From the Markets Not Capitalism audiobook read by C4SS fellow Stephanie Murphy.
You seem to be claiming that anarcho-capitalists are really socialists in much the same way you claim anarcho-communists* as market anarchists. Both the rightist and left-styled libertarian tendencies start with the assumption that their program, in its entirety, is synonymous with non-coercion, so the world splits nice and evenly into co-ideologists and enemies of freedom.
I've seen the following things offered as definitions of socialism and/or communism:
- putting the working class in the driver's seat of the economy
- replacing competition with cooperation
- redistributing the wealth
- nationalizing the economy
I'm in full agreement with the first three of these. Maybe that means I'm parochial in my definitions, or maybe it means I'm 75% socialist. Mutualists seem (from my perspective) to be in agreement with the first two and a half, agorists quietly at peace with the first two (without being advocates from what I can see), with anarcho-capitalists fiercely opposed to the last two and having an attitude toward the first two of "you're welcome to try to implement it, even though it can't work."
As for the definition of capitalism, I've collected an even longer list of putative definitions; see my "what is capitalism?" poll ( http://anagory.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/what-is-c… ).
* I identify as communist rather than socialist for the same reason I identify as atheist rather than agnostic. More apparent outrage in rival groups. I like generating friction.
My recent post Quotebag #84
Speaking personally, I do not make the claim that communist anarchists are market anarchists at all. I have no real issues with communists; they make an argument I cannot ignore. You are clearly a smart guy, and I do enjoy having you here-even when I think you are wrong or a bit unfair.
As for being a socialist, you are 100% socialist. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Further, nationalization is not synonymous with socialism. I would suggest that it might militate against worker control and redistributing wealth, as the state becomes the capitalist. Workers would still not get the whole product, they would not be in control of their workplaces, and wealth would still be concentrated.
As for the whole competition/cooperation thing, I support both! A healthy society needs both cooperation and competition to thrive. Then there is coopetition, people cooperating to compete, etc. As for redistribution, abolishing the privileges that hold the capitalist system up would at least get the ball rolling.
Being an individualist anarchist, I don't use the label 'market anarchist'. The individual is my focus, though I am no solipsist or egotist.
Enter your email address:
All content on this site is available for republishing under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license.
about | press room | contact us