TOTW: Anarchist-Capitalists

2020 was the year when anarchist started to mean riots and fires again. This was good news, because for a while there it started to feel like it meant bitcoin and free markets. Some anarchists really love money, apparently. Some even seem to prefer black Friday to black November. I'm talking, of course, about anarchist-capitalists.

Of all the adjectives forcing themselves onto the noun, capitalist is the most insistent, the most pervasive. Anarchist-capitalists, if Google search results are anything to go by, are everywhere.

Who are they? Where did they come from? What do they want?

Is anarchist-capitalism an online phenomenon, like so many other anarchisms, or is it out there in the world talking to people and making and breaking stuff?

What are the differences between the anti-capitalist anarchists we know and (sometimes) love, and this other crowd? What are the similarities? Are there overlaps in our mileus? In our ideas?

Would you rather be at a bar full of Bernie/Biden bro's, or bitcoin/bow-tie bros?

Do you think of anarchist-capitalists as your friends? Enemies? Rivals?

Where do we end and they begin? Is an anarchist who charges other anarchists money to listen to them talk on zoom still an anti-capitalist? What about the professional patreon-ers and the gofundme grifters? In this neverending nightmare of buying, selling, clocking in and clocking out, are we all capitalists to one degree or another?

Penny for your thoughts, internet.

There are 78 Comments

ancap business idea #1: glass repair company. break windows at night, fix for $ during the day. repeat.

"Where do we end and they begin?"

we end on the wrong side of a laser beam perimeter system that cuts us in half as we try to approach the ancapistan border to free the totally consenting child coal miner / brothel workers.

There are a wide variety of different kinds of beliefs and people that exist within the "anarchist-capitalist" milieu. Some of them are full-on pro-capitalist,  pro-corporate, racist, homophobic and misogynist pieces of shit. And some of them are decent people. The trick is to distinguish between one and the other. 

The subsection within the "anarchist-capitalist" milieu that is the most promising are the agorists. Agorism is like a kind of radical individualist anarchism, with Stirnerite egoist proclivities, this is more interested in building up the black market and less interested in obsessing over possible future utopias. Sure, some of them might be bigoted jerks, but if you want some of your favorite untraceable off-the-books what-have-you, those are the ones to turn to. 

There are also some folks who live in the grey area in-between anarcho-capitalism and anti-capitalist anarchism, particularly I'm thinking of the Center for a Stateless Society and the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party. These folks tend to be mutualists, arguably the very first anarchist school of thought out there, that is in favor of both free markets as well as abolishing capitalism. I really appreciate those people, since they are making friends with people on both sides, as well as pissing off people on both sides. Gotta keep things interesting. 

I'm a mutualist, and a regular reader of C4SS. I'm definitely anti capitalist. All mutualists are anti capitalist. Markets and Capitalism are not the same thing.

I wouldn't mind seeing it become the baseline of anarchism and even all libertarianism again. Right now you have the property communist extremes which don't help anarchy in either direction. What should have succeeded Proudhon was Armand not Bakunin and Kropotkin and all the reified collectivity they brought on board(though there is still stuff of value certainly from Bakunin).

"Capitalism is not some abstract thing. It is deeply personal. It creates the channels through which care reaches (or doesn't reach) each of us. And that care [or lack of it] transforms us into who we are."

If I'm at a bar these days it is neither with Bernie-bros nor with bitcoin-bros as I see both as more or less delusional. I can hang with a lot of crazy, but not the sort of crazy that thinks either electoral politics or alt-capital(ism) is any path to pursue.

I mean, maybe anarchist-capitalists think they are on my side, but I don't see them as on my side, to the extent that I have sides in that sense, as it were. Here we are in the middle of a global pandemic and where I'm at we just had a summer of fire and toxic air, so I really do not see a rearrangement of balance sheets or a trying to make more equitable the thing that brought us to this point as actually engaging with reality or even plausibility.

