subscribe or follow us:                    

Hyphenated Anarchists Unite!

11 comments

Posted by W Edwin Hinds IV on May 23, 2010 in Anarchism | 11 comments

Originally posted at Fed Land.
We are anarchists first, everything else matters not nearly as much.

Are anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists capable of working together? That question was one that I recently heard on twitter, it struck a chord with me, because it was the very same question that lead me to distrust most anarchists because of their socialist or communist suffix. After all, was it not communism that murdered so many folks all around the world? I questioned my beliefs long ago, realizing that the system I praised and espoused also was responsible for the very depredations that lead me to anarchism in the first place.

Any practice, any belief and any person – when mixed with the state – becomes a perversion of itself. State capitalism is responsible for the BP disaster. As corporations that work hand & glove with the government (BP donated the most to the latest thief king) get away with destroying the environment because they barely complied with asinine rules established by the state. Without the state as final arbiter, there would not be a bare minimum to the safety protocols that an underwriter could demand. Without tax payer funded cleanup when the bare minimum is not enough and government sanctioned Limited Liability to save the oily hides of greedy investors from risk, there would not be folks lining up to scrap the very barrel for every last drop of profit without concern to the workers and environment that are constantly at risk. This example is a bit of an oversimplification, but it works to illustrate (in pastiche) how the state creates problems within any economic system.

None of that is relevant to anarchy. We move past the destructive nature of the state, we look at the history of communism in Russia, capitalism in the US and socialism in Europe and point out how the State ruined these ideas. Perverting them into forces of hierarchy, to the detriment of individual liberty. So we hyphenate our positions or work out new words to describe ourselves, to distance ourselves from the failed, barbaric, ancient and quaint notion of statism.

As anarchists, first and foremost we are declaring that we respect our fellow humans. It is understood that we cannot own another human and that voluntary cooperation is the only legitimate option. With that in place as our foundation, we can work out just any problem through civil means. The imbalance of authority that is created within capitalism via the employer/employee relationship is also alive within communism through the tyranny of the majority.

No matter what our favorite flavor of Anarchy is, we need to remember first premise that made anarchy so favorable in the first place. We need to constantly question all concentrations of wealth and power. If we do that, we can always work side by side preparing the gift of a free and clean planet for the next generation.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

    Here's the thing: I completely agree with you, but I think it's important to understand why most 'other' anarchists have a problem with AnCaps: AnCaps see the State as THE problem; anarchism throughout it's history has seen the State as A problem.

    The link you posted at the end is a good quote, in and of itself: AnCaps have a hard time understanding this, at times, but it's not JUST the State that's the problem, it's hierarchy in general. Sexism, racism, capitalism, etc – the problem with all of these is that they artificially impart power to one segment of society over another. The first problem, then, is that AnCaps talk big about abolishing the State, but (mostly) don't talk about the other problems of power that exist in society. In fact, often they almost seem to defend those problems by falling back to the second problem that most anarchists have with AnCaps: the idea of 'voluntary'.

    Don't get me wrong, I think voluntaryism is a great thing, but I think in and of itself it's not sufficient, and most AnCaps seem to think it's the single key to unlock the worlds problems. The issue I have with it is that it's exceedingly difficult in most situations to have a truly equal contractual agreement.

    Let's say that my labor SHOULD be worth $15.00 an hour on the open market, but when I apply for a job with you, you only offer me $8.00. Now the ideal thing for me to do would be to laugh in your face, and walk away for a job that offers me $15.00. But lets also say that times are hard, it's been months since I worked, and I need to feed my family, plus keep the landlord from kicking us out. So I accept your $8.00 offer, even though it's not fair, because it's a necessity.

    For the AnCap, I've just signed a contractual agreement, voluntarily, and therefore I'm bound to it. Voluntaryism ignores the fact that hierarchy often makes contractual equality impossible.

    Anyway, I'm NOT one of those raving loonies that says that we can never work together, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, but I think it's important for AnCaps to understand that most anarchists look at AnCaps the same way that AnCaps look at minarchists: as people who are headed somewhat in the right direction, but are over simplifying things, and haven't gone far enough. In the same way that AnCaps can point out the logical problems with minarchism, anarchists point towards the logical deficiencies of AnCaps.

    However, all that being said, working towards abolishing the State is in and of itself a fine goal, and a vital one – and I have no problem working with anyone who wants to work towards that.

