I was rather pleased to see some ancaps on the list. It's one certain way to ensure that the echo chamber of traditional anarchism is avoided and some semblance of critical thinking still remains.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I was rather pleased to see some ancaps on the list. It's one certain way to ensure that the echo chamber of traditional anarchism is avoided and some semblance of critical thinking still remains.
I just lament the time wasted on half measures.
The enemies of anarchism slow the progress by such tactics.
Im getting grumpier about it, too.
Well anarcho-capitalism is the only version of capitalism I have encountered that is logically consistent. At least internally. All the others have some sort of government, one way or another, that decides what the rest may or may not do. It's also the only version I know of that supports property rights. If you don't support property rights, you don't really support rights.
Here, look at this and tell me what you think, just the chapter titles,...
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
Somehow I doubt that you have encountered 'all of them'.
Mine meets all them requirements, and can be summed up in keep working, stop paying, and rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
With those two axioms I resolve most of society's ailments, but nobody listens to me, because I hurt their little feelers, too much.
It appears that Berkman at least also gets it. He disagrees with the Individualist Anarchists, but he also sees them - rightfully so - as part of the Anarchists. The compulsion not to own private property is somehow not considered compulsion.
"All Anarchists agree on this fundamental position: that government means injustice and oppression, that it is invasive, enslaving, and the greatest hindrance to man’s development and growth.
They all believe that freedom can exist only in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind. All Anarchists are therefore at one on the basic principle of abolishing government.
They disagree mostly on the following points:
...
I think PJ did a poor job deliniating what private property is.
Nobody wants to take anybody's stuff.
My solution moves us forward from where we are now.
If you have a mansion and servants they are yours to keep, any private jets, too.
However, it would be my guess that the servants would leave, and the mansions fall into disrepair, when anything anybody wants is theirs for the asking.
The workers only have to continue to do the work while refusing to pay to get that work back from the crapitalusts.
The crapitalusts can lock us out of 'their' factories, but that is just a hurdle that the crapitalusts can erect, it wont stop anything once the workers decide to toss off the money masters.
Workers do all the work, dollars dont do crap, except see to it that workers are slaves of those that control it.
As the workers figure this out i expect a mess, they are gonna be upset for a while.
That is exactly why us crapitalists are automating now, so we get to keep our stuff, plus a place to keep it, and we may watch the workers hang themselves with their own rope.
Well, that is kinda depressing, can't we find a win win?
I've encountered that one, it's one of the most obviously logically inconsistent ones.
Of course it is,...
Yes, of course it is. It's rather obvious and easy to see how you can clearly not be both anarchist and communist.
Depends on your definitions.
Both words have their roots in PJ Proudhon.