The current conflict across the entire world is money versus life. In that confrontation, in that war, no honest person can be neutral: one is on the side of money or one is on the side of life.
- Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano

Simply, a life spent preoccupied with transactional relationships and accumulating surplus material wealth produces a deficit (haha using capitalist term) in empathetic emotional engagements with other people.

i long ago gave up trying to label and sub-label folks. anyone that can only see life in transactional/economic terms - some ancaps i've engaged with actually say every single act in life is an economic transaction - is not an ally of mine. they might be "decent", they might be funny, they might be in my family or be my bookie.... i will interact with them in the ways i enjoy (assumedly they do too), and i ignore them otherwise. it's really not difficult, i am simply honest and without objective judgement (but of course subjective judgement is what makes me... me).

the binary thinking that dominates life in the modern human world is clearly not lost on all the so-called radicals that seem to need to place individuals into labelled, rigid ideological boxes to throw darts at.

spockian, i agree completely.

'all the so-called radicals that seem to need to place individuals into labelled, rigid ideological boxes to throw darts at'

completely agree, but who is doing that here? surely the OP makes the argument that no one fits in a box?

An-cap is too trendy. They are not a friend of mine as they’re usually posers who are still caught up in party politics to at least some extent. Still beating around the bush with ideals rather than taking any personal action towards true anarchism, and that means they’re not anarchists at all. Essentially they’re mostly statists who think they’re not statists, or, they’re not statists but again, cannot put down the statist arguments that statists argue about.

For me the bottom line is this - if you’re anarchist, you better live that lifestyle to your fullest extent. Yes, you can eat at a fancy steakhouse and still be an anarchist. Yes, you can be an anarchist and have a credit card or a luxury vehicle. But, NO, you cannot be an anarchist and believe that you can somehow reform the system by using the system. Also, you cannot be an anarchist and believe that it’s something which can be implemented at scale, or adopted by the masses.

Basically, to be a true anarchist in my humble opinion, you must factually understand that the system is broken beyond repair, that centralized activism, protests, and civil disobedience are foolish, and that theres only one path to true freedom, by taking/living it to your fullest extent.

You also have some good points, Slick. I have never understood an-caps simply because anarchism has always been also anti-capitalism, at least in the time I've been studying it. (we can quibble about markets for old-school anarchists, maybe).

Last week's totw about the "NO!" of anarchy is reflected here in the idea that it all must go. There are no redeeming bits to the current order of things, though I wouldn't say the system is broken so much as it is working as intended for those who intended and intend it to work.

[the quote I put up last week should not be read as a refusal of refusal, but as an acknowledgement that we refuse *because* the system is here, not out of our own desires for what life could be.]

Lastly, I would say it like this: there are as many paths to freedom as there are beings seeking freedom.

It is foolish to simply think of "anarcho-capitalism" as a bitcoin and market champion, or as an Internet phenomenon. Because anarchic capitalism has always been in practice. More precisely, it and "anarcho-reformism" are two sides of capitalism. On the one hand, the pseudo reformist movement misled the masses; on the other hand, anarchic capitalism operated behind the scenes. It's been tested once in Chile, led by the military government. Although this seems like a paradox, "anarcho-capitalism" does not want the government, but why should it be dominated by the military government? Because capitalism opposes political intervention, and the military government is just a reliable guarantee. "anarcho-capitalism" is essentially different from fascism and Nazism. It is an anti political totalitarianism, and the real power composition comes from the commodity trade.

Contemporary fascists will pretend to be leftists. As in the past, fascist version of "anti capitalism" is still a tautology of capitalism.

you can easily argue that the whole purpose of fascism has always been to channel authentic grassroots hostility towards the effects of capitalism in to blind alleys of xenophobia, displacing the anger and protecting the rich from the pitchforks.

No, fascism is diffuse in modern times. It's not about protecting the rich, it's a systematic conspiracy. It is often said that there is a big gap between 1% and 99%, but in fact, even ordinary employees in a second tier city have a huge gap with the quality of life of white-collar workers in big cities. Not to mention the children and the elderly living in the rural hell, whose buildings are equally formatted, where life is slow, old and stupid.

So this is fascism. It's a systematic lie. At the instigation of hypocritical intellectuals, people naturally feel indignant. After occupying an illusory moral advantage, they make waves on the Internet and attack those who are different from them. Then the despicable take advantage of the opportunity to reap advertising dividends.

