I agree with the principles of what you’re saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice. Intersectionality and all that.
Usually, the truly unique perspectives are for often contradictory views, like being an Anarchist Capitalist, though even then there are still groups of people who think similarly.
I agree with the principles of what you’re saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice.
But the foundational values vary from culture to culture. My country has a lot of people who are socially conservative, but not that many who support free-market economics. In your own example, we have a long tradition of transgender people, and they have laws protecting them from discrimination. On the other hand, homosexuality was a legal grey area until a few years ago, and their marriages are still not recognised by the law. Iran is an even more extreme example here, with gender reassignment surgery being state-subsidised, but homosexuality still illegal.
So I wonder to what extent political positions are universal, and to what extent they are an accident of history.
Culture plays a huge part in what is normative, yes, but actual positions tend to support other positions by proxy, like a web.
Essentially, it’s understandable that a Socialist would also support FOSS development, as FOSS also rejects private ownership and the profit motive. However, it’s less understandable that a huge supporter of the profit motive would love FOSS as much. They can reason that people should have the choice, but it breaks down just a bit.
The current government in my country is definitely right of centre, and are pushing for Linux adoption, largely on a ‘we should not be dependent on foreign companies for the software we use’ plank. Although, to be fair, Linux was able to get a foothold in the first place because a communist state government tried using it in the 2000s. They succeeded, leading other states and the union government to follow suit.
Yep, you can advocate for leftist principles or leftist originated things as a right-winger, it just takes a large amount of justification in order to do so.
Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I’m not one btw, I’ve just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past).
I know it’s just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.
Ironically libertarian was originally a synonym for anarchist, and was also stolen by the right.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…
– Murray Rothbard
Many still use the term “Libertarian Socialist” to specify they mean libertarian in the original sense.
Yes, in practice. They call themselves Anarchists because Anarchism is “cooler” and as a way to differentiate themselves from Libertarians, even though functionally they are almost identical.
True, but the concept of an Anarchist government is also an oxymoron. Somebody has to make or carry out decisions in any group larger than 30 people. Even if the association is voluntary (like a club or sports team), there are leaders.
AnCaps just take the mental gymnastics to the next level.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. FOSS is an excellent example of what Anarchism could look like; experts and those doing the work are the ones who make decisions, but anyone can fork it and there’s no actual power being held by devs over users. That’s not really a government.
Decentralized, horizontal structures are still structures, but can be fully Anarchist. Anarchism isn’t just the absence of structure, it’s a complex web of flat structures.
Voluntary association isn’t anarchism by itself. That’s just a club or volunteer organization. Anarchism specifically advocates for the replacement of the state with voluntary free association. No, your book club isn’t necessarily “Anarchist”.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including nation-states,[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
Yes, you’re partially correct, but speaking through me rather than to me. There are countless forms of Anarchism, Mutual Aid for example is a structure proposed by Anarcho-Communists. People can freely associate and work together to create FOSS style software. I didn’t say FOSS was Anarchist, but that FOSS is an example of how Anarchism might look.
Anarchist government isn’t really an oxymoron if the governing is done via direct participatory democracy. There would probably be people in charge of carrying out specific policies (and indeed that is what we see in IRL examples like the Makhnovshina or the Neozapatista GALs), but doing something is not the same as deciding what to do.
I have seen comrades talk about organizing councils in large regions through delegates that work on this principle. They aren’t supposed to make decisions for the smaller regions they represent like congressmen. Instead, the regions internally discuss what they would like and then send a guy or gal to advocate for the policies they agreed on.
Anarchists see “the state” as a top-down structure where some people have power over others and preserve that power through a monopoly on violence.
A form of government where no one has the power to make decisions for other people wouldn’t really be a state by this definition.
Ancaps do be insane.
Thank you for tolerating my wall of text. It may seem like a waste of time, but ambiguity wastes more time later on. Cheers.
Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems.
There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.
I’m not purposefully misunderstanding it. Anarchism was founded on the ideas of rejecting Capitalism, the state via a monopoly on violence, and advocacy for structures like Mutual Aid. Capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism, and requires a monopoly on violence in order to maintain property rights.
The point here is that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is just a Libertarian Capitalist position where the holders wish to be cooler, basically. They redefine anarchism, the state, and hierarchy in order to uphold their views, it’s just a leftwashed Libertarian Capitalist position.
Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism.
As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies.
Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.
On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
I understand your point, I just think that it’s just cannibalization of terms and mutilating them for aesthetics. Terms change, of course, but actual anarchists never stopped using the terms they created correctly. It hasn’t necessarily adapted over time so much as been cannibalized by LARPing Capitalists.
Its similar to the Nazis adopting Socialist aesthetics, despite being far-right fascists. The Nazis weren’t Socialist in any actual way, and murdered Socialists, but wanted to cannibalize a popular term to gain support.
deleted by creator
Centrism is just political talk for “i dont interact enough with society to see anything wrong with it”.
I agree with the principles of what you’re saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice. Intersectionality and all that.
