TheLolGuy Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 A common assertion I find, usually from some communist circles, against anarcho-capitalism is that anarchism and capitalism are contradictions because capitalism promotes hierarchy and exploitation, and anarchism opposes these things. Has anyone else come across this before, and what would your response be? What I'm particularly curious about, besides the definitional dispute of the term anarchism, are the questions - what is hierarchy and exploitation? - and why are they undesirable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Anarchism and capitalism are contradictions if one defines capitalism as system of State-granted privilege for capitalists. However, Austrian economics defines it as as an economic order of production; not a political system. Communism is not against hierarchy; it simply inverts the pyramid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I would argue that they are the same thing. You either own yourself or you do not own yourself. If you own yourself, then you body, time, and effort are your capital and everybody else owns themselves. The former is capitalism, the latter is anarchism. Both stem from self-ownership. The communists you speak of are not referring to capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll start with how communists define exploitation. If one person employes another, and makes a profit on that employment, then the employee is being exploited. The theory goes that all of the product of the employees labor, rightly should go to the employee. Therefore, any business that makes a profit from employing people, is exploiting their workers, regardless of their working conditions, wages or consent. Of course, communists do not apply the same standard to communism, in which 0% of a persons labor product goes directly to them (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). What a person gets is determined by the state, regardless of the product of their labor. If capitalism is exploitation on a small scale, then communism is exploitation on a grand scale, but don't expect them to admit this fundamental contradiction in their worldview. There 2 main definitions of anarchy going around. The first is 'no hierarchy', which anarcho communists (pretend to) subscribe to. They extend it to a hierarchy on capital. That is, ownership (which is by definition hierarchical) of capital is forbidden. Also, employment, which is also heirarchical, is forbidden. So basically, they are just communists, albeit without the period of state socialism prior to communism. The other definition of anarchy is 'no rulers', or 'no coercive hierarchy', which anarcho capitalists subscribe to. Heirachy is perfectly OK, as long as it is voluntary, such as in employment, or when on private property. Ancaps recognize private property (including private capital). The theory goes: You own yourself, therefore you own the product of your labor. If the product of your labor is capital (or if you trade for it), then you own that capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The thing about 'no hierarchy', is that if it is applied consistently, theft, murder and rape must be permissible, since nobody holds ownership (hierarchical control of) thier own body or their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRosado Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 A common assertion I find, usually from some communist circles, against anarcho-capitalism is that anarchism and capitalism are contradictions because capitalism promotes hierarchy and exploitation, and anarchism opposes these things. Has anyone else come across this before, and what would your response be? What I'm particularly curious about, besides the definitional dispute of the term anarchism, are the questions - what is hierarchy and exploitation? - and why are they undesirable?Social/Individualist Anarchists define Capitalism as it has occurred historically. So Anarchists aren't particularly against Free Markets they are just against Capitalism. That's where the big misunderstanding lies.I have had discussions with Anarchists & you just have to either clarify what you mean in terms or use their terms, I chose the latter & still do calling myself a Market Anarchist instead of AnCap in order to avoid confusion when talking to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Social/Individualist Anarchists define Capitalism as it has occurred historically. So Anarchists aren't particularly against Free Markets they are just against Capitalism. That's where the big misunderstanding lies.I have had discussions with Anarchists & you just have to either clarify what you mean in terms or use their terms, I chose the latter & still do calling myself a Market Anarchist instead of AnCap in order to avoid confusion when talking to someone.Can you elaborate on what you mean by market anarchist. I was under the impression that market anarchist, individualist anarchist and anarcho capitalist were all the same thing.How is it possible to support free markets yet reject capitalism, since capitalism is a manifestation of the free market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRosado Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Can you elaborate on what you mean by market anarchist. I was under the impression that market anarchist, individualist anarchist and anarcho capitalist were all the same thing.Market Anarchist is pretty self explanatory.Market Anarchist & Anarcho-Capitalist are the same thing just different terms.Individualist Anarchism is not the same as the other two although they have similarities but its a huge misunderstanding to say they are the same.How is it possible to support free markets yet reject capitalism, since capitalism is a manifestation of the free market?Like I said before they define Capitalism historically or as they call it Actually Existing Capitalism.Hmm I don't think you could say Capitalism broadly is a manifestation of the free market because there are so many different types of Capitalism that you sort of have to narrow it down. So there are some better labels to avoid confusion with other Anarchists they are Market Anarchist, Free-Market Anarchist or Libertarian Anarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Market Anarchist is pretty self explanatory.Market Anarchist & Anarcho-Capitalist are the same thing just different terms.Individualist Anarchism is not the same as the other two although they have similarities but its a huge misunderstanding to say they are the same.Like I said before they define Capitalism historically or as they call it Actually Existing Capitalism.Hmm I don't think you could say Capitalism broadly is a manifestation of the free market because there are so many different types of Capitalism that you sort of have to narrow it down. So there are some better labels to avoid confusion with other Anarchists they are Market Anarchist, Free-Market Anarchist or Libertarian Anarchist.Dude, there was virtually no useful information in that entire post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRosado Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Dude, there was virtually no useful information in that entire post.Well I'm sorry I couldn't service your needs even though I answered your questions. So if your goal was to simply criticize me, mission accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts