Am I the only one seeing a re-birth of “anarcho”-capitalist ideology on the internet?
These fuckers were EVERYWHERE back in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In fact, their presence coincided with the Obama presidency, whereby the entire GOP was calling Obama a closeted communist and pushing a ton of anti-Marxist propaganda. A lot of it had to do with the Ron Paul cult that started in 2007-2008. “An”-caps tried weaselling their way into every anti-war protest, every authentically anarchist space, Occupy Wall Street (they tried infiltrating the movement to make it about ending the Federal Reserve but failed), and plenty of other anti-establishment spaces.
However, by the mid 2010s most of them jumped on the Trump train and shifted their views entirely. No longer were they free market fundamentalists but big government right-wing populists. My friend in New Hampshire said that nearly all the Free Staters are now anti-drug, anti-queer, anti-abortion, and pro-police, when they all held the polar opposite views 13-15 years ago. Plus, many free market guys are now MAGAts who’ve converted to traditionalist Catholicism and are pushing a hyper-nationalist crypto-NazBol agenda. The only thing I can conclude is that their views were always informed by white supremacy.
However, for the past week or so I’ve noticed a sizeable resurgence of “an”-caps online. Has anyone else noticed the same? You think they will come back as a means of countering Mamdani and the new rise of DSA into political power?
>>2554344
Suits are the least of the anarchists' problems my dear good friend
>>2554334An ancap resurgence will bother me less than a general resurgence of broad libertarianism. Either way I hope they both stay relatively dead. They suck the air out of the room.
Thankfully doing a ton of drugs tends to be a self-crippling activity, and being more in support of drugs tends to place a person in environments where there is more use.
>>2554334I have not, and if such a thing is happening then that means people are getting genuinely fucking dumber.
There has never been a worse time to be a right-libertarian/ancap ideologically. Everything happening right now is exposing their beliefs as completely fraudulent. The two biggest examples being the $20 billion bailout for Argentina's failed libertarian economy, and gun owners not doing shit about ICE.
>>2554540Also the DOGE inflicting massive austerity leading to huge job losses.
"Libertarian/ancap" policies accelerates the contradictions and collapse of capitalism when you think about it.
>>2554334yeah everything goes through cycles. abundance libs are just rebranded steven pinker.
Ancaps have no reason to still exist.
>>2554548And they still managed to speedrun a trillion dollars of extra debt.
Suits are the least of the anarchists' problems my dear good friend
retarded free market fanboy ideologies are like wasps - there's too many of the cunts
>>2554334There‘s one self-proclaimed „an“cap on a website I‘m sometimes active, he has the same opinion as the MAGAtoids on everything, the only difference is that he doesn‘t like Trump as much
They never went away. It's just that when the right-wing is in power, a portion of rightists flock to another ideology to mantain the grift and explain the contradiction that they are still poor and miserable.
>>2554334>Am I the only one seeing a re-birth of “anarcho”-capitalist ideology on the internet?Yeah I see that too. I think it coincides with right-wing populism becoming less and less enticing after Trump pushing the typical contrarians into libertarianism/ancap.
Out of all the rightwing ideologies, they are probably the worst because they fundamentally misunderstand everything. The neoliberals and libertarians have destroyed people's understandings of capitalism, states etc so much that it's appaling to discuss with them.
you must be very or otherwise there is no explanation of why you think anarchocapitalism is more popular now than under Ron Paul's presidential run
Not a leftist
Am curious, why aren't ancaps considered to be real anarchists? Do you consider non-leftist anarchists (that aren't necessarily capitalists) to be anarchists at all?
>sizeable resurgence of “an”-caps online
a redditor bought twitter so redditors flocked to it
>>2555334Unironically anarchy is when no rules
>>2555338if anarchy is unconditional,
then why call yourself an "anarchist" to begin with?
>>2555327You'll get a different answer from every self-identified anarchist because anarchism as a movement isn't united and neither is it without contradictions between the persons calling themselves anarchists. Its a bit like asking a Trotskyist if they consider Hoxhaism to be communism, then asking them if they consider Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Third-Worldism to be communism, then asking them if they consider Academic "Marxism" as communism.