    • http://twitter.com/scalpingelmo William Hinds

      I agree, hierarchy in all forms leads to destructive behavior. Yet I am of the opinion that once government is out of the picture, it should be easier to straighten out the rest.

      Concentrating on the state and economy is what AnCaps seem to do best, its what we know.

      • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

        I understand that, but my issue goes deeper in some ways than AnCaps just 'concentrating' on the economics. Capitalism -by definition- is hierarchical. There is a fundamental tension and irreversible opposition between those who own capital and those who labor for them. Sure, state Capitalism (big-C) is even worse, but at it's heart, capitalism itself makes voluntarism impossible, in my view, as those who own and those who produce are separated.

        Anyway, that is a bit off topic I realize, and as I said I DO agree that cooperation between all types of anarchists is a good thing, no question.

        • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

          @halfgroundbeans Many ancaps look at the state as a monopoly and see a freed market as a solution to what they have taken power over. As a result they tend to give freed market solutions to working outside of the state. I tend to believe that there is much to be said about a freed market, but I do see it as a market that is freed to accept syndicalism, communal systems, and an array of options. Some where the means of production is held by the worker, and others where certain properties are held by a single individual. I am wondering in many of these government monopolies that exist what solutions are presented by the syndicalist or communist leaning philosophies. Are there any good resources, sites or specific articles that present explanations of other alternatives?I completely agree that in areas of gender, race and many others there is a power difference that must be eliminated. I tend to believe the power over one needs to be eliminated without using more power or aggressive force power over a specific individual.How is the non-aggression axiom looked at by these strands of anarchism?I would say I am more of a little “c” capitalist, in that I tend to believe the Austrian teachings offer many insights to economic realities.

          • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

            @PunkJohnnyCash I don't claim to be an expert by any means in anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. If someone straight up asked me 'what strain of anarchist are you?' I'd reply "without adjectives". As for my leanings, I definitely fall in the 'free-market anti-capitalist', mutualist viewpoint more often than not, but with a healthy dose of libertarian socialism as well.

            I have zero opposition to free market ideas; but my firm belief is that in a true free market scenario, 'natural selection' (in the economic sense, if you will) would favor labor owned business, to the eventual atrophy of 'capital' owners… and I think that's probably a pretty good bet on how anarcho-syndicalist and other collaborative forms of anarchy would feel too.

            I think in the end, the difference boils down to whether a certain school of thought is propertarian or not – with ancaps on one end, anarcho-communists and other collective (as opposed to individual) forms of anarchism on the other; and with mutualists firmly riding the middle (as individualist anarchists who are also anti-capitalist).

            Recommended reading on libertarian socialist views of property vs possession (which I think really helps to define the debate):
            http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-posses…

            That post really gets at the crux of where ancaps and anarcho- differ.

            FYI, I saw your post about wanting to include some anarcho-syndicalist writing, and I think that would be fantastic – not a whole lot of 'unified' anarchist blogs out there right now (C4SS comes close, with ancaps and mutualists, but still leaves out a significant portion of strains of anarchy).

            good stuff!

            halfgroundbeans

  • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

    Here's the thing: I completely agree with you, but I think it's important to understand why most 'other' anarchists have a problem with AnCaps: AnCaps see the State as THE problem; anarchism throughout it's history has seen the State as A problem. The link you posted at the end is a good quote, in and of itself: AnCaps have a hard time understanding this, at times, but it's not JUST the State that's the problem, it's hierarchy in general. Sexism, racism, capitalism, etc – the problem with all of these is that they artificially impart power to one segment of society over another. The first problem, then, is that AnCaps talk big about abolishing the State, but (mostly) don't talk about the other problems of power that exist in society. In fact, often they almost seem to defend those problems by falling back to the second problem that most anarchists have with AnCaps: the idea of 'voluntary'.Don't get me wrong, I think voluntaryism is a great thing, but I think in and of itself it's not sufficient, and most AnCaps seem to think it's the single key to unlock the worlds problems. The issue I have with it is that it's exceedingly difficult in most situations to have a truly equal contractual agreement.Let's say that my labor SHOULD be worth $15.00 an hour on the open market, but when I apply for a job with you, you only offer me $8.00. Now the ideal thing for me to do would be to laugh in your face, and walk away for a job that offers me $15.00. But lets also say that times are hard, it's been months since I worked, and I need to feed my family, plus keep the landlord from kicking us out. So I accept your $8.00 offer, even though it's not fair, because it's a necessity.For the AnCap, I've just signed a contractual agreement, voluntarily, and therefore I'm bound to it. Voluntaryism ignores the fact that hierarchy often makes contractual equality impossible. Anyway, I'm NOT one of those raving loonies that says that we can never work together, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, but I think it's important for AnCaps to understand that most anarchists look at AnCaps the same way that AnCaps look at minarchists: as people who are headed somewhat in the right direction, but are over simplifying things, and haven't gone far enough. In the same way that AnCaps can point out the logical problems with minarchism, anarchists point towards the logical deficiencies of AnCaps. However, all that being said, working towards abolishing the State is in and of itself a fine goal, and a vital one – and I have no problem working with anyone who wants to work towards that.