Everyone is shouting against capitalism, but capitalism has never been stopped. Because they like to eat shit provided by technocrats. Some people want to tell the truth, but they are not welcome. Some people try to think through learning, but they are ridiculed. And then Anglo Saxon anthropologists can have both fame and fortune, relying on some boring leftist posturing and idiotic pursuit. If those people are as moral as they say, why never think about it?

Is fascist really an external enemy? When people think so, what's the difference between them and trump?

Finally, under the rule of computer systems and technology, everyone becomes a domestic animal - a slave to human beings. Maybe it started long ago in some countries. Under the leadership of the United Nations, "fight for human rights," but humanity has crushed itself.

you might think you're disagreeing with me but what you're actually doing is playing very fast and loose with the definition of fascism. I don't play those semantic games, they're tedious to me.

look at your first two sentences even: "fascism is diffuse, it's not about protecting the rich, it's a systemic conspiracy" ... yes, it is. To protect the rich. That's the point of the conspiracy. What other conclusion is even possible here? Some David Icke shit?

Then you ramble on for awhile as if you've successfully pointed out nuance but none of that refutes the original point. The "conspiracy" is as old as capitalism and complete defines the power dynamics within.

Fascism is just a particularly blunt and xenophobic version of the same rigged game, turning one half of the rubes against the other half so they don't break out the guillotines and go after the greediest fucks instead.

In fact, what I want to say is a systematic lie (but it doesn't matter). 99% is a myth. Although 1% is getting richer, it actually increases with the amount of wealth. That is to say, there is still a huge gap among 99%. There is a gap in the same country, and the gap between different countries becomes more obvious. So it is obviously a post fascist lie to let people pretend to unite under the slogan of 99%, which has caused the proliferation of micro fascism. This is the current situation of fascism in our time.

Nowadays, there are many views from historicism and dogmatism that fascism refers to historical events. Therefore, to oppose fascism is only to study history. But this view does not transcend fascism. Or there are all kinds of strange statements, usually sophistry. For example, because liberals think that fascism is not in line with their values, and then I oppose liberals, I am regarded as fascist. But on the other hand, because I think that liberals and Fascists are two sides of one, they are post-modern fascism, and then I am regarded as a liberal who "treats fascism as an insult".

In fact, this confusion is a preventive counter insurgency strategy. It actually constitutes a fascist normal, cleverly allowing racism and counter revolution to run under the table of debate. It's like a young white man who doesn't understand the dangers faced by the poor black people - on the surface, everyone talks equally, but in fact it's bullshit. The police are two faced, but young white people are not able to understand it and then falsely accuse blacks of being antiques.

In fact, this is stupid. The stupidity of using too much power. This stupidity is the privilege of fascism.

so you're just kind of talking around people's responses to the things you say, huh? don't play defense, right? ;)

I think it is very troublesome to rely on translation engine for communication. I don't even know what you're talking about. It seems better for me to stay on the sidelines.

oh I see! well a language barrier would explain too. my mistake

Not so much you my dear anarch, but lumpenthing who over intellectualize concepts which are best translated at the intuitive level. Take fascism for example, if something is messing with your wellbeing and interfering with the processes of your desires and relationships with the creative world of your existence, well then its FASCIST DIRTY FASCIST SCUM DIE DIE DIE!!!
Simple gut feeling spontaneous avoid the fascist filth sensation, avoid it, repel it, get away from it.

I remember what I wanted to say before. I mean, fascism is a kind of systematic *collusion*(It was translated into “conspiracy”. )People often think that fascism is a 1% or external enemy, but they never consider that they are in a collusion with fascist.
The final point I want to express is that human beings face self domestication and self enslavement. There is no alien conquest, but under the rule of slave morality and bureaucracy, there is no future for mankind.

"make it a term of abuse" ... geez ziggles, normally, you're more careful to cloak your 4chan bullshit. don't you think what happened to mussolini indicates that it wasn't just "leftists" and their biases?

sure seems like - thus always to tyrants - to me! and that sentiment is far older than the F word ;)

As written by Benito. Usually it's best to define an ideology as stated by the ideologues themselves.

Also the term of abuse was originally said by H L Mencken back in the day(Bob Black recited it). It IS a term of abuse and antifa discourse , for the most part, a rallying call and deployment by liberal and universalist ideologues to get other marginals to put out of fire they started via modern capital and state. Liberal bourgeois ideology essentially becomes the too big to fail object at this point and fascism becomes a trumped up(pun intended) enemy that gets in the way of the smooth functioning of capital and state.

Quite frankly fascisms novelty was always tied to early 20th century corporatism and autarky. It has no historical drive outside of that time period beyond nostalgic cultural larp as well as perhaps an aide to the emerging new psychographics of the 21st century in a similar vein to how the new left played a role in ending fordism. The altright might have a similar novel role in changing technologies and new psychographic developments but it will be nothing like the 20s and 30s just as the far left in the later 20th C was nothing like the old left as far as potency goes. You might get a Steve Jobs equivalent of emerging technology who use to be a Kekistani meme warrior, but that's about it.

do you even remember having these arguments with me years ago? I do.

you want to freeze shit in time and not apply it to today. many people including myself, think that's a stupid, myopic analysis.

lets not waste each other's time ziggles. don't you have a big fun life out there?

Classic fascism was a legislated system of law developed to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of the Roman plebeian. There is nothing malicious or unjust about the classic fascist.

I'm so sick of people like lumpentroll using "fascist" very broadly to refer to anyone who fits under the right-wing umbrella, and then wringing their hands at people who try to even more broadly use it as a metaphysical/spiritual concept as LostAnarch is doing...

REMEMBER FOLKS, the basic fact of nature is that people play a role in deciding how words are used. History and dictionaries are lame ass fortifications for meaning.

Anon 13:35 replying that yes, only the classic fascism derived from the fasces is the acceptable definition, thx.

moussalini, his cohorts, and italy during the period leading up to WWII? I hate it how in the US historians just love to talk about hitler, and so therefore a lot of people who expressed similar ways of thinking and tendencies tend to get buried under the rug ideologically speaking...I thought it was interesting that he had an individualist anarchist phase, but of course that tells us little about why he became the raging buffoon that he did become...i have this great book on my shelf that compares and contrasts hitler and stalin called "the dictators", it's very dense and informative and i thought that the amount i was able to stomach reading was pretty doesn't fall into the trap of trying to say nazism and communism are "just as evil" like so many mediocre folks who've taught my history classes have tried to do, it talks more about their unique psychopathic/narcissistic methods and personalities than their vague political opinions.

Do you think that psychologically, Jesus was a narcissistic sociopath, and the only difference between him and Mussolini was that he was a compassionate pacifist?

i do not praise mouslanni or hitler in any way, but i want to learn about the most "evil" in any way because then i also know about the holiest and most pure, im sure they got sum BOMIN TP LUL

you can make as little sense when you write and talk as you like, I won't stand in your way sweetheart ;)

because why are we competing to be the most sensible? Are we two beautifully guided sensible idiots, reaching out through some trash trolling? Or does NONE OF THIS MATTER BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DIE, this is not a loaded question

you know, I want to try and do a more generous interpretation here

I don't have any beef with regular people who manage to turn one of their little schemes or side hustles in to a full blown don't-have-to-slave-for-some-yuppie-scum-anymore freedom ticket. Not hard to understand the appeal of that.

Of course, everything is scale so if you take enough pirate booty to live a humble life comfortably, relative to cost of living, whatever. do you. it's all good.

But if you're one of those scumbags who wants to constantly flex the opulence thing while the world burns and millions are in poverty, then at least have the decency to admit that you're a piece of shit and deserve far worse than my hatred. Of course we're eternal enemies. This is me being generous!

But yeah, there's actually quite a lot of room to move around in that ambiguity I sketched out there. Plenty of room for the digital con-artists, petty thieves, goons and grifters! Just don't be so greedy that you default over to the other team, don't forget the little people. And definitely don't start smoking that social darwinism pipe in any way, shape or form.

"I don't have any beef with regular people who manage to turn one of their little schemes or side hustles in to a full blown don't-have-to-slave-for-some-yuppie-scum-anymore freedom ticket. Not hard to understand the appeal of that"

"But if you're one of those scumbags who wants to constantly flex the opulence thing while the world burns and millions are in poverty..."

so you are totally fine with people who scam working stiffs, but if they use that money to buy anything that looks nice or is in any way visible to the naked eye then...damn them all to hell !? My my, remind me not to listen to triumphant rap music whenever I'm around you...clearly not someone I'm every going to run a con with! You'll see one of those ads with the sad puppies and then demand that I give up all our hard-earned booty to the first homeless dude with a sign on the street!

oh look, I made a friend! Hi friend! We are friends now. Can't wait to do all our friend stuff together friendo!

I used to be a happy carefree person but since reading your comments I've become a cynical and sarcastic person. I can't just go back to the way I used to be, life doesn't work like that, incase you didn't know!!!

I have been trying to introduce an-caps to left wing anarchism. Most of them don't actively reject it, but are truly unaware its existence. Many self-identified an-caps haven't read much theory at all outside the Austrian economists. Even having the conversation with these people gets them interested sometimes, and on rare occasion they do come over to the left towards something like mutualism. Unfortunately sometimes they end up going full tankie, but that's another story...

Anarcho-capitalism is mostly an online thing, but don't confuse that as being insignificant or something worth ignoring. Theoretical, intellectual discussions can unexpectedly bleed into tangible action. Don't automatically assume a mostly online movement will remain online.

Anarcho-capitalism is also mostly a USA-centric thing, with some centers of mass in Australia, Canada, and the UK. There are, however, an-caps outside the "first world". Latin America especially has a long history of radical liberalism (land and liberty kind of stuff) in combination with institutionalized neoliberalism which seems to increase the appeal of an-capism. Having openly corrupt governments or incompetent governments also makes people more open to an-cap ideas (more of them than you'd expect in sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Russia!). Again, don't assume there are too few of them to make an observable impact - ideas can expand in sudden, punctuated moments if the environment is right.

On another topic, anarcho-capitalists are much more theoretically interested in collaborating with left anarchists than vice versa, although it's a minority on both sides. Not sure what to make of it.

My background in the free software/open source movement may have increased my initial tolerance for these things. I've always had to deal with an-coms and an-caps hanging out in the same chatrooms and whatnot so it never struck me as odd to have conversations with both sides.

Regarding Trump, he really has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. He's definitely on the authoritarian populist side, and the only an-caps supporting him are either (a) literally cryptofash (b) view him as slightly better than the Democratic offerings on things like taxes.

Escobar, on the other hand, raises a good point. A truly successful, IRL an-cap organization probably looks a lot like a drug cartel/crime syndicate except existing crime syndicates don't mind violating the non-aggression principle or working with governments because they are fully motivated by profit without concern for theoretical moral principles. An an-cap crime syndicate would have to obey moral imperatives, which raises the question: why would they?

The Ancap crime-syndicate wouldn't have to obey moral imperatives, maybe ethical imperatives yes, such as contracted exchange rates and petty decorum protocols, but any morals are determined by the leader/committee which handles the operation. There is no legislative arm in the group.

Well there is a type of legislative arm, it holds a gun.

Your premise is wrong. The root of Ancap is classical liberalism, that is to say, it is still a rationalist metaphysics. This means sacrificing yourself to serve a system of truth. For Ancap, individual rationality is subordinated to mathematics and capitalist market system. This is its moral nature. So Ancap and classical socialists are essentially the same kind of intellectuals. They see the market as a virtue that can save most people, not as a tool of crime and war. So they are actually some sad people.

The same is true of socialist intellectuals. It is necessary for us to understand that socialism is one of the forms of capitalism. But why can't people understand it? For example, like the propaganda strategies of some socialist countries, they attribute all immoral factors to capitalism. It has a source of Paris Commune, which is the dichotomy of "good" and "bad". If socialists are good people, then capitalists are bad people - they are greedy, selfish and blood sucking, so they must be knocked down. But in fact, the leaders of socialist countries understand very well what this morality means. It means expanding labor production and making the country strong. That's why Puritanism affected socialism as well as capitalism.