I don't consider anyone outside of the anarchist-communist school of thought as legitimate. I share the complaints seen listed on this thread
https://archive.ph/JNc5yBy far the worst thing that has come out of the New-Left has been the primitivist ideology and the anti-tech neo-luddism, the most reactionary ideology by far. The second worst has got to be that most contemporary "anarchists" are indistinguishable from liberals and a broader trend of NATOpolitian "anarchists" has taken place as a result of decades of the New-Left astroturfing anarchist spaces with socialdemocratic propaganda and punkerism, modern "anarchists" are only anarchist in name for the chic.
Nobody looks like
>>2555349picrel: 100% true I have taken lines with such folx
>I don't consider anyone outside of the anarchist-communist school of thought as legitimate.You should read Dauvé my bro
>>2555389I have read him, he is a bastard modernizier and probably a pedophile. Autonomism is retarded, anarchist-communism can only manage as an international project with coordination on a continental scale at the very least to be able to fend for itself, anything less than that will meet the same fate as the Paris Commune. Read the ICP's book on the Paris Commune, you don't need a party to see why it was a disorganized uncoordinated mess.
https://clpublishers.com/product/the-paris-commune/Autonomists are all retarded liberals who think you can "escape from capitalism" by running squats and shitty villages, they will all be eradicated INEVITABLY.
Dauve's only great contributions remain his writings on fascism/antifascism which are more or less just the same lessons Bordiga taught presented in a simpler way.
>>2555404Anarcho-Bordigist, Oh god now I've seen it all….
No, I don't see it. They all became white-nationalists. Maybe they wave the flag but none of them are preaching open borders and other Koch brothers stuff.
>>2555404Dauve wasn't an autonomist, that's some weird Italian ideology. I question how much you actually read.
The dumbest thing Dauve did was try to combine Bordiga, a super-Leninist, and anti-Leninist council communism.
>>2555411Yeah. Anarcho-capitalists always end up into third-position types cause they can't shake the spooks but realise "capitalism bad".
>>2555405No such creature exists. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bordiga, Stalin, Trotsky and so on all believed in the instrumentality of the state as "an instrument of repression of one class over another", anarchists do not and do not consider it characteristic of the working class to be ruling and insist that once a worker has been placed in such a position he ceases to be a worker and becomes a part of the managerial class over a working class, Marx only hypothesized of there being a society where everyone is part of the managerial class dubbing it the administration of things, it hasn't manifested yet and we have no reason to believe it will through this approach.
>>2555412Communizers are all autonomists.
ancaps are big on south america ever since milei started blabbing about his retarded bullshit, you will see subsistence level wagie doordashers being ancaps, it's crazy.
>>2555423To continue they considered the party to be the organ of class consciousness in the interest of the workers to enforce the programme, to us this is indistinguishable from Bismarck "State socialism". If they can really carry out the program and end the capitalist mode of production once and for all - nobody is stopping them, they can go ahead and try, it wouldin't make any difference to an authentic anarchist whether or not he is living under a liberal bourgeois state, a fascist state or a "transitionary socialist state". I am giving the go-ahead for any movement trying to rival the bourgeois liberal democracies to do whatever they want since the anarchist movement is not united enough to do anything yet, if anything is to be done it must be done on at least a continental scale with intent to export a revolution against the capitalist mode of production worldwide and be capable of managing a planned economy through the federations composed of unions of producers and unions of consumers, the producers must not exchange their products, trade, barter, buying and selling must be rendered obsolete.
>>2555423You gotta make this into an Oi! song for a trad Syncidalist-Bordiguist band my bud! ACAA! ACAA! ACAA! All Communizers Are Autonomists!
abrazos al SUT te echo de menos >>2555432Any self-described "anarchist" that rejects planned production and large scale production is just a liberal bastard or a reactionary who must either be educated OR disposed of to avoid hinderance to the movement.
I am in favor of forced labor as a means to managing a wartime economy at the expanse of the counterrevolutionaries, I am in favor of involuntary human experiments upon irreparable antisocial individuals who cannot be rehabilitated, I am in favor of biological warfare and any unconventional methods prohibited by the bourgeois as a means to spreading a revolution in a crisis situation, I am in favor of penal battalions and expandable canon fodder. The means justify the ends when the situation during a revolutionary struggle is not favorable.
