This was a really well written piece. I was expecting a typical caricature of anarchism, but was pleasantly surprised. It is interesting how much history is forgotten in the US left
The article is fair in describing anarchists are 1910-20 as a multifaceted group. The article is unfair in implying that anarchists of today are not this (certainly not all anarchists focus on fighting neo-Nazis and not all who fight neo-Nazis are anarchists). I think you can find just about anything visible in 1910 today as well (for good and ill). The emphases are different and scale is different but that's about it.
To be fair, anyone claiming to be an anarchist and not strongly opposed to neo-nazis would be in a weird ideological spot.
Historically, anarchists have always fought authoritarianism. Anarchism often seems vague as an ideology because its foundation is not an ideal, but the rejection of the values that are at the core of the fascist ethos.
I'm an Anarchist. I hate neo-nazis (or any kind of Nazis really), though that doesn't mean that I hate the left any less than I hate a neo-/Nazi. In fact I despise (hate is a strong word, feeling sorry is more accurate) anyone, stupid enough to align themselves with any form of organized politics and power structures. Depending on how hard core you are you probably be forced to run against the law in most places (or in the more fucked up places you might even be labeled a terrorist). These labels (Anarchist, Atheist) aren't helpful. They are designed usually to demonize an outside group. Also if I were to gather with other Anarchists even it's just to play chess it's probably no longer Anarchism but some form of grass-roots political movement. The point of anarchism is not taking part like the Jawari or Andaman people, or the hill tribes in South East Asia.
see also James C. Scott: "The Art of Not Being Governed, An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia"https://libcom.org/files/Art.pdf
yes those too, basically anyone refusing to integrate and having to resort to what civilized places call "crimes". The Burmese/Laos/Vietnamese hill tribes were in fact refuges from the encroaching power of their original homeland China. Highly recommend the book that I've linked. To reduce the hyperbole every discussion on Anarchism should start with heaving read JC Scott.
YN Harari also makes that point by the way in his book.
It's a mistake to conflate leftism and liberalism. The parent poster should have made themselves clearer and avoided cheap shots.
My point stands. The case that history has been forgotten by the left, in particular, is not made by
false-mirror nor the article in question. It is implied that the left has some unique amnesia.
I didn't take OPs comment as a 'snipe' -- America has a relatively weak left wing political base / history. Most of the canonical left wing thinkers, events, and successes have occurred outside of America, so it's always nice (and a little surprising) to hear about little tidbits of history like this.
This isn't true at all. The USA has a strong left-wing history and events. These are forgotten in America but remembered by the rest of the world. It's just that nowhere has this history been more "erased" than in the USA. The rest of the world remembers.
- An example is May 1st, international workers day which was inspired by the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago.
- Another example is the Republican party! which was started by Socialists in Wisconsin.
- Or the fact that Abraham Lincoln corresponded with Marx (most Americans read Marx at the time) and one of his army generals distributed the communist manifesto to the public during the civil war.
- The writings of Thomas Paine were incredibly popular in the USA and abroad.
- Russian Anarchists like Tolstoy was inspired by American Quackers, who later inspired Gandhi.
- Influential thinkers like Chomsky and David Graeber are alive and American.
While there were a few midwestern socialists that joined on the newly formed (past tense, at this point) Republican Party, it was very much committed to limited governmental intervention. The idea that there are socialist ideas at the bedrock of the Republican Party is misleading. Those are a much later development.
Read Tolstoy. He was chiefly inspired by the Quakers' nonviolence. In reality, the Quakers themselves were a heavily Republican group (insofar as they identified with government force at all).
While there are left-wing inspired (and somewhat developmental) incidents throughout US history, I wouldn't characterize the situation as either "strong" or "erased." On the contrary, the U.S. has accepted many people fleeing from failed or failing socialist states, which may affect the local popular understanding of true left-wing ideology.
There are still American Quakers. Though there have been many schisms, they are not now a heavily Republican group by any stretch. They were when Lincoln was in office, of course, but party identification underwent a well-known realignment over the past 150 years, so if 19th century Quakers are who you have in mind, this is more a misleading than an enlightening observation.