  • http://twitter.com/scalpingelmo William Hinds

    To make the first step towards truly being an anarchist, you are recognizing that hierarchy is destructive to individual liberty. Because AnCaps decide to focus on the economic aspects of abolishing hierarchy doesn't make them automatically blind to the influence of other similar structures within the society. I would venture that your example is not an example of voluntary exchange. Regardless of market prices and other factors, the various relationships in concert have the net effect of producing a situation that would nullify your contract in the eyes of an arbiter or other free-market adjudication.Just because some anarcho-capitalists are unfamiliar with contract law, the rest of us should not be lumped together with them. As we both agree on, abolishing the state is a good start. Which SHOULD free the market enough to allow for the undoing of capitalism as hierarchy, so long as folks continue to focus on it after the end of the state.I know I will.

  • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

    I understand that, but my issue goes deeper in some ways than AnCaps just 'concentrating' on the economics. Capitalism -by definition- is hierarchical. There is a fundamental tension and irreversible opposition between those who own capital and those who labor for them. Sure, state Capitalism (big-C) is even worse, but at it's heart, capitalism itself makes voluntarism impossible, in my view, as those who own and those who produce are separated. Anyway, that is a bit off topic I realize, and as I said I DO agree that cooperation between all types of anarchists is a good thing, no question.

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

    @halfgroundbeans Many ancaps look at the state as a monopoly and see a freed market as a solution to what they have taken power over. As a result they tend to give freed market solutions to working outside of the state. I tend to believe that there is much to be said about a freed market, but I do see it as a market that is freed to accept syndicalism, communal systems, and an array of options. Some where the means of production is held by the worker, and others where certain properties are held by a single individual. I am wondering in many of these government monopolies that exist what solutions are presented by the syndicalist or communist leaning philosophies. Are there any good resources, sites or specific articles that present explanations of other alternatives?I completely agree that in areas of gender, race and many others there is a power difference that must be eliminated. I tend to believe the power over one needs to be eliminated without using more power or aggressive force power over a specific individual.How is the non-aggression axiom looked at by these strands of anarchism?I would say I am more of a little "c" capitalist, in that I tend to believe the Austrian teachings offer many insights to economic realities.

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

    okay… I posted twice and can't delete it.

  • http://halfgroundbeans.tumblr.com/ halfgroundbeans

    @PunkJohnnyCash I don't claim to be an expert by any means in anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. If someone straight up asked me 'what strain of anarchist are you?' I'd reply "without adjectives". As for my leanings, I definitely fall in the 'free-market anti-capitalist', mutualist viewpoint more often than not, but with a healthy dose of libertarian socialism as well. I have zero opposition to free market ideas; but my firm belief is that in a true free market scenario, 'natural selection' (in the economic sense, if you will) would favor labor owned business, to the eventual atrophy of 'capital' owners… and I think that's probably a pretty good bet on how anarcho-syndicalist and other collaborative forms of anarchy would feel too. I think in the end, the difference boils down to whether a certain school of thought is propertarian or not – with ancaps on one end, anarcho-communists and other collective (as opposed to individual) forms of anarchism on the other; and with mutualists firmly riding the middle (as individualist anarchists who are also anti-capitalist). Recommended reading on libertarian socialist views of property vs possession (which I think really helps to define the debate):http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-poss….. That post really gets at the crux of where ancaps and anarcho-<insert collective type here> differ.FYI, I saw your post about wanting to include some anarcho-syndicalist writing, and I think that would be fantastic – not a whole lot of 'unified' anarchist blogs out there right now (C4SS comes close, with ancaps and mutualists, but still leaves out a significant portion of strains of anarchy).good stuff!halfgroundbeans