Pity they dont seem to have a comment section. Cos I would love to have a crack at critiquing their laughable assumptions about the supposed 'voluntary' nature of capitalist transactions. That aside one wonders how they propose to get from where we are today - a world of giant corporations that work hand in glove with states - to their fairy tale free market utopia of a sturdy yeomanry bringing their pigs , chickens and homegrown carrots to market. Ancaps are a complete irrelevance in practical terms but, at the same time, an annoying pain in the arse in their strident dogmas that seek to invest the institution of the market with an aura of respectability and legitimacy
It really is a pile of self-contradictory nonsense -- and hardly libertarian, as the property owner becomes the government.
"Black symbolizes anarchy and the yellow symbolizes capitalism."
The Black Flag symbolises anarchy because it was raised by the anarchst-communists they so hate. And why did they raise that flag? Because it was a symbol of workers' revolt against... capitalism! The flag of strikes, as Louise Michel put it:
It would be so much better if they called their ideology something else -- and stopped linking it to the individualist anarchists, who for all their faults recognised the problems of capitalism.
Left anarchists argue that the capitalist workplace is somehow “hierarchal” because there is a boss.
This is such a funny line, something about it feels reminiscent of classic Simpsons. Anyway, I used to think these people were just an irrelevant joke, now I still mainly think that but I'm increasingly bothered by the potential for people to start off with this stuff and then move into full-on nazi territory - see stuff like Anti-Communist Action.
Anyway, I used to think these people were just an irrelevant joke, now I still mainly think that but I'm increasingly bothered by the potential for people to start off with this stuff and then move into full-on nazi territory - see stuff like Anti-Communist Action.
Yes at this point right libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are a direct vector to Pinochet helicopter memes. Would include 'classical liberalism' in the same category at this point, I think that's mostly a rebrand of right libertarians to get the word 'liberal' in there.
For example look at the logo of the 'Classical Liberal Society' that hosted Angela Nagle and Sargon of Akkad recently:
.
Then this article about the development of the Gadsden flag since the Tea Party: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-shifting-symbolism-of-the-gadsden-flag
Notably this vector to the alt-right wasn't discussed in Nagle's book about the alt-right. There are a couple of articles about the vector though that are worth a look, particularly the medium one is interesting:
So at this point it's not only rebutting the idea that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, but also showing to what extent it's a variant of third-positionism or a vector to fascism.
Someone with more energy than me would then need to figure out where mutualists and 'market anarchists' fit in like https://c4ss.org/ - generally I'd put that lot under 'wrong about money'.
To the extent that it's worth putting effort into disrupting these people, I wonder if it'd be worth pushing them on attitudes to immigration/free movement as a kind of litmus test. Obv anyone who holds these views must be pretty good at ignoring cognitive dissonance, but ICE and UKBA/Border Force are pretty much the embodiment of libertarian nightmares, so you'd think anyone who claims to be about supporting individual freedom against oppressive state power would have to support free movement, or at least oppose the current border regime. Or if they can justify it, then it's one more sign that they need to drop their anarcho/libertarian claims and admit that they're just fascists.
To the extent that it's worth putting effort into disrupting these people, I wonder if it'd be worth pushing them on attitudes to immigration/free movement as a kind of litmus test.
This is covered a bit in https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9 and the prognosis isn't good.
Needham
But when the advantages start to erode, that’s when they are forced to turn to more reactionary, authoritarian ideologies. Immigration is an ideal example for this, since under a libertarian ideology, immigration should not be restricted in any way. Borders are one of the major constructs of the state, and we shouldn’t be restricting the right of people to choose where they live. However, if you actually talk to libertarians, very often you’ll find that they are far more against immigration than their supposed ideology would suggest. The same rhetoric around the ‘undeserving poor’ is used both towards people on welfare, and immigrants who are apparently coming to live on welfare. This is also due to the idea that immigrants will vote for left-wing parties more (which they do), and then lead to a stronger welfare state. Time and time again, libertarians have shown to be willing to abandon what they would claim as their core principles to uphold the societal order, which places them at the top.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I think Generation Identity (which seems like a natural home of post-libertarian fascists) was recently doing some kind of foreign aid thing, where they would help people in Libyan camps to return to Sudan or similar rather than crossing the med. This is of course in line with mainstream policy which would love to redirect people back to warzones, but a lot more plausibly deniability with something like that than Fortress Europe since if places were safe then refugees being able to return would be a good thing, the problem is of course that they're not.
A couple of other people/articles, the article is by Arthur Chu of all people, but Occupy's Justine Tunney and her trajectory to NrX and Mencius Moldbug - Moldbug is a big fan of Thomas Carlyle: https://www.thedailybeast.com/occupying-the-throne-justine-tunney-neoreactionaries-and-the-new-1 The essay also talks about Peter Thiel.