Full disclosure: I grew up Quaker. The Quakers I knew were more like this fellow than Herbert Hoover or Nixon:
Maybe your understanding of socialist ideas is a little bit simple. Limited government (and even no government, like anarchism) is at the bedrock many strains of socialism. There is no "one socialism" just as there isn't "one capitalism". To attribute a big government to socialism is simply ignorant.
Yes, that's a completely fair point, especially given the time period being discussed. What I was getting at, though was that the Republican Party was simply not formed by "socialists from Wisconsin."
> The closer I got to New York, stands of pine trees gave way to warehouses, vast troughs of commerce where tractor-trailers lined up to feed. A few miles past the Joyce Kilmer Service Area...
Either God or the state of New Jersey appears to have a pretty dark sense of humor.
I'm conservative politically, but there's a lot to be said, I think, about the written work of the smarter anarchists and those of a similar philosophy on the continental old Left. I'm thinking of, say, Debord and Castoriadis.
Anarchists used the socialist red flag most of the time. They switched to black flags when red flags became forbidden in protests e.g. in France after the repression of the Commune. They used a loophole there: they said that this was not a political symbol but a sign of sorrow and commemoration.
Later on, communists and anarchists would part ways, mostly during the Russian revolutions even though some diverged earlier.
But make no mistake, there is very little ambiguity in most historical anarchist movements: their ideals are socialists. The reason why a lot of them they rejected communism was not because of their socialist ideals, but because of the policies they implemented in practice, that were very authoritarian. Anarchists were very early considered political opponents by USSR. Censorship for instance is totally incompatible with anarchism.
While many people are aware of the anarchist influence and success leading to the Spanish Civil War, much less well known is the large anarchist region established in southern Ukraine fifteen years earlier, between 1917 - 1922.
This was centered around the figure of Nestor Makhno.[1] The armed forces defending this area had great success defeating various White armies and were allied with the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks ultimately betrayed and destroyed the Makhnovshchina.
And it still do - lot's of social democratic parties over Europe use red. I.e. UK Labour Party or German SPD. Typically lighter red than communist groups.
"Anarchism" is a completely useless term. On the surface level, it would appear to mean "the absence of a state," and therefore effectively take the form of anarcho-capitalism. In practice, however, most people that actually identify as anarchist are far left authoritarian socialists who cannot help but dance around whatever conception of a state they've described as being anything but.
The utility of the term "anarchy" to mean "a nonexistent state" is actually an incredibly useful label, as the next closest approximation to that definition is probably the equally loaded "libertarian," so it's very unfortunate that it's effectively made to be synonymous with "radical socialism" in practice. We already have a descriptor for that: radical socialism. Why can't anarchy just mean the absence of a collective mandate?
"Anarchy" as a word for what social anarchists mean (collective means of production, abolition of capital) is what it originally meant - so did "libertarian". Even Rothbard admits that the term was co-opted by "anarcho"capitalists, and it does not mean anarchy at all for them.
Anarchy means "without rule", not merely "without the state". Please read up on the history of anarchism. Further, it's worth learning how capitalism without the state cannot exist in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of anarchist authors you can read on this point.
I don't think the "abolition of capital" is something that many anarchists would find desirable, outside of anarcho-primitivism. The computer or device you're using to post this comment is capital. And the thing about anarcho-primitivism is that it's at least a consistent approach to having "collective means of production" and the like, because collective, informal decision making (without any "ruler"-like figures) only scales to groups as large as a forager band or tribe, the largest of which are about 150 members. Any larger than that, and you start to get powerful chieftains and "big men" engaging in recognizable forms of politics to manage and expand their power.
That's wrong. Anarchists would argue that a computer, for instance, only becomes capital under the conditions which capital in general tends to subsume things which can increase its value. Capital arises in the process of circulation only, and circulation is inextricably linked with production (as Marx proved by refuting Say in the first book of the Grundrisse). For instance, non-scarce goods (like digital goods or books) only became capital with the advent of copyright law. The computer I'm writing this on, as Marx would say, is only potentially capital. I don't buy the idea that Dunbar's number of 150 makes very much sense when we can also talk about federation and the idea of communes.
The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it.
In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogether. Very simply stated: capitalism is not a prescriptive ideology, it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." While a central authority to enforce that people don't steal is a mechanism to stabilize a system of any kind, including capitalism, it is by no means necessary for a capitalist system to exist.
The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. I choose to work as an engineer for my current employer for the rate that they offered, and that is a procedural state that we've both consented to. No central authority is required to enforce this. If they don't pay me, I'll leave. If I'm not good at my job, they won't pay me. If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together, the lack of prescriptive mandate present in capitalism is precisely what allows them to do so. You can structure your arrangements with other individuals exactly as you see fit, and the degree to which you are limited in your capacity to do so is what a capitalist would argue is the degree to which your system falls short of being a capitalist system.
For such a system to be easily associated with a term that claims to mean "without rule" is pretty understandable. It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
>it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors."
No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism.
>The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals.
Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive.
>If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too.
>It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
I've argued with you on here before, and I have to say that you rely heavily on the generalized rhetorical appeal to authority of "read up on this."
That point aside, to take your point that "People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism." People were also successfully having babies before we knew how sperm fertilized eggs. Of course free exchange of resources existed before the formal definition of capitalism, the free exchange of resources is the foundation for society, but you're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. If you wanted to argue against a capitalist on the basis of whatever academic definition you're going off of, and that isn't what you effectively mean by the term, then you are very likely to be arguing about incongruent concepts altogether. And if you simply cannot accept my definition of capitalism, then please substitute the term with "laissez-faire free markets" wherever you see it in my argument, and please make your arguments accordingly.
>You're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market.
This seems like you're being willfully ignorant of what capitalism actually means and using "academic" as a pejorative, as if for some reason actually gaining knowledge about the topic shouldn't be considered valid knowledge. Would you say the same thing about how mathematicians define "real numbers"? That it is merely an academic exercise? It is a term of art in economics and sociology, it does not describe merely a system of free exchange in general. Capitalism includes the concept of free exchange but it is not defined only as such. It's also not even used in the way you're using it, as an ideological descriptor - a capitalist is a very particular kind of person, in particular one who owns capital. It is not equivalent to "socialist" in this regard.
The arguments against capitalism generally also apply to "laissez-faire free markets", but other than that, a "laissez-faire free market" could not exist without capital due to the development of technology in the modern world.
claudiawerner, I love your comments on HN. As far as I can tell, you are literally the only user of HN who has obviously read deeply from, and is able to accurately expound upon, the canon (or Library, or whatever) of social and political theory. Please keep it up!
I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) have no satisfactory answer to the basic problem of "so, how exactly are we supposed to resolve disputes without a state?" Any suggestion that dispute resolution can be "privatized" is ultimately meaningless, as the private entity in charge of resolving disputes becomes equivalent to a government - and a rather tyrannical government at that, since it would not come with anything like a written constitution-- or even a widely-understood commitment to rule of law and such basic principles.
Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it.
Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system.
Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.
> Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it.
This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours.
For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?
This was a really well written piece. I was expecting a typical caricature of anarchism, but was pleasantly surprised. It is interesting how much history is forgotten in the US left
The article is fair in describing anarchists are 1910-20 as a multifaceted group. The article is unfair in implying that anarchists of today are not this (certainly not all anarchists focus on fighting neo-Nazis and not all who fight neo-Nazis are anarchists). I think you can find just about anything visible in 1910 today as well (for good and ill). The emphases are different and scale is different but that's about it.
To be fair, anyone claiming to be an anarchist and not strongly opposed to neo-nazis would be in a weird ideological spot.
Historically, anarchists have always fought authoritarianism. Anarchism often seems vague as an ideology because its foundation is not an ideal, but the rejection of the values that are at the core of the fascist ethos.