But such propaganda actually scares the poor and makes them more compliant. This includes some evil images - such as hell and Vampires - created to scare the poor. It's not true. The capitalist about Satanism is not true, its purpose is to plant booty and political incitement. Americans clearly understand this, but they pretend not to know that capitalism is rooted in Puritan morality and workaholic. They just want to take advantage of the socialist Puritan moral tamed labor force.

As for the crime syndicate you mentioned, it's another thing. The secret association of the poor has no obvious capitalist orientation, but in order to survive, they have to go to the road of crime. And it is clear that it has had an adverse effect on the rule. So for capitalism, this is still a governance problem: buying, using, dividing and striking. However, it is undeniable that in the process of crime syndicate's professionalization, there appeared pure criminals who were obedient to capitalism and threatened the revolution.

Ýour smiling nextdoor neighbour, your friendly postman, the traffic cop, the kindergarten teachers, the highschool headmaster, the midwife,,,,,,,could all be crypto-ancaps,,,,,,living normal lives,,,,,,but thinking anti-social thoughts beneath the facade of their community participation,,,,,,,

Its a possibility then that Biden/Harris could be crypto-ancaps? How would we know, are there any telltale behavioral traits which one can look for?

Ancaps don't offer their pearls to swines. They don't offer welfare to the homeless unemployed leftist proletariat.
Ancaps reap what they sow. They use their smarts to live outside the law and be independent self-made people.
Ancaps believe in an eye for an eye. They are amoral and preontologically just because they do not premeditate before acting upon a hurt done to them.

So what you're saying is that Jesus was an ancap, really?

If one regards the mercantile values of the Judaen society during Jesus's era as proto-"capitalist" activities, then his lifestyle may be described as a mystical ancap tendency.
Just because he turned over a few merchant's tables at the temple doesn't mean that he was against commerce in the other locations within the town.

So relevant an analogy, like how Pontius Pilate is equivalent to a Gestapo regional administrator the way he cruelly put the crown of thorns on Jesus's head mockingly referring to him as the "King of the Jews". History often rekindles the concept of the archetype human. Its no surprise that Fascism originated in Rome, so why not proto-anarch forms of rebellion?

No, that is ridiculous, PP was not malicious towards Jesus, actually apologetic.

And I will include Barrabas in my argument, that he represented the populist Robin Hood leftist activist hero of the common Jewish mob.

Yeah sure, keep extrapolating, and Jesus was an existentialist hippy......

,,,,,,and I will include anon anarcho- evangelists who originate from the bible-belt of the USA,,,,,,,

One can take it for granted that fascism originated in ancient Rome. But such a view obviously ignores that fascism is the movement of modern nation-state. Leviathan, as Hobbes pointed out, is in accordance with the principles of the Nicene Creed.

I heard that fascism is a reaction of the petite bourgeoisie against the threat of a leftist revolution by the working class. Like for instance, most Trump supporters are really blue-collar demographic and not exactly living in poverty.

Marxist Discourse tries to prove that the working class is progressive. It may be true in his context, but it does not mean that the working class has nothing to do with fascism. It is very dangerous if we only listen to the political propaganda of Marxism. Fascism obviously has an impact on the whole society. Benjamin's argument is that fascism stems from a mania for ambiguous progress.

almost nobody is saying that the working class has nothing to do with it. most of the smart eggs are saying that fascism is mostly an attempt to distract the workers from getting mad at the rich and direct their rage on to scape goats.

and you don't really need marxist analysis to figure that out either, what with ol' karl just being one of many who noticed the problem.

I'm saying it, the working class don't make up the fascist hordes, its the down and out petite bourgeoisie who mobilize and make the most noise. Some dumb workerists get drawn into the wake in the same way surface tension makes coffee bean particles stick to side of a cup.

sure maybe or maybe class isn't a great way to understand who's vulnerable to xenophobic manipulation

Obama created Trump plain and simple, corporate liberal globalism! It wasn't a distraction it was dedicated corporate greed and the increasing gap between Obama's Ivy league buddies and the workerist hordes!
You don't know everything you smug knowall!