There's also yet more crossover with anarchist bookfair-invader Amir Taaki whose best mate built alt-right crowdfunding site hatreon and is currently on the run in Taiwan evading US charges of statutory rape http://social-ecology.org/wp/2018/01/the-new-reactionaries-amir-taaki-alt-right-entryism-and-rojava-solidarity/
Oath Keepers had harshly condemned the Ferguson police force for violating people’s right to protest and offered detailed criticisms of its “spectacularly un-safe weapons discipline and methodology,” such as pointing automatic weapons at unarmed protesters. The group also wrote an open letter to the people of Ferguson, which declared that “you have an absolute, God given, and constitutionally protected right to protest and speak your mind” and that “the police have no right, no authority, and no power to violate those rights....” The letter specifically urged black military veterans to form armed patrols and neighborhood watches to keep Ferguson safe, and cited the Deacons for Defense and Justice (whose armed members protected 1960s civil rights marchers in the Deep South and helped to inspire the Black Panther Party) as a “proud and noble” example to follow. By urging African Americans to arm themselves, Oath Keepers repudiated one of the traditional core principles of U.S. white supremacy, that black people must never practice—or be able to practice—self-defense.
But Oath Keepers would only take this so far. When St. Louis County Oath Keepers leader Sam Andrews announced plans to hold a march through downtown Ferguson in which Oath Keepers members would accompany fifty African Americans armed with long barrel rifles, the group’s national leadership withdrew support. Andrews and his “tactical team,” as well as a group of Oath Keepers in Florida, resigned from Oath Keepers in protest, and Andrews commented, “I can’t have my name associated with an organization that doesn’t believe black people can exercise their First and Second Amendment rights at the same time.”
* * *
Sam Andrews’s split with the Oath Keepers national leadership foreshadowed Ammon Bundy’s conflict with his former Patriot movement supporters. Both reflect the contradictions of color-blind racism on the right: in a movement that disavows white supremacist ideology, some people will take inclusiveness too far for the majority. Such challenges are seen as threatening and disloyal, although they don’t really call national or racial oppression into question. These challenges are not aberrations but a logical part of the movement’s dynamics, and they point to tensions and fissures in the U.S. far right that antifascists need to understand. Lumping all far rightists together as “white nationalists” or “Nazis” makes it harder for us to do this.
Obviously, Ammon Bundy or the St Louis Oath Keepers are not on our side in any meaningful sense, but I agree that the divisions between them and other, more explicitly racist factions of the right are real, and are worth thinking about as potential fault lines.
What term would be a more appropriate label for right libertarians and anarcho-capitalists? I know Bookchin labeled them "propertarians", though that has been rejected as it comes across as a pejorative even if it may adequately sum up their ideas. Maybe they could be referred to as 'political capitalists'?
To the extent that it's worth putting effort into disrupting these people, I wonder if it'd be worth pushing them on attitudes to immigration/free movement as a kind of litmus test. Obv anyone who holds these views must be pretty good at ignoring cognitive dissonance, but ICE and UKBA/Border Force are pretty much the embodiment of libertarian nightmares, so you'd think anyone who claims to be about supporting individual freedom against oppressive state power would have to support free movement, or at least oppose the current border regime. Or if they can justify it, then it's one more sign that they need to drop their anarcho/libertarian claims and admit that they're just fascists.
In my limited experience of arguing with these people online (about 10 years ago when I for some reason thought this was a productive use of my time and energy) the defence of national borders tends to be the one aspect of the state that right libertarians see as legitimate, or at least the last function of the state that is viewed as defensible as you move along the spectrum of mainstream conservatism -> anarcho capitalism - other than the defence of private property rights, naturally. I vaguely remember hearing arguments in defence of this to the effect that the state "owns" the border and therefore is justified in using force against anyone who "trespasses" on their "property" by crossing the border without permission. Still worth making the argument but don't expect them to be floored by your bringing up immigration as it's definitely a discussion they'll have had before, if not with lefties then with traditional anti-immigrant conservatives.
Pity they dont seem to have a
Pity they dont seem to have a comment section. Cos I would love to have a crack at critiquing their laughable assumptions about the supposed 'voluntary' nature of capitalist transactions. That aside one wonders how they propose to get from where we are today - a world of giant corporations that work hand in glove with states - to their fairy tale free market utopia of a sturdy yeomanry bringing their pigs , chickens and homegrown carrots to market. Ancaps are a complete irrelevance in practical terms but, at the same time, an annoying pain in the arse in their strident dogmas that seek to invest the institution of the market with an aura of respectability and legitimacy
Quote: Came across this
A peculiar thing to masturbate over? Still, whatever gets you through the day.
Ah, the usual nonsense -- not
Ah, the usual nonsense -- not like it has not be critiqued before:
https://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html
It really is a pile of self-contradictory nonsense -- and hardly libertarian, as the property owner becomes the government.