Usually, the truly unique perspectives are for often contradictory views, like being an Anarchist Capitalist, though even then there are still groups of people who think similarly.
But the foundational values vary from culture to culture. My country has a lot of people who are socially conservative, but not that many who support free-market economics. In your own example, we have a long tradition of transgender people, and they have laws protecting them from discrimination. On the other hand, homosexuality was a legal grey area until a few years ago, and their marriages are still not recognised by the law. Iran is an even more extreme example here, with gender reassignment surgery being state-subsidised, but homosexuality still illegal.
So I wonder to what extent political positions are universal, and to what extent they are an accident of history.
Culture plays a huge part in what is normative, yes, but actual positions tend to support other positions by proxy, like a web.
Essentially, it’s understandable that a Socialist would also support FOSS development, as FOSS also rejects private ownership and the profit motive. However, it’s less understandable that a huge supporter of the profit motive would love FOSS as much. They can reason that people should have the choice, but it breaks down just a bit.
The current government in my country is definitely right of centre, and are pushing for Linux adoption, largely on a ‘we should not be dependent on foreign companies for the software we use’ plank. Although, to be fair, Linux was able to get a foothold in the first place because a communist state government tried using it in the 2000s. They succeeded, leading other states and the union government to follow suit.
Yep, you can advocate for leftist principles or leftist originated things as a right-winger, it just takes a large amount of justification in order to do so.
Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I’m not one btw, I’ve just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past). I know it’s just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.
Yes, but the anti-capitalist definition was the original definition. AnCaps adopted leftist aesthetics to hold a position that cannot logically exist.
They did? Every ancap I know is a raging libertarian who knows the age of consent in every state.
I mean, you’re kind of giving the game away right?
Not an anarchist.
Ironically libertarian was originally a synonym for anarchist, and was also stolen by the right.
– Murray Rothbard
Many still use the term “Libertarian Socialist” to specify they mean libertarian in the original sense.
Yes, in practice. They call themselves Anarchists because Anarchism is “cooler” and as a way to differentiate themselves from Libertarians, even though functionally they are almost identical.
True, but the concept of an Anarchist government is also an oxymoron. Somebody has to make or carry out decisions in any group larger than 30 people. Even if the association is voluntary (like a club or sports team), there are leaders.
AnCaps just take the mental gymnastics to the next level.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. FOSS is an excellent example of what Anarchism could look like; experts and those doing the work are the ones who make decisions, but anyone can fork it and there’s no actual power being held by devs over users. That’s not really a government.
Decentralized, horizontal structures are still structures, but can be fully Anarchist. Anarchism isn’t just the absence of structure, it’s a complex web of flat structures.
Voluntary association isn’t anarchism by itself. That’s just a club or volunteer organization. Anarchism specifically advocates for the replacement of the state with voluntary free association. No, your book club isn’t necessarily “Anarchist”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Yes, you’re partially correct, but speaking through me rather than to me. There are countless forms of Anarchism, Mutual Aid for example is a structure proposed by Anarcho-Communists. People can freely associate and work together to create FOSS style software. I didn’t say FOSS was Anarchist, but that FOSS is an example of how Anarchism might look.
Anarchist government isn’t really an oxymoron if the governing is done via direct participatory democracy. There would probably be people in charge of carrying out specific policies (and indeed that is what we see in IRL examples like the Makhnovshina or the Neozapatista GALs), but doing something is not the same as deciding what to do. I have seen comrades talk about organizing councils in large regions through delegates that work on this principle. They aren’t supposed to make decisions for the smaller regions they represent like congressmen. Instead, the regions internally discuss what they would like and then send a guy or gal to advocate for the policies they agreed on. Anarchists see “the state” as a top-down structure where some people have power over others and preserve that power through a monopoly on violence. A form of government where no one has the power to make decisions for other people wouldn’t really be a state by this definition.
Ancaps do be insane.
Thank you for tolerating my wall of text. It may seem like a waste of time, but ambiguity wastes more time later on. Cheers.
Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word “liberal”, for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems. There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn’t a very strong one imo.
I’m not purposefully misunderstanding it. Anarchism was founded on the ideas of rejecting Capitalism, the state via a monopoly on violence, and advocacy for structures like Mutual Aid. Capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism, and requires a monopoly on violence in order to maintain property rights.
The point here is that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is just a Libertarian Capitalist position where the holders wish to be cooler, basically. They redefine anarchism, the state, and hierarchy in order to uphold their views, it’s just a leftwashed Libertarian Capitalist position.
Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.
On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
I understand your point, I just think that it’s just cannibalization of terms and mutilating them for aesthetics. Terms change, of course, but actual anarchists never stopped using the terms they created correctly. It hasn’t necessarily adapted over time so much as been cannibalized by LARPing Capitalists.
Its similar to the Nazis adopting Socialist aesthetics, despite being far-right fascists. The Nazis weren’t Socialist in any actual way, and murdered Socialists, but wanted to cannibalize a popular term to gain support.