Anarchist debates

When we first firmed the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, we got challenged to a public debate on anarchism vs trotskyism by the world leadership of the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT), which is based over here. We politely declined.

Here's a (quite amusing) account of an anarchist debating the Alliance for Workers Liberty from last year: -

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/leninists-strange

There's this happening (I'm participating)
http://www.facebook.com/events/282568675141402/

Anti-Capitalist Smackdown: A Debate among Tendencies in the Occupy Movement

Description

Several different anti-capitalist tendencies have come together in the Occupy movement. Now is a chance for us to meet publicly and clarify where we agree and disagree on a few key points.

This event is free & open to the public. It will be audio-recorded, and selections will be published online for the benefit of anti-capitalists everywhere.

Participating tendencies (in alphabetic order)
- Anarcho-syndicalism
- Black Orchid
- Communization
- Insurrectionary anarchy
- Nihilism

Schedule
3-5PM: debates on
- The enemy (capitalism or civilization?)
- Revolution (ultimate goals and how to get there)
- Class & identity
- The role of revolutionaries

5-6PM: dinner break

6-7:15PM: debates on
- Unions & solidarity networks
- Prefigurative (anti)politics
- The Occupy movement

7:15-8PM: open discussion with audience

Totally reminds me of this.

Looking forward to the audio.

Will you be on a panel with someone advocating this shit?

yes

Ian Bone V the SPGB

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/which-way-revolution

Why are the nihilists debating? I don't understand them or even knew they would be politically active...

Kinda defeats its own "everything is pointless" logic, innit.

Kerry, you should talk to shaun about organizing a debate with "non-violence" people in Occupy. Maybe anarchists on "violence v non-violence"?

Because they fucking love the sound of their own voice

Anarcho-Communist and right libertarian would be an interesting one as many right libertarians have moved away from more traditional Thatcherite views of economic liberty and social authority and more towards emphasising personal autonomy such as anti-smoking bans, pro-gay rights and unchecked immigration. It would be interesting to see the similarities and contrasts between the two in a debate environment considering they are both so anti-statist.

Dons tin hat and runs for cover

i don't see how right "libertarians" are anti statist? i know that claim to be but maoist claim to be communists and we all know thats bullshit

say what you want about the nihilists, at least they have an answer the pre-debate questions:

but how can you argue against people who are opposed to reason? it's like arguing with priests. measuring things is bad mmmkay?

888, I think it's awesome that you are participating in this debate. (I assume that you're reppin' anarcho-syndicalism? Who is doing communization?) But aren't you a little bit worried that your ideas might come off as wacky simply by associating yourself with some of these people? Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to debate more mainstream positions, as these ideologies have so many millions of followers while nihilism and insurrectionary anarchy are pretty small movements?

Good point, they are anti the current state as it's motivation is not purely markets based but long-term statist in that the people would be governed by a centralised authority, it would simply be profit/market lead.

If one sees private property itself as resting on certain preconditions, especially the state as the upholder of property rights like Junge Linke argue, the very concept of "anarchist" capitalism appears as nothing more than an oxymoron because private property and the state would go hand in hand.

(Writing in E-Prime feels difficult to me. I should drop it...)

The communization tendency is being represented by Red Hughs (Against Sleep and Nightmare), the guy who does prole.info ("Abolish Restaurants, etc.), a Seattle individual not in any group or involved in any website I know of, and a member of the group Internationalist Perspective.

I suppose it would be more worthwhile, but I don't see the harm in it - I don't think coming off as wacky is a big concern. The people who are likely to attend are all anarchists or left communists or similar, and a few Occupy people. I didn't plan this debate, I just volunteered.

Nihilists have a pre-debate answer to everything and it is nihilism. regardless of the context. nihilism will win. NIHILISM!

It is like that game you played when you were a kid. Ask your parents 'why?' enough and they will want to kill themselves

OK, I'm an ole fart.....people actually call themselves this these days? I saw elsewhere that folks are refering to themselves as "blanquists" as well. WTF?

Nihilist isn't as bizarre as blanquist. As far as I can tell, there have always been a few people who call themselves nihilist... there's a bunch in Greece.

Aye. Without getting into a discussion on so-called anarcho-capitalism, if the state is the political organisation of a ruling class, and as there would certainly exist a ruling class and a working class under 'anarcho-capitalism', then there would certainly be need of some kind of state, however devolved or centralised it might be.

On a more serious note however... nihilists?

WE CUT OFF YOUR JOHNSON!!!!

Edit: pic re-inserted

What must be remembered is that the State as we know it is a particular and modern mode of government (last 400-500 years or so), which followed a period of centralization during Absolute Monarchy where competing centres of authority were marginalized (such as the Church, Feudal lords etc.).

The probability is that an Anarcho-Capitalist system will start off at least with a more Feudal character than a State character; Feudalism being the concentration of political power in the hands of private power networks. After a while through competition between these competing centers of power (the defence agencies), then a State character will probably eventually develop as power concentrates into the hands of a powerful oligarchy of the Capitalist masters of the either through violent struggle as is likely to occur when various people are wielding arms for the sake of money or through the normal slightly more peaceful Capitalistic means of the accumulation of a monopoly; namely in this case a monopoly on force (aka here we have the State again). Or a combination of both of them.

Some interesting points there, Jordan. Unless there's some major global cataclysm (e.g. global nuclear war, plague, etc,) that radically reverts humanity to an earlier historic mode, I don't see any return to feudalism. That's not to say a hypothetical 'anarcho-capitalist' future would not include aspects of earlier forms such as feudalism, but just that feudalism is a vastly inferior economic system if your prime motivation is profit.

The state, or whatever power structure might exist at any given time, is always subserviant to the ruling class, and this would apply just as much to 'anarcho-capitalism' (as far as such a system would seek to limit the interference of anything appearing 'statelike') as it would apply to any other type of capitalism (or feudalism).

Mind you, although we seem to be talking about 'anarcho-capitalism' hypothetically (or ideologically) here, it could also be argued that this is the way things are going anyway. In so far as big business and multinational corporations have government playing second fiddle to a greater and greater extent, I don't see any reason why corporate capitalism shouldn't at some point just 'cut out the middle man' and have corporations actually taking over functions of the state. I understand they do this already in some parts of the world.

And that would be yer barbarism, the antithesis of our communism. Shit, the barbarians are winning... we'd best pull our finger out!

I agree that if Capital is going to take on political power directly it will be through Corporations taking over functions of the State going through our current system, which there are symptoms of already.

What I was talking about was the idealised form of anarcho-capitalism that it's ideologues like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard talk about in which a resetting of property rights seems to be implicit; which I don't think will ever exist and is incredibly naive to imagine. Instead, you're right though, if it did ever exist it would become subordinate to the powers already existing of Capital, rather than property ownership being relented in some sort of Randian year zero (i'm referring here to Galt's Gulch in Anthem).

In the idealised form of the system, rightful ownership is gained over areas through a.) homesteading (aka the Lockean idea that rightful ownership is gained through mixing Labour with the raw resources) and b.) through the purchase of property created through homesteading and the employment of others to homestead.

At this point if I was critiquing anarcho-Capitalism, I would point out the inalienable nature of 'natural rights', that rights and things one can gains through rights cannot be surrendered to another person and wage relations of labour where the entitlement to the products of labour are surrendered to Capitalists ; where as the assumptions of anarchist capitalism seem to be the right to give them up for an arbitrary value with no definite link to the actual value of the produced goods (i.e. wages). A well indoctrinated an-cap would probably point to the Austrian theory of economic value/utility where value is merely what the agent ascribes to said thing, rather than it being some sort of absolute (so inherently arbitrary, from which ).

Homesteaders would compensate other people to defend them (aka defence agencies) from aggression rather than paying State mandated taxes taxes. According to the an-cap mentality this is somehow 'fairer' than the State, as one can choose (in a very loose sense of the word) whether to pay these defence agencies and which defence agency to pay.

Anyway, I digress, my point is that I was discussing the idealised form of anarcho-capitalism, where the State is absent and so anarcho-Capitalism involving competing defence agencies, rather than a centralised authority, meets the dictionary definiton of anarchy being the absense of centralised authority (it doesn't however meet the idea of a lack of government at all). Again, I think you're absolutely right in thinking that this idealised form wouldn't exist.

Some very good points, Serge, clearly the ruling class would exhibit a 'state' like nature but within the environment of unchecked, 'anarcho' capitalism. Feudalism still remains a separate system, making capitalism appear progressive.

However, can't help but disagree with you on your points regarding the nation state being engulfed by corporate capitalism. True, the nation state has a capitalist and pro-ruling class agenda as the nation state, yet it is on par with TNCs and retains an autonomous role as a container of business practices, a regulator of activity within and across borders and as a collaborater with other states. The end of the nation state and its role as an intermediary is a myth, global governance in contemporary times is multi-scalar with state groupings of huge decision-making importance, separate to pure, corporate capitalism.

It seems youtube has turned off embedding, but I'm sure you get the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh-nFCfp2s

Classic film.
The battle between anarcho-capitalism and nihilism:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AEMiz6rcxc&feature=related