The Black Flag symbolises anarchy because it was raised by the anarchst-communists they so hate. And why did they raise that flag? Because it was a symbol of workers' revolt against... capitalism! The flag of strikes, as Louise Michel put it:
https://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append2.html
It would be so much better if they called their ideology something else -- and stopped linking it to the individualist anarchists, who for all their faults recognised the problems of capitalism.
Quote: Left anarchists argue
This is such a funny line, something about it feels reminiscent of classic Simpsons. Anyway, I used to think these people were just an irrelevant joke, now I still mainly think that but I'm increasingly bothered by the potential for people to start off with this stuff and then move into full-on nazi territory - see stuff like Anti-Communist Action.
R Totale wrote: Anyway, I
R Totale
Yes at this point right libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are a direct vector to Pinochet helicopter memes. Would include 'classical liberalism' in the same category at this point, I think that's mostly a rebrand of right libertarians to get the word 'liberal' in there.
For example look at the logo of the 'Classical Liberal Society' that hosted Angela Nagle and Sargon of Akkad recently:
Then this article about the development of the Gadsden flag since the Tea Party: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-shifting-symbolism-of-the-gadsden-flag
Notably this vector to the alt-right wasn't discussed in Nagle's book about the alt-right. There are a couple of articles about the vector though that are worth a look, particularly the medium one is interesting:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-insidious-libertarian-to-alt-right-pipeline
https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9
So at this point it's not only rebutting the idea that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, but also showing to what extent it's a variant of third-positionism or a vector to fascism.
Someone with more energy than me would then need to figure out where mutualists and 'market anarchists' fit in like https://c4ss.org/ - generally I'd put that lot under 'wrong about money'.
To the extent that it's worth
To the extent that it's worth putting effort into disrupting these people, I wonder if it'd be worth pushing them on attitudes to immigration/free movement as a kind of litmus test. Obv anyone who holds these views must be pretty good at ignoring cognitive dissonance, but ICE and UKBA/Border Force are pretty much the embodiment of libertarian nightmares, so you'd think anyone who claims to be about supporting individual freedom against oppressive state power would have to support free movement, or at least oppose the current border regime. Or if they can justify it, then it's one more sign that they need to drop their anarcho/libertarian claims and admit that they're just fascists.
R Totale wrote: To the extent
R Totale
This is covered a bit in https://medium.com/@elliotgulliverneedham/why-libertarians-are-embracing-fascism-5a9747a44db9 and the prognosis isn't good.
Needham
I can't find the link at the moment, but I think Generation Identity (which seems like a natural home of post-libertarian fascists) was recently doing some kind of foreign aid thing, where they would help people in Libyan camps to return to Sudan or similar rather than crossing the med. This is of course in line with mainstream policy which would love to redirect people back to warzones, but a lot more plausibly deniability with something like that than Fortress Europe since if places were safe then refugees being able to return would be a good thing, the problem is of course that they're not.
A couple of other people/articles, the article is by Arthur Chu of all people, but Occupy's Justine Tunney and her trajectory to NrX and Mencius Moldbug - Moldbug is a big fan of Thomas Carlyle: https://www.thedailybeast.com/occupying-the-throne-justine-tunney-neoreactionaries-and-the-new-1 The essay also talks about Peter Thiel.
There's also yet more crossover with anarchist bookfair-invader Amir Taaki whose best mate built alt-right crowdfunding site hatreon and is currently on the run in Taiwan evading US charges of statutory rape http://social-ecology.org/wp/2018/01/the-new-reactionaries-amir-taaki-alt-right-entryism-and-rojava-solidarity/
A few months down the line, I
A few months down the line, I think this piece on Patriot leader Ammon Bundy siding with migrants and criticising Trump is good:
Obviously, Ammon Bundy or the St Louis Oath Keepers are not on our side in any meaningful sense, but I agree that the divisions between them and other, more explicitly racist factions of the right are real, and are worth thinking about as potential fault lines.
What term would be a more
What term would be a more appropriate label for right libertarians and anarcho-capitalists? I know Bookchin labeled them "propertarians", though that has been rejected as it comes across as a pejorative even if it may adequately sum up their ideas. Maybe they could be referred to as 'political capitalists'?
Should I start another thread?
Dipshits?
Dipshits?
Ursula Le Guin in
Ursula Le Guin in Dispossessed also used the term propertarian.
R Totale wrote: To the extent
R Totale
In my limited experience of arguing with these people online (about 10 years ago when I for some reason thought this was a productive use of my time and energy) the defence of national borders tends to be the one aspect of the state that right libertarians see as legitimate, or at least the last function of the state that is viewed as defensible as you move along the spectrum of mainstream conservatism -> anarcho capitalism - other than the defence of private property rights, naturally. I vaguely remember hearing arguments in defence of this to the effect that the state "owns" the border and therefore is justified in using force against anyone who "trespasses" on their "property" by crossing the border without permission. Still worth making the argument but don't expect them to be floored by your bringing up immigration as it's definitely a discussion they'll have had before, if not with lefties then with traditional anti-immigrant conservatives.