>>2555436Picrel and a lot of syndicalists are confused and often vile anti-communists. IWA-AIT and the AS internationals and organizations must accept the name of Anarchist-Communists, build their program and coordinate within the anarchist international towards AC. Syndicalist organizations that have not been built on the basis of class unionism with the intent of organizing the productive forces for a takeover of the MOP towards coordinating for AC are devoid of class consciousness and ought to be dismembered and salvaged.
>>2555327Anarchism means there's no State, but the existence of private property demands a State to enforce that private property. Ancaps try to dance around it by arguing about "ethical" rules like the NAP, but the enforcement of that demands a State. To get over that logical hurdle, they theorize private militaries, which then they're just replicating a State with some form of federation of corporations. Funnily enough, that's how nearly every cyberpunk dystopia is structured
Private property is in direct opposition to anarchism, so ancaps cannot be "real" anarchists. The ancaps are a product of the egoist tradition, which means they're not necessarily anarchists but rather vulgar individualists. You can see this clearly in their cringe literature like Ayn Rand's romance novels.
>>2555463>Anarchism means there's no StateAnarchy means without rulers altogether, not just the state. And as Malatesta wrote theres two ways to rule over a person either directly, by brute force, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by depriving them of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to helplessness at discretion (by economic means).
The problem of not having rulers acting as enforcers remains the lack of coordination, disunity and cooperation. Doing what has to be done is instead ignored for endless objections. This can only be fixed with the creation of a sufficient programme that is accepted as the basis of a federation detailing how proceidures are processed and carried out, paired with a list of principles describing the character of the Anarchist Federation and the organizations comprising it. Anything that contradicts the program and principles must be argued, if the argumentation is not sufficient yet continuious it exposes a hostile contradiction.
>>2555477The most important order of the anarchist movement remains the program and principles set by the international of anarchist federations which all participating anarchist federations must obide by unless they have reasonable objections for change proposals.
Decisions for change of program must not be made democratically on a majority basis, the majority is not always right, decisions must be argumented and presented to be of sound logic. Think of the film 12 Angry Men to see how such a form of consensus functions in action.
>>2555463Pretty much covered it.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state so therefore anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
They get around this by redefining capitalism to mean any and all historic forms of commerce, completely rejecting the actual definition, and then point to evidence of trade where there was no state involved.
>>2555483>all participating anarchist federations must obide by unless they have reasonable objections for change proposals. And who enforces that? Who decides what counts as reasonable objections or sound logic?
>Think of the film 12 Angry Men to see how such a form of consensus functions in action.The Jury structure itself was enforced by the state. Those people were forced to be there.
>>2555514>And who enforces that? The entire composite of the federation.
>Who decides what counts as reasonable objections or sound logic?The section of the federation engaged in the discourse.
>The Jury structure itself was enforced by the state. Those people were forced to be there.And they could've easily just all voted yes and gone home, but they were forced to all reach a consensus. Anarchism requires consensus by reasoning or it ends up with contradictions and hostilities that can only be done away with by violence, just as any other type of antisocial behaviour is done away with by any society to have existed. There is no complete way to prevent dissidence from occuring in any society, that would be a utopia which doesn't exist. Dissidents exist in every place, the question is if they wish to engage or if they are hostile.
>>2555531Some call it coordinated negotiation. But a lot of people do not require consideration for negotiations at all, if they are hostile they can only be responded to by force.
>>2555531>The entire composite of the federation.aka Hue and Cry law enforcement
>The section of the federation engaged in the discourse.aka lawmakers
>but they were forced to all reach a consensus.by the state
>Dissidents exist in every place, the question is if they wish to engage or if they are hostile.And when they are hostile it's eventually confronted with force aka law enforcement.
>>2555538>aka Hue and Cry law enforcementAka all of the workers? Its their responsibility to be armed and ready. Until you have specialization. Which is not a problem, it can be sorted out. You keep implying anarchists are against police since you still associate it with chaos and I'm telling you that's not how anarchists work at all. Even Makhno had a secret police.
>aka lawmakersThe proposal comes from the federation, the section engaged would be a council for its decision.
>by the stateThe state is not limited to violent enforcement, it has its own apparatus with a different structure, it is part of the reason why it took so long for the bolsheviks to take over since the russian state was specifically suited towards a parliament.
