WA Delegate: The Anarchist Confederation of Anarchadom (elected 142 days ago)
Embassies: Kronstadt, The Union of Metiva Lame, New World Communists States, Hippy Haven, Union of Confederate Regions, UCR, United Federation of Canada Embassy, The Church of Eris, 3753 Cruithne, belgium, Anti Authoritarian Alliance, The Cannabis Alliance, Gay, The Greenlands in Exile, The Communist Bloc, Laissez Faireholm, and 9 others.World Alliance, The International Communist Union, My Pants, The Anarchist Collective, The Waters of Lethe, Palestinian Freedom Fighters, The Exchange of Mutual Authority, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and Taoism.
Regional Power: Very High
Today's World Census Report
The Least Corrupt Governments in Anarchy
World Census officials visited a range of government departments and recorded how frequently bribes were required to complete simple administrative requests.
As a region, Anarchy is ranked 5,148th in the world for Least Corrupt Governments.
|11.||The Free Land of An-Soc||Left-wing Utopia||“No Gods, No Masters.”|
|12.||The Nomadic Peoples of Natapoc||Left-wing Utopia||“In the oligarchy we trust not.”|
|13.||The Creeping Celestial Vault of Sun and Moon and Stars||Scandinavian Liberal Paradise||“No gods; No kings”|
|14.||The Free Land of Procyonida||Anarchy||“Sic Semper Harpyja”|
|15.||The AnarCity of YoriZ||Left-Leaning College State||“Ⓐrtists, not Ⓐrmies!”|
|16.||The Confederation of Cor Lux||Left-wing Utopia||“For a brighter future.”|
|17.||The Autonomous Communities of Meryuma||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Vitam in libertam philosophia nostrum est”|
|18.||The Autonomous Zone of Zapatista Chiapas||Left-wing Utopia||“Para todos todo, para nosotros nada”|
|19.||The Free Land of Marjah||Scandinavian Liberal Paradise||“All is for all!”|
|20.||The People's Republic of Diffidentiae||Anarchy||“Audietur vox populi.”|
- 3 hours ago: The Federation of Anarchist Free Lands arrived from The East Pacific.
- 6 hours ago: The Holy Cooperative Association of Chynarka arrived from Osiris.
- 2 days 13 hours ago: The Federation of The Province of Elsweyr arrived from Balder.
- 3 days 3 hours ago: The Fiefdom of Tamriel1111111111111111 arrived from The Communist Bloc.
- 4 days ago: The Social Anarchist Utopia of Equilibrium131 arrived from Anarchist Alliance.
- 5 days ago: The Lumpenproletariat of Class Warfare arrived from Lazarus.
- 7 days ago: The Free Land of Great Dans arrived from The South Pacific.
- 7 days ago: The Commonwealth of Yo Its Nickie departed this region for The North Pacific.
- 7 days ago: The Commonwealth of Yo Its Nickie arrived from The Alien Colony.
- 7 days ago: Orlando magic redux ceased to exist.
Anarchy Regional Message Board
"Nonarchism" is a term some ancaps prefer. "Voluntaryist" as well.
Nonarchism, or an-archism, are terms that the original left Anarchists used. Voluntaryist is a better term, I suppose.
I was referring to the functions of that state that make the state unique such as the monopoly on force and law and its function in upholding a class system, and not simply any function that the state arrogates to itself that isn't distinctive to the state, such as healthcare etc. Also capitalists don't really have trouble with the nature of state authority, but think its authority is only illegitimate because the state doesn't "legitimately" hold its property in their system. But property owners have the same authority of monopoly on defense and rule making within their "legitimate" property and when that is combined with the use of "private defense associations" it makes for state-like authority in a privately owned decentralized way, hence "private-state capitalism", as I'll try to explain a bit more on later.
I have read your factbook and it is interesting, however while there is not technically "one" organization in an ancap society taht enforces class rule, what I was trying to explain is that the nature of defense makes it unlike any other "commodity" in market competition and anyone who wants to compete in this realm of services has to cooperate with the "defense firms" already established or risk either failure or possibly violent reults or confrontation. Of course those with more property and ownership over the means of production will have the most sway over defense firms and their rules will reflect that and therefore firms or "unions" (which are pretty much groups trying to defend workers) will essentially either fail to gain any ground as their rules are incompatible with those of the capitalist ones or will risk violent confrontation, (which is what radical unions in the past often ended up facing and still often face), meaning that were ancapism successfully established, especially considering the absolute authority property owners exercise within their propoerty, there would basically be a system of "private-statism" or sort of cartelized federated decentralized "voluntarily paid for" system of upholding private-property and class relations.
