Freedomain Radio

I have discussed and debated my ideas on a number of forums around the internet, and something I almost inevitably encountered are the anarcho-syndicalists/anarcho-primitavists etc. etc. who cannot bear the thought of my using the term 'anarchy' or much less the dread 'anarcho-capitalist' to describe my views.  Now I typically preface by saying that I use the term because I believe it is literally correct and has historical precedent, but that the term is not nearly as important to me as the ideas themselves.  What annoys me anymore is not that these people think they are 'true anarchists', which I could really care less about, but that they feel some need to constantly harp on the name/label thing.  Repeatedly, after I have made a statement of my indifference to the term so long as the ideas are understood, they will pop up and make posts in the middle of some discussion about how "anarcho-capitalists just want to be anarchists" and so forth.  Again, this doesn't even bother me any more, but why do you think it is that these people are so obsessed with arguing about a name which I have absolved of any real relevance to my position?  My guess would be that they don't actually have any real arguments so they're just spinning semantics.  I have never seen one of them say, for example, why their 'anarchy 'has some superlative claim  to the word, only endless whining about the alleged audacity of anti-statist pro-market people for its use.  I just can't get why these people would care so fixate so much on a single frickin' word, it's like conservatives bitching about how some person or another isn't 'really' a conservative, without making clear why the Hell they think they have some divine right to determine who and what ought to fall under it.
 

I also think anarcho-syndicalists argue for the exclusive use of the word more than anarcho-capitalists.  They've given me the reason that they think of bosses owning the means of production as rulers, so that the root words of anarchy meaning "without rulers" describes their position better

I've never argued with primitivists.  I couldn't understand their monkey-hooting Tim Allen communication over the internet

A thread here tried to think of a new name for market anarchy, but found nothing preferred, so the semantic wars go on.  I use voluntaryism

Below is a different attempt to explain why anarcho capitalists are not anarchists.  They see the earliest users of the term as anti capitalist as well as anti political, although they do repeat the root-word argument as well

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html      

As far as why they care... the world may never know
 

I personally think that words can be very important. After all, they are the main tools we have to convey ideas. If I choose an ambiguous word, the idea I'm trying to convey will likely be ambiguous.

Some words come with serious baggage. Take "creationism". I have a friend who used to report for NPR who talked to politically connected conservatives who want creationism taught in schools and they lobbied NPR to start using the phrase "intelligent design" instead of creationism in their radio programs.

Real stakes are involved. With words.

Now, I happen to have a major beef with the word anarchy when it comes to using it (in any of its forms) to convey the idea of a society that is not ruled by violence, but is organized by voluntary win-win agreements and would be a phenomenally peaceful and beautiful thing to behold. If you do a word association with the average person (like black / white; sun / moon) with the word anarchy or anarchism, I'm sure you'll get "armed thugs on the streets" or something like that the vast majority of the time.

The common understanding of the word anarchy is highly negative. 

The concept of a society wholly organized by win-win voluntary interactions, i.e. with NO GOVERNMENT(oh my GOD!!!) is such an incredibly difficult thing to get across to people that using a word to associate it with that has the immense baggage that anarchy has is very unhelpful in my opinion.

Unitary:

A thread here tried to think of a new name for market anarchy, but found nothing preferred, so the semantic wars go on.  I use voluntaryism

Me too.  That term's been around for quite some time and it has a feel-good aspect to it.  Heck I feel much better since I just typed that sentence. 

There are small insurmountable issues, like the chronological accident of a person who can claim land ownership.  Unlike manufactured goods, it lacks any objective basis.  Were it not for land ownership, and minor disagreements on intellectual property, having these unilateral "rights" established by even the anarcho-capitalists on an arbitrary first-come-first-served basis, there would be a much stronger foundation for market anarchists to win the argument.  Worse yet, in some ways, we are total hypocrites for giving dead people property rights (by using wills that we-the-still-living have never signed), but then we say dead folks like George Washington should have no right to apply their governing choices to us today (because those decisions were unchosen by us).  Like the anarcho-communists and their blatant misuse of words, there are many inconsistencies to be resolved.

Anarchism depends entirely upon property rights.  Statism depends on confiscation.