I'm an Anarchist. I hate neo-nazis (or any kind of Nazis really), though that doesn't mean that I hate the left any less than I hate a neo-/Nazi. In fact I despise (hate is a strong word, feeling sorry is more accurate) anyone, stupid enough to align themselves with any form of organized politics and power structures. Depending on how hard core you are you probably be forced to run against the law in most places (or in the more fucked up places you might even be labeled a terrorist). These labels (Anarchist, Atheist) aren't helpful. They are designed usually to demonize an outside group. Also if I were to gather with other Anarchists even it's just to play chess it's probably no longer Anarchism but some form of grass-roots political movement. The point of anarchism is not taking part like the Jawari or Andaman people, or the hill tribes in South East Asia.
see also James C. Scott: "The Art of Not Being Governed, An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" https://libcom.org/files/Art.pdf
Or the family-clans in somalia?
yes those too, basically anyone refusing to integrate and having to resort to what civilized places call "crimes". The Burmese/Laos/Vietnamese hill tribes were in fact refuges from the encroaching power of their original homeland China. Highly recommend the book that I've linked. To reduce the hyperbole every discussion on Anarchism should start with heaving read JC Scott.
YN Harari also makes that point by the way in his book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU
why snipe the left when your statement broadly applies?
I would interpret left here in opposition to liberals, which have been much stronger since Clinton came to power. See: Century of the Self.
It's a mistake to conflate leftism and liberalism. The parent poster should have made themselves clearer and avoided cheap shots.
My point stands. The case that history has been forgotten by the left, in particular, is not made by false-mirror nor the article in question. It is implied that the left has some unique amnesia.
For what purpose, we are left to speculate.
I didn't take OPs comment as a 'snipe' -- America has a relatively weak left wing political base / history. Most of the canonical left wing thinkers, events, and successes have occurred outside of America, so it's always nice (and a little surprising) to hear about little tidbits of history like this.
This isn't true at all. The USA has a strong left-wing history and events. These are forgotten in America but remembered by the rest of the world. It's just that nowhere has this history been more "erased" than in the USA. The rest of the world remembers.
- An example is May 1st, international workers day which was inspired by the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago.
- Another example is the Republican party! which was started by Socialists in Wisconsin.
- Or the fact that Abraham Lincoln corresponded with Marx (most Americans read Marx at the time) and one of his army generals distributed the communist manifesto to the public during the civil war.
- The writings of Thomas Paine were incredibly popular in the USA and abroad.
- Russian Anarchists like Tolstoy was inspired by American Quackers, who later inspired Gandhi.
- Influential thinkers like Chomsky and David Graeber are alive and American.
The connections are deep!
While there were a few midwestern socialists that joined on the newly formed (past tense, at this point) Republican Party, it was very much committed to limited governmental intervention. The idea that there are socialist ideas at the bedrock of the Republican Party is misleading. Those are a much later development.
Read Tolstoy. He was chiefly inspired by the Quakers' nonviolence. In reality, the Quakers themselves were a heavily Republican group (insofar as they identified with government force at all).
While there are left-wing inspired (and somewhat developmental) incidents throughout US history, I wouldn't characterize the situation as either "strong" or "erased." On the contrary, the U.S. has accepted many people fleeing from failed or failing socialist states, which may affect the local popular understanding of true left-wing ideology.
There are still American Quakers. Though there have been many schisms, they are not now a heavily Republican group by any stretch. They were when Lincoln was in office, of course, but party identification underwent a well-known realignment over the past 150 years, so if 19th century Quakers are who you have in mind, this is more a misleading than an enlightening observation.
Full disclosure: I grew up Quaker. The Quakers I knew were more like this fellow than Herbert Hoover or Nixon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison
Maybe your understanding of socialist ideas is a little bit simple. Limited government (and even no government, like anarchism) is at the bedrock many strains of socialism. There is no "one socialism" just as there isn't "one capitalism". To attribute a big government to socialism is simply ignorant.
Yes, that's a completely fair point, especially given the time period being discussed. What I was getting at, though was that the Republican Party was simply not formed by "socialists from Wisconsin."
> The closer I got to New York, stands of pine trees gave way to warehouses, vast troughs of commerce where tractor-trailers lined up to feed. A few miles past the Joyce Kilmer Service Area...
Either God or the state of New Jersey appears to have a pretty dark sense of humor.
The best part about Jersey is leaving Jersey.
Resident of New Jersey. I can confirm the answer is both.
I'm conservative politically, but there's a lot to be said, I think, about the written work of the smarter anarchists and those of a similar philosophy on the continental old Left. I'm thinking of, say, Debord and Castoriadis.
"...Steltonites didn’t hide their radicalism, raising a red fag on the water tower (which angry locals climbed up and tore down)..."
I... assume this is a typo? I had to reread a few times.
and... why not a black flag anyway?
Anarchists used the socialist red flag most of the time. They switched to black flags when red flags became forbidden in protests e.g. in France after the repression of the Commune. They used a loophole there: they said that this was not a political symbol but a sign of sorrow and commemoration.
Later on, communists and anarchists would part ways, mostly during the Russian revolutions even though some diverged earlier.
But make no mistake, there is very little ambiguity in most historical anarchist movements: their ideals are socialists. The reason why a lot of them they rejected communism was not because of their socialist ideals, but because of the policies they implemented in practice, that were very authoritarian. Anarchists were very early considered political opponents by USSR. Censorship for instance is totally incompatible with anarchism.
Adding further detail in agreement.
While many people are aware of the anarchist influence and success leading to the Spanish Civil War, much less well known is the large anarchist region established in southern Ukraine fifteen years earlier, between 1917 - 1922.
This was centered around the figure of Nestor Makhno.[1] The armed forces defending this area had great success defeating various White armies and were allied with the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks ultimately betrayed and destroyed the Makhnovshchina.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno
In the Spanish civil war, weren't the anarchists (and other pro-republican groups) also betrayed by the communists?
Before the Soviet Union, "red" didn't mean exclusively Communist. Many left-wing groups used red flags.
And it still do - lot's of social democratic parties over Europe use red. I.e. UK Labour Party or German SPD. Typically lighter red than communist groups.
Many anarchist groups use the black+red diagonal flag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Bisected_f...
The PSL and DSA also use red heavily.
"Anarchism" is a completely useless term. On the surface level, it would appear to mean "the absence of a state," and therefore effectively take the form of anarcho-capitalism. In practice, however, most people that actually identify as anarchist are far left authoritarian socialists who cannot help but dance around whatever conception of a state they've described as being anything but.
The utility of the term "anarchy" to mean "a nonexistent state" is actually an incredibly useful label, as the next closest approximation to that definition is probably the equally loaded "libertarian," so it's very unfortunate that it's effectively made to be synonymous with "radical socialism" in practice. We already have a descriptor for that: radical socialism. Why can't anarchy just mean the absence of a collective mandate?
"Anarchy" as a word for what social anarchists mean (collective means of production, abolition of capital) is what it originally meant - so did "libertarian". Even Rothbard admits that the term was co-opted by "anarcho"capitalists, and it does not mean anarchy at all for them.
Anarchy means "without rule", not merely "without the state". Please read up on the history of anarchism. Further, it's worth learning how capitalism without the state cannot exist in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of anarchist authors you can read on this point.
I don't think the "abolition of capital" is something that many anarchists would find desirable, outside of anarcho-primitivism. The computer or device you're using to post this comment is capital. And the thing about anarcho-primitivism is that it's at least a consistent approach to having "collective means of production" and the like, because collective, informal decision making (without any "ruler"-like figures) only scales to groups as large as a forager band or tribe, the largest of which are about 150 members. Any larger than that, and you start to get powerful chieftains and "big men" engaging in recognizable forms of politics to manage and expand their power.
That's wrong. Anarchists would argue that a computer, for instance, only becomes capital under the conditions which capital in general tends to subsume things which can increase its value. Capital arises in the process of circulation only, and circulation is inextricably linked with production (as Marx proved by refuting Say in the first book of the Grundrisse). For instance, non-scarce goods (like digital goods or books) only became capital with the advent of copyright law. The computer I'm writing this on, as Marx would say, is only potentially capital. I don't buy the idea that Dunbar's number of 150 makes very much sense when we can also talk about federation and the idea of communes.
The reason I stated that the term is meaningless is precisely because I have read about it.
In regards to capitalism, there is a different discussion altogether. Very simply stated: capitalism is not a prescriptive ideology, it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors." While a central authority to enforce that people don't steal is a mechanism to stabilize a system of any kind, including capitalism, it is by no means necessary for a capitalist system to exist.
