So called "anarcho-capitalists" are not
anarchists even a little bit. Let me be really clear here *drumroll* : I'm not offering that as a criticism of ancaps necessarily... Burritos, corgis, Steve Buscemi, none of
these things are necessarily anarchist in nature but they're all universally
beloved. Not everything needs to be anarchist all the time, that's okay.
I do think ancaps should be criticized, and I think their ideology is whack as
all hell, but that is not the focus of this video. I'm just here to explain why
they're not anarchists, that's all. Along the way I might make fun of them a
little bit, because it's hard for me to talk about this toilet ideology without
showing my contempt for it. Part one: What do these words mean? Anarchism is a
spectrum of ideologies that are opposed to unjustified hierarchies. Be they
political, social, economic, or any other axis of oppression that people invent.
The term was coined to describe oneself politically by Pierre-Joseph Poonhound.
An, meaning without, Archos meaning rulers and Y meaning... make the word sound
cooler. Capitalism is an economic system typified by these three things: 1. Private
control of the means of production (that's a hierarchy). 2. Free exchange of
goods and services on the market. 3. Wage labor (that's also a hierarchy). It
sucks. Anarcho-capitalism is the belief that
the state should be dismantled but capitalism should somehow be *laughs* maintained.
Which they think would... would work. They believe everyone should follow the
non-aggression principle which basically means you shouldn't initiate or threaten
to initiate violence against someone or their property. Part Two: How are these
things related? Ancaps and real actual anarchists believe that the state is
illegitimate and should be dismantled. Though they share this conclusion they
both arrived at it from very different reasoning and those
differences make their goals mutually exclusive. Anarchists believe the state
is illegitimate because it's a hierarchy that does not meet the burden of proof
required to justify its existence. They don't like for example, how states are
always doing genocides, and bowing to the needs of a slim minority of rich
perverts at the expense of everyone else. Anarchist praxis tends to revolve around
taking shit from rich perverts and giving it to people who need it, fighting
systems designed to prevent oppressed folk from being in control of their own
lives, and violating the non-aggression principle all over a Nazis face. Ancaps
believe the state is illegitimate because it interferes with the operation
of the market. The state prevents Adam Smith's invisible hand from guiding us
all to laissez faire heaven, as it would definitely do if the state just got out
of the way (even though the state is necessary for capitalism to function).
Also they believe that taxation is theft, and BOY do they want to tell you about
it. Their praxis tends to revolve around protecting property rights, and making
absolutely sure that people who own shit get to keep it, even if that mad sucks
for everybody else. You own the only well in town? Well sucks for all those thirsty
chumps! That's your property and you earned it fair and square by inheriting
it from someone else who built it and maintained it with the help of all the
people you now prohibit from using it. Ancaps believe that all rights derive
from property rights; the reason you have a right to autonomy over your own body
is because you own yourself and you're allowed to do whatever you want with
yourself, even sell yourself. Which I guess if you sold yourself the money
that you get wouldn't belong to you anymore because you don't belong to you... uh.... Following from this position their
reasoning is that if property rights are not protected, no human rights are
possible. So while we may share a disdain for the government anarchist and ancap
ideologies are not compatible. Part 3: But what if they're the real anarchists and you're fake anarchists pretending to be anarchists but they're the real ones? remember Proud Hound? The first person to call themselves an anarchist? He was rather fond of the saying "Property is theft."
Anarchists tend to agree, because allowing property to be owned privately
inevitably results in the accumulation of property by the few at the expense of
the many. That's an economic hierarchy my dude. Hierarchies have rulers.