Stefan's unique genius was to trace tyranny all the way back to its roots in the family.  A queer problem is that the family is naturally communal, and adults who haven't yet emotionally weened themselves from this nursery are prone to endorse polities that recreate the nest.  For the mainstream this amounts to democracy.  For slightly more (but still incompletely) openminded folk who recognize govt is monstrous, out of sheer hope they imagine a polity that lacks govt and yet still insulates them from economics.  These fanciful half-anarchies can't withstand logical scrutiny, and so can't be better than govt.  And none of them acknowledge property.

hippy:

Stefan's unique genius was to trace tyranny all the way back to its roots in the family. 

This may be off topic but can you explain this?  I mean, there exists already the idea of Republicans (or rather conservatives) being the 'fatherly' type and of Democrats (or rather liberals) being the 'motherly' type.  And I've heard that for a long time.  Which means a lot of people already saw this connection to the family.  So can you tell me what you mean when you say the above?

Parental intimidation conditions folks to regard overwhelming authority as natural, even protective.  "If i behave, they'll provide for me."  That kind of conditioning can only lead to socialism.  Democracy is the most common form of socialism.

The free market is the only possible outcome of emotional maturation.  That is, the govt is something to be outgrown.

EdgeOfForever:

From what I have gathered, anarcho-syndicalist/communists/socialists aren't just against force like we are, they are against "hierarchy" which also includes bosses and people like that.

Well if an ansoc ever said they didn't at the very least oppose violence in principle, you can pretty much call them out (politely of course) as being inconsistant. Violence is always hierarchal even when it's used to defend your person. You may be using violence to subordinate someone to stop an attack, but you're still subordinating them and creating a micro-hierarchy. So if they are against hierarchy wherever feasible (which is the ansoc definition of anarchy) they have to oppose violence.

Even Emma Goldman eventually abandoned violence as an interim tactic. Her observation was that the people who engaged in violence eventually habituated to it and thus became part (and arguable the worst part) of the problem they originally set out to fix.

EdgeOfForever:

Personally I don't think it makes any sense at all, but perhaps I don't understand it well enough. What I don't get is why they reject Ancaps as anarchists, we are both against force....isn't that the core principle of anarchism? Also, I personally have no issue with some people setting up a syndicate or commune where they share everything, as long as they don't force me to live the way they do I could care less. The main difference I see between the two positions is property, they believe having property is theft(what there definition of theft is, I have no clue). From the articles I have read theybelieve that having property steals someone else's freedom to use that property. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, it means no one can use anything since using an item deprives someone elses ability to use it. From what I have gathered, they dont believe the abolition of property requires force, but just "lack of respect". Makes no sense to me at all, but thats what I have read. If I am misrepresenting this ideology, please let me know as I am still learning more about it.

Yeah the "Property is Theft" is Proudhon, he was known for starting out with paradoxical statements like that to grab the reader's attention and then using the statement to prove some point he was interested in making. As far as resource allocation goes, it's pretty much a "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" scenario, where they just try to make sure someone isn't abusing the privilege. It's more about relaxing one's monopoly of use on a good that they're worried about. like "Just because it's not 'my' hammer, does that mean I can't use it to build a granary until Fred gets back into town?" The communist response would be "take the hammer, he's out of town, he doesn't need and can't use it, if he needs it at some point, he can get another one."

That being said I'm not anarcho-communist, since I think you need private property to have the division of labor that we have in industrialized society and resources are abundant enough to where most people should be able to have access to a certain amount of goods without having to forfeit labor.

Communal arrangements make sense on desert islands where there aren't many coconuts, but I say: if you can afford the private property, it'll pay for itself in progress.

Vichy:

Technically, an Archon is a political ruler, so anarchy is without political rule.  The Greeks weren't deluded enough by propaganda to confuse political rule (Archons and archys) with economic of social influence, unlike most of the anarchist credos.

With all due respect, I do beg to differ. When you combine the archons of eastern orthodoxy, it's use as approx. of "Abbot" in the Coptic church, with the fact that "hierarchy" (approx. meaning: "sacred rule") comes from the Roman Catholic church and was adapted later on to apply to secular authority as well, I think it's more reasonable to say that "archon" has more to do with a person in a position of authority than some prefect position in the state. Also I think many greek fraternity houses include "archon" as a sort of regional manager, but I'm not to sure on that one.

If the greeks never identified economic forces specifically as being "archon" that may be because they lived in a time of scaled-down proto-merchant capitalism, where the only huge sprawlingapparatuses belonged to some religious organization or the state. Although I'd be interested in hearing differently, I don't think "archon" really excluded economic authority.

It is frustrating to the extent that they expect us to use an extended terminology to express something that could just as accurately be stated as "anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism".  For me it's  a convenience issue.  Another claim they make is, "You don't want to get rid of the State; you just want to privatize it!"  I haven't the slightest idea what they mean by that...

But another frustrating claim is one made by the so-called "free market anti-capitalists", who insist on redefining capitalism to mean something completely different than what the originator of the term, Karl Marx, meant it to mean.  These are people like Kevin Carson who define capitalism as state interventionism to benefit the wealthy.  They usually don't advance any argument for this beyond simply asserting it.  I think they just like the idea of being "revolutionary leftists" and fancy the aesthetic of "libertarian Bolsheviks" waving their red flags.  You tell them that if they are against collectivism and the State, they MUST be in favor of private ownership of the means of production (which is what capitalism is), but almost never to any avail...

they believe having property is theft

Yeah, and the "property is theft" part comes from Proudhon's "What is Property?" To believe that this was his bottom line either comes from only a cursory reading or no reading at all of Proudhon. He also wrote "property is liberty" and when he was discussing his ideas around the "property is theft" thing, if I remember correctly, he was specifically talking about usury.

What I find interesting about the anarcho-syndicalist/communists/socialists with respect to property is that they appear to fudge the truth by saying they don't believe in property, but I'll bet if some of them got together and established some kind of anarcho-communist work collective and then YOU or I walked up and started working the machinery, they'd all begin acting like it was their property, "HEY! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"

The legitimate basis for "property," according to "extremists" like us, is production. Marx blithered about the worker having a right to what he produces, but then it appears his entire philosophy poops all over that concept. I believe that if I build a house, or carve a bowl, or scribble a picture, it is mine. By my creation, it is mine to dispose of as I wish, and no other person has a just claim to it without MY permission.

It would appear that the syndicalist/communists/socialists philosophy doesn't believe production is the basis for legitimate ownership (despite what the union morons say). It seems that they believe "need" is the basis of legitimate ownership. Again, they may claim not to believe in "property" at all, but since it seems that they believe "need" causes someone to have the right to use something, they believe it is their property. So far it sounds rather loving and compassionate. How sweet. We are communists because we care. We want the people who need to have stuff.

So, "I'm a compassionate communist because I give my stuff to the needy." BZZZZZ. Wrong answer. According to your own principles, it is not your stuff. "Well, I give them stuff so I'm a compassionate communist." BZZZZZ. Wrong answer again. Their "need" means it is already theirs. What exactly is compassionate about giving someone something that already belongs to them? It is not yours to give. The way I see it, only property via production allows the charitable giving of something to someone else.

TO me, it appears to be no coincidence that communists are often trying to justify violence by saying that a "need" makes theft not theft. Because "need" determines rightful ownership, some homeless person stealing food is merely taking what is rightfully his (by way of "need") from someone who has stolen it (i.e. produced and kept it, without "needing" it). Most people, even commies, would agree that using force to get what is rightfully yours is justified.

So from where I'm standing, the communist philosophy makes "charity" and "kind giving" impossible. If the "giving" makes something go to someone with a greater "need" for it, then it already belonged to that person, and therefore the act is not charity. If the giving makes something go to someone with a lesser "need," then it's evil blasphemy.

Since it seems that the whole warped belief system hinges on "need," I think the word needs to be defined. "Need" and "necessity" are not stand-alone concepts. For "need" to mean anything at all, it needs an "in order to" phrase (such as the part of this sentence that says "For need to mean anything at all..."). The usual understood "in order to" phrase (which is rarely stated) is "in order to live." "I need food" implies " . . .in order to live." But "I need health insurance" means nothing. The following statements actually have meaning: "I want health insurance," or "I need health insurance in order for me to not lose all my money if I get real sick." It's either a simple statement of want, or a worthless redundancy.

So now for the sake of the communist ideal, if the understood "in order to" is "in order to live," then the only things that are "needs" are a cardboard box, and some cabbage and rice (maybe a few extra rags for people living in colder areas). I haven't yet found a communist who will settle for this. So what else could the secret, invisible "in order to" phrase be?