The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals. I choose to work as an engineer for my current employer for the rate that they offered, and that is a procedural state that we've both consented to. No central authority is required to enforce this. If they don't pay me, I'll leave. If I'm not good at my job, they won't pay me. If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together, the lack of prescriptive mandate present in capitalism is precisely what allows them to do so. You can structure your arrangements with other individuals exactly as you see fit, and the degree to which you are limited in your capacity to do so is what a capitalist would argue is the degree to which your system falls short of being a capitalist system.
For such a system to be easily associated with a term that claims to mean "without rule" is pretty understandable. It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
>it is effectively synonymous with "free exchange of time or resources among consenting transactors."
No. Both economists (even "bourgeois" ones) and sociologists disagree with this as a definition of capitalism. Please read up on the history of capitalism, which is a specific mode of production which arose in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism.
>The best way to conceptualize capitalism is as an infinite number of procedural states instantiated between consenting individuals.
Why would it be the "best way"? In fact, it seems like a very strongly ideological way which starts by conceiving society as merely an accumulation of individuals who then begin networking, rather than individuals which arise out of an already networked society. This is wonderfully convenient for the subjectivist-individualist viewpoint. On the point of consent, simply because one consents it does not mean that what is happening is morally right - indeed many slaves consented. Frederic Lordon in Marx and Spinoza on Desire elaborates the meaninglessness of consent when it comes to what we need to live and survive.
>If a group of individuals decide that they'd like to collectivize their incentives and work on a commune together
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plight of the anarchists - not only is it an individualized situation which could not possibly extend to everyone, but it also insists that localised groups must still engage in the system of capital accumulation, at the very least to pay taxes. In anarcho-capitalist society they'd probably have to pay to rent land too.
>It just turns out that the people that choose to as "anarchist" tend to like quite a bit of rules.
Rules are not rulers.
I've argued with you on here before, and I have to say that you rely heavily on the generalized rhetorical appeal to authority of "read up on this."
That point aside, to take your point that "People were freely exchanging and consenting to transactions before the advent of capitalism." People were also successfully having babies before we knew how sperm fertilized eggs. Of course free exchange of resources existed before the formal definition of capitalism, the free exchange of resources is the foundation for society, but you're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market. If you wanted to argue against a capitalist on the basis of whatever academic definition you're going off of, and that isn't what you effectively mean by the term, then you are very likely to be arguing about incongruent concepts altogether. And if you simply cannot accept my definition of capitalism, then please substitute the term with "laissez-faire free markets" wherever you see it in my argument, and please make your arguments accordingly.
>You're being beyond obtuse if you're looking to define capitalism as anything other than the laissez-faire free market.
This seems like you're being willfully ignorant of what capitalism actually means and using "academic" as a pejorative, as if for some reason actually gaining knowledge about the topic shouldn't be considered valid knowledge. Would you say the same thing about how mathematicians define "real numbers"? That it is merely an academic exercise? It is a term of art in economics and sociology, it does not describe merely a system of free exchange in general. Capitalism includes the concept of free exchange but it is not defined only as such. It's also not even used in the way you're using it, as an ideological descriptor - a capitalist is a very particular kind of person, in particular one who owns capital. It is not equivalent to "socialist" in this regard.
The arguments against capitalism generally also apply to "laissez-faire free markets", but other than that, a "laissez-faire free market" could not exist without capital due to the development of technology in the modern world.
claudiawerner, I love your comments on HN. As far as I can tell, you are literally the only user of HN who has obviously read deeply from, and is able to accurately expound upon, the canon (or Library, or whatever) of social and political theory. Please keep it up!
Thanks, I wouldn't consider myself well-read but this topic is particularly interesting to me.
I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) have no satisfactory answer to the basic problem of "so, how exactly are we supposed to resolve disputes without a state?" Any suggestion that dispute resolution can be "privatized" is ultimately meaningless, as the private entity in charge of resolving disputes becomes equivalent to a government - and a rather tyrannical government at that, since it would not come with anything like a written constitution-- or even a widely-understood commitment to rule of law and such basic principles.
Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it.
Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system.
Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.
> Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it.
This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours.
For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?