>And when they are hostile it's eventually confronted with force aka law enforcement.Yes there will be laws and law enforcement, laws exist to be enforced. The state is not simply an instrument for law enforcment, you had law enforcment before the modern conception of the nation state, nationalism is a young ideology.
>>2555545>the section engaged would be a council for its decision.Or a committe, to whoever it concerns. Committe would be more akin to a broad decision, a council would be deciding for its own structure.
>>2555549Gotta respect him for admiting it, if only proudhon had done the same lamo
>>2555549Some outright call themselves Rothbardians, but the biggest irony is with the ones calling themselves "Voluntaryists" to rebrand, considering that voluntaryism as an ideology was formed by Auberon Herbert who wrote about having a voluntary government / voluntary nation-state with voluntary taxation.
>>2555545>You keep implying anarchists are against policeyeah because they supposedly are. Maybe you are not really an anarchists?
>Even Makhno had a secret police.Yes, he had a state to enforce his rule. That's why it was one of the most successful "anarchist" movements in history. Created a state and called it not-a-state. That is the classic criticism about anarchism.
>Yes there will be laws and law enforcement, laws exist to be enforced.under anarchism? How is this different from minarchism?
>The state is not simply an instrument for law enforcment, you had law enforcment before the modern conception of the nation stateYou think anarchist are only against nation states and not states in general? That would mean your type of "anarchist" can also be a monarchist.
>>2555573>yeah because they supposedly are. Maybe you are not really an anarchists?Bourgeois police serve the bourgeois, bourgeois armies serve the bourgeois, MLs are supposedly against both yet there is no contradiction of them having army and police as well.
>Yes, he had a state to enforce his rule. That's why it was one of the most successful "anarchist" movements in history. Created a state and called it not-a-state. That is the classic criticism about anarchism.In your logic a state is anyone who forces your mother into having sex. Where's the state of Tyrone at?
>under anarchism? How is this different from minarchism?>minarchismOh you're 14. No such thing as "minarchism" exists, thats an internet ideology. A small state doesn't mean a less tyrannical state, the Vatican is not the freest state in the world :O).
>You think anarchist are only against nation states and not states in general? That would mean your type of "anarchist" can also be a monarchist.No anarchists are against all states, you just received an example of law enforcement prior to the existance of the nation state, law enforcement existed even prior to the conception of the state, laws existed before writing did.
>>2555590> MLs are supposedly against both yet there is no contradiction of them having army and police as well.MLs explicitly support the state and don't claim to be anarchists.
>Where's the state of Tyrone at?Unironically anarchists actually devolve the state to such an extent individual make their own laws enforced with personal power and many just will end up violating everyone else. That's why Anarchism is incredibly stupid ideology and no one but the most naive support it.
>No such thing as "minarchism" exists, thats an internet ideology. The idea of Nachtwächterstaat (night-watchman state) was coined by Lassallewas in 1862. That's what you are advocating by definition.
>A small state doesn't mean a less tyrannical state,Then why you are advocating for a minarchism and calling it anarchism?
>laws existed before writing did.Literally impossible to know. You just made that up in your head with no evidence.
>>2555635>MLs explicitly support the state and don't claim to be anarchists.If they support the bourgeois state the contradiction's on them.
>UnironicallyUnironically you consider a violent person to be a state.
>The idea of Nachtwächterstaat Yes I know you can use wikipedia kiddie.
>Then why you are advocating for a minarchismI am not.
>Literally impossible to know.Maybe for you it is. Try attending SPED classes more, play less HOI4.
>>2555680>If they support the bourgeois state the contradiction's on them.They support the socialist state to oppress the bourgeoisie. Not contradictory at all.
>you consider a violent person to be a state. When a person uses violence to create a hierarchy over another and enforces their rules it no longer just a single violent person but the start of a state. If only a very decentralized and weak one.
>Yes I know you can use wikipedia kiddie.Considering you though minarchism was created over the internet I assumed you couldn't and looked it up for you. You're welcome.
>I am not. You advocate for a state and call it not-a-state. Classic anarchism.
>Maybe for you it is.How can you possibly know law existed before writing? Did you receive divine revelation from a dream on the matter?
>>2555708>They support the socialist state to oppress the bourgeoisie. Not contradictory at all.And we support the armed anarchists to liquidate the ruling class bourgeois, without installing new rulers, no contradiction.