After they admit it's not simple physical survival that they desire, they usually try to pretend it's a certain level of the "necessities." Health insurance has been deemed a "necessity" by many communists, along with air conditioning, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, a well-balanced diet, etc. Trouble is, if these are "necessities," how did people do without them for thousands of years before these things existed? If these are rights because of "need," doesn't that mean that Joe the commie back in 1900 had a right to air conditioning? I hope that even a communist can see a slight problem with that.

The only "in order to" phrase that appears to fit the philosophy is "in order to have things be equal." While they like to use the word "fair," they mean "equal." The only way it can be "fair" for a lazy bum and someone who is productive to end up with the same stuff is if "fair" is defined as "equal." Since they only claim "rights" to things after these things exist, meaning after other people have them, then everyone who "needs" it has a right to it. Therefore, their use of the word "need" is bogus too. So how about "equal"? Can they at least say they want things "equal" and still sound loving and caring? I dunno.

I have two widgets. My buddy Joe has no Widgets. Joe "needs" a Widget (which, as we now know, either means that Joe simply wants a Widget, or Joe has a right to one simply because I have one). So Joe blithers some Marxist garbage to justify evil, and then steals a Widget from me by force. Swell. Everything cool now? Nope. There are a billion Chinese with no Widgets at all. Therefore, by the communist philosophy, that Widget did not rightfully belong to Joe. It belonged collectively to Joe and a billion Chinese. Oops.

Heaven forbid there are more people who "need" (read "want") Widgets than there are Widgets. There is also that slight, little, insignificant problem that maybe, just maybe, six billion people won't agree on who "needs" what. Bummer. And since the value of an item depends on how much a person wants it, the value of an item is not equal to all people. Therefore, if my other buddy Bob really wants two Widgets as much as Joe wants one, there is equality . . .sort of.

Now let's pretend we've achieved the communist utopia, and examine the economic results. All the property is now equally distributed among everyone (or at least everyone except those who the commies killed for resisting their all-loving redistribution plans). Then buddy Joe thinks "I want to make a flute and play a song." Nice non-violent hippyish endeavor, right? But there's a problem. Under the communist philosophy (at least the way I understand it), he has to make a flute for everyone on the planet who wants one before he will have a rightful claim to one himself (as opposed to free market theory, in which he makes one and therefore owns one). Well, he's not feeling up to making a few million flutes today, so what else can he do? Have a fit and demand that he needs one more than his flute-possessing neighbor, ME. Once again, it would appear that communism favors violence and dissuades production and cooperation.

How about trade? Why would someone trade something they "need"? If the ownership comes from "need," then how could they trade it? And by definition, they wouldn't own anything they didn't "need" (even if they possessed it). Oops. So much for cooperation and trading. This utopia isn't looking very good.

Does a trade change who "needs" what? I can trade a Widget for your Flidget, and then say I still "need" the Widget, and therefore it is still mine. It always seems to boil down to that when a commie says "need," they really mean "want." Which in return means that what you want, by definition is yours. Sounds a lot like the animal kingdom . . .almost. So is the communist philosophy as bad as animal instinct? Nope. It's worse.

Animals make no moral judgments (not that this in itself is a good thing). They take what they want by force (and they don't whine about "need" either). Communists manage to be one step worse. Not only do they not judge theft as immoral, they judge a lack of theft as immoral. By the communist philosophy (at least the best that I can get from it), it is immoral not to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor." A lack of violence is intolerable to such people. So whenever there is inequality (which is always), violence is not only justified, but required. If "need" is the basis for rightful ownership, then not only is there no possibility for charity or compassion, but there is no room for non-violence. To allow the flute-maker to keep his flute is an act of violence, but to take it from him by force is just reclaiming what rightfully is someone else's.

So, "need" determines rightful ownership, and equality of possessions is, by definition, "fairness." This being the case, there is no room for cooperation or charity. There is no incentive for production, and every incentive for violence. Stealing becomes a virtue, and producing becomes a sin. Wanting becomes good, while creating becomes evil. Making something for yourself is evil, greedy theft. Stealing something from someone else is rightful "reclaiming."

That what I get from the communist-type philosophies, even if you put an "anarcho" prefix ahead of them and no matter how much tie-dye, flowers, and love-ins you try to bury it under.