Now granted, this isn't exactly the same as statism and whether it could ever be possible to establish the predominance of "private-defense associations" and absolute private property over municipal communities, unions, communes, and other non-capitalist or other types of political or economic association is questionable at best and your scenario plays on that weakness, but it assumes the illegitimacy of capitalist property rights and authoritarianism. while you're scenario may be possible in this mega-hypothetical of an ancap world, it is also possible that those who own more property will resist or that the ability to construct
While you're scenario may be possible in this mega-hypothetical of an ancap world, it is also possible that those who own more property will resist, or that the ability to for labor unions and anarchistic communities to take over control of the economy and political liberty will be hindered by the absolute rights of property owners and how these will affect non-property owners or petty property owners, especially when we take into account the way use of property in order to work, rent, live in, utilize, etc can be made conditional on abiding by the owners stipulations which can include private-arbitration in the case of disputes, use of certain private defense firms or at least recognition of their authority in cases of happenings on a certain property etc. Now if you assume away the predominance of ancaps absolute property and legal forms, and assume a plurality of different property and political systems or a redistribution of property or more equal distribution of property etc, then you've basically assumed away the essential features of anarcho-capitalism that make it different from its similar philosophy of minarchism or from individualist or market anarchisms. Just to make it clear I am not opposed to market anarchism in general and especially not Mutualism, and I don't think market anarchism/mutualism is even neccessarely mutually exclusive with syndicalist, communist, municipal, and other types of anarchism, as I think they could prosperously coexist, not only in different communities but within communities where different systems are used for different pursuits or functions.
But anarcho-capitalism assumes certain forms and a certain universal system of rights and therefore it either has to fail either through chaotic collapse from internecine violence, reversion to regular statism or minarchism, or it fades away or is removed and replaced by another non-state system which is hopefully from a proliferation of anarchism. If it succeeds then we will end up with the problems already described of the class system being perpetuated and of effective "private-statism" or whatever one would rather call it.
I also disagree that "anarcho-capitalism is purely an economic system", as it assumes a certain universal system of rights and property as i mentioned before, and through this system, whether deontological or utilitarian, arrives at certain conclusions about class, property, violence etc, that are political in nature, and would affect the freedom of people living in this type of system.
"an anarcho-capitalist society has no regulation on the economy, so labor unions have an incredible amount of power." perhaps but corporations will also be free to exercise authority on their property in ways that don't exist under the state or only exist in third-world nations where the state can't exert itself or is manipulated by foreign states into accepting the free reign of foreign companies. I don't think in an "an"cap society we can assume corporations or large property owners won't try to exert power to preserve themselves, especially as I said before wheen we consider that private-defense associations are basically designed to uphold property rights the way that the state does albeit without any of the limitations the state currently forces on corporations and property owners (but in return capitalists are supported by the state in ways that would be difficult to imagine in ancapism), but the lack of regulation and support from the state only means that capitalists will create new institutions to defend their power. while I agree that violence should be minimized, and I am no advocate of insurrectionism, it is violence or force initiated by the institutions of capitalists in an ancap society that worry me. Again it is questionable whether such ancap institutions would ultimately be effective but still we can't just assume that capitalists won't use force in an ancap system and that they'd simply relinquish control over things because unions wouldn't be under the yoke of the state.
Sorry for being so lengthy, but I am not a very succinct writer, and if there ever were an ancap society I would definitely advocate a transition to real anarchism through a strategy similar to the syndicalist one you outlined while also building up communist, mutualist, and municipalist institutions to create a free society, but I don't think we can assume anarcho-capitalism is non-political, non-violent, or even really non-statist, in that ancaps are okay with territorial monopolies on violence within their scheme of property as well as the practically state-like privately owned institutions of law that, while not being true states, perhaps remove control of law even further from communities and the general population and place it in even more insulated control by the upper class. I basically totally agree with the Anarchist FAQ's critique of anarcho-capitalism so if you want to understand my stance more simply go there. You probably already agree with much of it and I probably didn't need to reexplain why ancapism is hierarchal but i thought it neccessary to reiterate in order to explain my position in regards to seeing ancapism as simply a peaceful (but hierarchal) economic system that is so different from the state that it can be dismantled simply by unionism and the capitalists will simply "wither away" into their little Galt's gulch retreats to exploit eachother.
Requesting assistance in the A3 RMB...anti-feminist nonsense.
I don't buy it. What's to stop the owners from firing workers who strike, or even paying to have troublesome workers killed?
There wasn't any regulation on the economy during the late 19th century, during the era of Robber Barons and Pinkerton agents, and this is precisely what happened. How many of our comrades gave blood or even died fighting capitalists during that time?
The society proposed by anarcho-capitalists is a regression to the Gilded Age, not a progression to a society free of hierarchical systems of oppression.
In my experience, anarchocapitalists come in two flavors: the first are not really anarchists, and the second are not really capitalists. The second group is confused, and the first group is also confused, but is mostly just disingenuous about their real motives.
Hey all. I'm new from Anarchist Alliance. I recently resurrected my nation after some neglect and I found the AA was pretty much gutted.
Most of the state's actions during the 19th century were to give preferences to certain corporations over another, ergo bastardizing the idea of the free market in order to incentivize the Hamiltonian idea of "progressive industralization." An authentic free-market would not favor the bourgeois that similarly gained a lot of power during that time period, but work against it. The Jeffersonians knew that much and worked to prevent it - but ultimately caved in.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -TJ
Also, the Gilded Age was not laissez-faire capitalism, and definitely not what market anarchists and market minarchists, and even many ancaps, wish to regress to. It was, for the proletariat, much better than both today and the 19th century as real wages increased sharply along with the standard of living, and liberal presidents did much in the power to cut subsidies. But it wasn't perfect.
The latter group that you are talking about aren't confused at all, they simply define capitalism differently. (As for the record, I am a left-libertarian minarchist, or left wing classical liberal, whichever works).
How do I turn a civil rights love fest to a anarchy.