getting lost in JPG’s chroma subsampling. Even though this is a PNG.
Very helpful, thanks.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, the horseshoe theory.
I don’t think this means what you think it means…
Well, enlighten us then what you think it means…
Jesse plemoms was the bad guy, figure it out bud.
You mean in the movie this meme stole the image from? Who cares?
If you dont care about being connected to authoritarian murderers then I think you missed the point of the principles said groups represent.
No, I don’t care about this movie or the image taken from it. You know that what happens in such movies isn’t real, and that the persons depicted in them are not real people, right?
Most stories aren’t real doesn’t mean you shut your eyes to the meaning. If you’re struggling with the point of the story just ask.
No, my point is that the movie this image was taken from is irrelevant to the the meaning on the meme. Memes are made with all sorts of source materials that have nothing to do with the meaning of the meme, often even directly contradicting them.
It is possible that the person that made this meme had the specific setting in the movie in mind, but looking at the comments here, they failed to bring that across in the actual meme, which makes it irrelevant to the meme itself.
Edit: and a bit of ambiguity is often what makes memes work in the first place.
“And that’s why I save my labor as dollars and stocks.”
