I figure that this community should be pretty broad and include all types of anarchism at the moment until there are enough community members to start creating more specific communities.
Of course, fascists who just put “anarcho” in their name like “anarcho-capitalists” will be banned on site. :-)
Anarcho-pacifism is fine.
can you explain why you asociate ancap with fascism?
I’m not spending time on this, but just from some quick searches:
I understand the confusion with the academic basis of Ancap and the people wearing the gadsden flag, storming the capitol, but sadly the article does not debate against the fist, that would have been a more enriching reading.
Thanks for the article!
I mean, even if we don’t call it fascism, you still cannot call it anarchism. The two terms are simply mutually-exclusive, as capitalism is a hierarchy. If you get rid of the state but retain capitalism, simply the most powerful company will take the role of the state. The reason we are against the state is because of its dominant position, not because it’s some mythical monster. Anarcho-capitalists seem to rebel against the label, rather than the actual essence of the state. Or, I guess, some might genuinely believe that capitalism is in fact not a hierarchy and somehow can provide free and equal society. But I dunno how to deal with delusion.
Thanks, that whas the explaination I was looking for. As I undertand you refer to anarchism to the lack of hierarchy.
What I can tell you from other side to give you other perspective is that ancaps don’t go against hierachys, just want that all the interactions are voluntary, understamdig the state as a non voluntary interaction thet needs to be desolved and that is the pont in common I see with other flavours of anarchysm.
I wouldn’t call it delusion, just a lack of common terminology between schools of thougt that leads to missinterpretations from both parts because of a poor interactions between both sides.
Well, what I called a delusion is the potential belief that capitalism is not a hierarchy, or somehow maybe a fair hierarchy. I think it is an obvious fact that capitalism needs poverty to exist. The fact how some people are rich and others are poor is capitalism working as it should. Even if you look at the Great Depression, when it happened the economy was much freer. Then Roosevelt started implementing regulations, and it (in combination with WW2) launched America into half a century of economic progress. Then, starting with Reagan, these regulations were being taken down one by one, thus freeing up the market again, and that led to the 2008 recession. These are all documented facts that you can find from even centrist sources. But even on the larger scale, America was able to stay rich because it intentionally kept other countries poor. Because you need poverty for capitalism to exist. This is a video I like that kinda breaks down the basic issue of capitalism: https://youtu.be/i-VsLNOduJA We don’t really want no interaction with Ancaps (at least I don’t). Because we don’t see their school of thought as being in any way compatible with ours. Every single branch of Anarchism rejects capitalism. I would even say capitalism is in fact a bigger problem than the state. Perhaps the state’s main role in modern society is to maintain capitalism. So the differences between Ancaps and the rest of Anarchists are irreconcilable, as far as I can see.
Whant to break down a few things goin on
Why you say that? “capitalism needs poverty to exist” given thet people are different in capabilities is reasonable to espect difference in outcome of welth for each individual. That also fit with the well known “Prices law” (not refered to the price of something) that show that in all fields the 10% of the people produce the 50% of the outcome, and since welth is not a cero sum game, even if you improove your income over time, if othes improove faster if you look in relative terms seems like someone is taking thing from other people.
I’ll take a look at that, thanks for sharing.
Some really good reading to understand the counterintuotivness of things in economics is “Economy in one lesson” (Henrry Hazzlit)
Beware of relating correlation with causation, effects in economics are often late and difficult to relate to its real causes.
In your 2nd paragraph;
I think that is kind of a misconseption. You hardly will find any ancap (a properly readed one) that will defend the state as we know it nor any form of it, becaus it is not based in voluntary cooperation, I belive that would be a point in common with other anarchys variants.
Capitalism is not inherently hierarchical, human societies are… Capitalism is simply a description of an economic system, and economic systems are reflections of more fundamental forces in societies.
Do you believe in the destruction of ALL hierarchies? If so, then you are an anarchist, and you will be accepted on this forum.
Yes, even the ones related to knowledge which use to be maintained by some self-proclaimed anarchysts in my environment (Canary Islands and Spain).
don’t know much but i would say yes
Personally, i argue for a diversity of tactics. If you stand in solidarity with folks engaging in sabotage and other direct actions, then i believe you have a place here.
“It’s not strategic” and other bullshit reflections i leave to the marxist-leninist vanguards. Anti-authoritarian communists, let’s unite! Our enemies are the State, the Corporations, the Patriarchs, the White supremacists and Colonizers… not other anarchists from a different branch.
Likewise, i encourage people engaging in more violent action to not judge pacifist comrades who do not feel like it. Virilist judgement of raw might and courage is definitely not my vision of anarchism, either.
There’s no reason for anarchists and anarcho-comunists to be enemies, especially if you are on the pacifist side of things.
Personally i reject most types of violence because it only breeds more volence.
What difference do you make between “anarchists” and “anarcho-communists”? Apart from nihilists, i don’t know any branch of anarchism that would not fall into communism as well.
absolutely. i am a pacifist but do not count sabotage or destruction of obejcts/private property as violence. self defense is iffy, i see it as morally wrong but a necessary evil anyway
I am the ones agaisnt every of that. I prefer to improve pure-defense and measures to prevent negative effects including but not limited to isolation of places, personal protection equipment, etc.
Personally, i argue for a diversity of tactics. If you stand in solidarity with folks engaging in sabotage and other direct actions, then i believe you have a place here.
I can be patient and believe that people can change so I may involve time on that.
anarchism and pacifism aren’t really directly related at all. but if you’re an anarchist, this is an anarchist community and you’re welcome. (i’m a pacifism too, although i personally don’t tag it onto my anarchism)
anarchism and pacifism aren’t really directly related at all.
What do you mean? To my knowledge, before the hippie movement overtook it and completely depoliticized it, pacifism was a major branch of the anarchist movement. For example Emma Goldman spent quite some time in jail for her pacifist, anti-nation/anti-war activities during the first World War.
Also worth noting, pacifist does not mean strongly opposed to any form of violence. Most pacifist anarchists for instance understand collective self-defense to be perfectly acceptable when deescalating the conflict has failed.
sorry! i meant there’s no need to make a distinction of anarchopacifism a separate ideology, as pacifism doesn’t really limit or control the “type” of anarchism. you can be a pacifist anarcho-syndicalist or a pacifist “anarcho-capitalist” (blegh), but tbe pacifism itself doesn’t create a new form of anarchism
Alright, i take that back. i realized that pacifism does influence the type of anarchism, specifically through the means of creating the anarchism. anarchopacifism doesn’t necessarily conflict with other kinds, but definitely does count as its own ideology (as the creation of anarchy is as important as the anarchy itself)
It is a specific school of thought into Anarchysm.
I am glad to know I am not alone.