>When a person uses violence to create a hierarchy over another and enforces their rules it no longer just a single violent person but the start of a state. If only a very decentralized and weak one.Asspull definition, a kidnapper is not a state, a state has institutions, a single person does not. A state is not a person who invents laws, nobody defines a state as just a person who invents and enforces laws, unwritten laws predate written laws which predate the concept of a state.
>Considering you though minarchism was created over the internet You didn't read Lasalle you played roblox and browsed to wikipedia fat kid, minarchism doesn't exist.
>You advocate for a state and call it not-a-state. Classic anarchism.Call it a state then, call us what you like, you fail to understand anarchism the problem is yours. Call it a fascist state if you want, call it nazism, I don't care.
>How can you possibly know law existed before writing? Did you receive divine revelation from a dream on the matter?Its only logical that people learned to force their will on others before they learned to write. Unwritten laws existed before written laws because they were passed through customs, basic anthropology common sense. Nothing less expected from a dumbfuck who thinks a gangrape is a state. You should be lobotmized.
>>2555721>without installing new rulersExcept your lawmaker council/committee of course…
>Asspull definitionThe state organization has a start somewhere. Is not a hierarchy based on violence the foundational principle of a state?
>a state has institutions, a single person does not.Maybe a single person doesn't but what about two? What number exactly so you think need to be reached for your definition of a state established? Seems like you are leaving it vague so you don't have to deal with the issue.
>minarchism doesn't exist.Neither does anarchism, yet here you are supposedly advocating for it.
>you fail to understand anarchism the problem is yoursFunny how everyone but anarchists can never understand true anarchism. Words always seem to fail as everyone rejects their ideology as incoherent.
>Its only logical that people learned to force their will on others before they learned to write. I was using the more modern liberal definition of "Laws" as in officially encoded and enforced rules. But your right I've been giving the concept of law more substance than it deserves. Laws are ultimately arbitrary rules enforced through violence and they don't need to be written down. Writing does nothing but shift responsibility of the violence from the enforcers to the lawmakers. It's a way of shifting responsibility.
>Unwritten laws existed before written laws because they were passed through customs, basic anthropology common sense.Are customs the same as laws? Or only customs that are actively enforced count as unwritten laws?
>>2555744>Except your lawmaker council/committee of course…Okay you got me, the representative delegates are the ultimate rulers. We want to elect little invisible technocratic HItlers in a super council of experts to make the decisions for the dumb population.
>The state organization has a start somewhere. Is not a hierarchy based on violence the foundational principle of a state?Yes it is, mob violences is a state, the bigger the mob the more state it gets.
>Maybe a single person doesn't but what about two?Yup you guessed it, when two people gang up on another guy thats a state.
>Neither does anarchism, yet here you are supposedly advocating for it.Wow correct again, we don't exist.
>Funny how everyone but anarchists can never understand true anarchism. Words always seem to fail as everyone rejects their ideology as incoherent.True but you already figured it anarchism doesn't exist sir.
>Are customs the same as laws? Or only customs that are actively enforced count as unwritten laws?I don't know, I dont exist. Ask a marxist pedagogist or a engelsian priest.
>>2555752Cute how you avoided addressing what a state actually is and just became a sarcastic little bitch instead. No wonder the anarchist project will always fail.
>>2555760A state is whatever you say sir.
>>2555763>>2555765>>2555766Bro I've been trying to figure it out how you define a state and where you think a state starts and ends. But instead of answering questions such as number of people it takes to count as a state and it's basic organizational structure you bitch out and become sarcastic.
I honestly think you don't know how you yourself define a state and only think in the negative or of things you don't like.
>>2555770If you wanted to figure it out you wouldin't be here, fucking time waster.
>>2555772>If you wanted to figure itI can't read your mind or guess your thoughts and you could have just answered in the first place…
Also Judge Dredd is the scifi comic version of a real historically existing government system called Kritarchy and is not as ridiculous as you seem to think.
what retards actually believe in "anarcho-capitalism" that arent LARPing
>>2555796still unable to give your anarchist definition of state?
Also Lenin wrote an entire book on his conception of the state and your unsourced quote is not the substance of his arguments.
Unique IPs: 25