I actually agree with that statement but you seem mad bro?

is my smug trolling in your head bro? ;)

Don't call me "bro? ;)", its sickening condescension aargh, you fail in recruiting one of the most anarch heads on this site Aaargh!

to the naive its a genuine invitation to join the flock, to the confused "bro" is a request for brotherhood. I can smell broseph sarcasm when i see it! Make 3 sacrifices, and you shall be clean....


anyway, please translate anything that lumpen posts on here it always confuses me.

*assumes a sci-fi soap-operatic stance* Its just that I live in the anarch dimension, and to be called "bro" by a lower-dimension lumpenthing troll is insulting. *pouts*

to believe in anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy, ontology, political system, etc., you have to be attached to a self-sufficiency ethic very commonly found in the united states, yet widely believed in by all people who don't have patience for the problems of other people whom they don't trust.

i don't know, an ethos of self-sufficiency would seem to point against the need for markets and value-exchange. markets do not equal capitalism, but the line drawn by most ancaps i have engaged with is so broad as to be meaningless.

"no states!"

idk, you tell me, the difference between an-caps and libertarians is libetarians want "minarchism", which just reaks of ronald caps means that security gaurds simply protect the hard-exploited booty for next to nothing which i not something new????




"Would you rather be at a bar full of Bernie/Biden bro's, or bitcoin/bow-tie bros?"

to tell you the truth neither. Bernie and biden fans (how rude and misandrist to say they are "bros", kinda like if I said that AOC fans were aye-ok-cunts) pine in their dreams of having a socially democratic USA, which will never happen btw, and an-caps pine in their dreams about a world that is ruled by the innovative and useful rather than the thuggish and uptight. Neither one of them understand capitalism or the state. I'd rather be in a bar with a mixture of both because that would force the conversations to be a little more interesting.

Anarcho-capitalists in my experience are normally not assholes, generally pretty reasonable and open minded people who are always willing to argue their points if you veer into a political discussion with them. Some of the arguments they made when i was more of a "bernie bro" later drove me to understand why it's not so radical or unbelievable to be completely against the state and the law. I used to argue with anarcho-capitalists a lot in real life and on the internet. Their error is they are dogmatic and religious, they see capitalism as a force for good, which tends to make them kind of stingy at heart. As long as they hold on to their dogma, they will never understand that there is no such thing as "a free market".

Anarcho-capitalism is the most popular strain of anarchist thought...or so it seems...because it allows people to see a less destructive alternative to ending systematic oppression. If a situation allows for the failures and miseries of someone to be entirely their fault, wouldn't that be preferable to some evil megalomaniac in the sky torturing the poor?

As an addendum critique to the more updated anarcho capitalism, so you realize that cryptos need some sort of centralized control, correct?

"because it allows people to see a less destructive alternative to ending systematic oppression"

Yeeessss... By reproducing it, idiot.

Suite, I was merely describing why an cap attracts people. I made it obvious too.

D00d, I BeT UR MOMS version of dumpster diving entails sticking her head in an outhouse toilet and looking for treasure, no she doesn'teven know about composting feces....YOU IDIOT, I'm so much smarter than you. TAKE THAT.

"Anarcho-capitalism is the most popular strain of anarchist thought...or so it seems...because it allows people to see a less destructive alternative to ending systematic oppression. "

i cannot think of when i have read a more ignorant statement on @news. what do i expect when the topic is ancaps?

Yes agreed, and it rang so intelligent that it even caught some of us off guard with its big words and complex sentences.

You have to be blind if you don't understand the reason for practically every political ideology is to find an alternative to the miserable existence people have been trying rid themselves from since the dawn of civilization.

I really dont blame ancaps for coming up with misguided philosophies when people frequently hide how stupid they are by calling other people stupid. Who are you hiding from? You are commenting under anon you stupid piece of shit.

Add new comment