You can't subscribe to without-rulers-ISM if you want rulers! Even if you think
those rulers deserve to rule, it's still rulers ya dingling! Ancaps are quick to
assure us that, in the absence of the state, all agreements would be made
between voluntary free actors for some reason. So while it's a hierarchy it's
not coercive like it is when the government wants you to vaccinate your
children. Except like, if the alternative to accepting an exploitative agreement
is starvation ,as has been the case for most people whenever unregulated
capitalism rears its ugly head, that's you know a little coercive, maybe you
know not all that materially distinguishable from state violence. Also
vaccinate your kids guys... it's... you're gonna get smallpox and I... like... I don't
agree with with with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right not
to get smallpox. Part 4: You sir are biased. Yes that's true, I don't much care
for ancapiam, and I do very much like anarchism and I want to kiss Peter
Kropotkin in that beautiful broom face of his. So let's hear it from Murray
Rothbard... Oh god did I did I say that? Murray
Rothbard is the libertarian economist who you might recognize from those Six
Flags commercials. The dude who pretty much invented in
Anarchocapitalism once said "we are not anarchists and that those who call us
anarchists are not on firm etymological ground and are being completely unhistorical." Well, there it is. I agree with Murray Rothbard about something, I guess. That's pretty
gross. Part 5: I'm not any kind of anarchist why should I care about any of
this? Why'd you click on the video? I think
it's fair to say I have some... misgivings about ancapism. But my objection to them being called anarchists is not simply because I disagree with them or I don't
like them. It's because their ideology is not that thing. They're more like
turn-of-the-century Liberals than anarchists, which is probably why they
stole the word libertarian because it sounds kind of liberally and liberal was
taken ...well I mean I guess libertarian was taken too, by anarchists, but who cares about anarchist you can take anarchist words, nobody minds. Probably part of the reason ancaps want to co-opt the term is to get into anarchist spaces and
drown us out. Our beliefs present a threat to theirs, or I guess they would
if anyone took our beliefs seriously, and I find that a little galling. I don't
like the idea that groups who don't like my ideas are trying to make them more
difficult to talk about or conceive of by changing the meaning of words to
suit their agenda. It would be Orwellian if it was being done by the state, or by
smart people, but it's actually being done by supplement chugging, econ 101,
anime avatars... so it's just kind of irritating. *music starts drowning out the dialogue* Also, by the way, you can't
have capitalism without the state because without the state and police and
the military there's no way to protect property from the collective force of
the working class in fact-... hey I got a little I got a little worked
up, and I'm sorry about that. Thank you for watching my video I hope you liked
it, if you did please hit like and subscribe. There's another video about
political correctness that you can watch. That was the other video I did you can
watch that one.
Hey it's Thought Slime the guy who brought me here in the first place... Full circle.
tried to respond to the ancap u/ALlHAILQUENTIN but their comment was deleted before I could click reply, pasting comment here since I actually put some effort into it:
None of these are hierarchies. A social hierarchy is a relationship of authority & domination, of superiors and subordinates - those with highers ranks have the capacity and perceived "right" to force their will on those with lower ranks, and the "right" to protect enforce that with violence. The relationship ensures that the needs, desires and interests of those at the top take precedent over those at the bottom.
For a simple example, consider a hierarchical baboon troop. Those at the top get to boss everyone below them around and have the greatest access to resources (as a result of this). Those at the bottom are subject to random violence at the whims of those above them and this violence is what reproduces the relationship, establishing that the superior can subject the subordinate to violence at will - those at the bottom must submit to the whims of those above for fear of that violence.
Human hierarchies are typically more complex than this and the 'violence' is often a lot more subtle, but the gist of it remains. Those at the top have their needs and desires prioritized over those beneath them as a result of their capacity (and perceived right) to dominate (to make another's will one's own) those below.
The case of teacher-student is one that should honestly be of great interest to anarchists - as it is that relationship that instills hierarchical thinking in the child and prepares them for a life of subservience to authority. In the traditional Prussian model, the teacher-student relationship is absolutely a hierarchical one - with the teacher having the capacity and perceived right to punish (ie issue violence) students at their will. The students are forced to do whatever the teachers want from, with little to no input, and are subject to violence if they do not submit to the teacher's will. There is absolutely no reason the teacher-student relationship has to be like this. You don't need to be in a position of hierarchical power over someone to teach them - one could even argue that relationship gets in the way of effective education by stiffling critical thinking. The hierarchical relationship strongly discourages students from questioning their teacher's wisdom and thinking critically about what they're being taught, as they risk being punished for doing so (and even if they're not punished by the teacher directly, they may well be by the exam system for daring to question the curriculum devised by the state). The teacher-student relationship as it exists in traditional Prussian-style schooling should absolutely be overturned and replaced with something more egalitarian. Something similar can be said about the traditional parent-child relationship in the Partrarichical family.
Capitalism exists solely to create hierarchies. It seems to me that capitalism and anarchism are completely incompatible, which is why the whole AnCap thing never made sense to me.
The entire Anarcho-Capitalist ideology is self contradictory.
Capitalism requires hierarchies in order to function, whether that be the neoliberal type of capitalism, which has both corporate and state hierarchies, or the purest form, in which the only hierarchies are the ones found in companies.
Anarchism is, by definition, for the abolition of the state and all unjust hierarchies.
Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalism is a nonsensical ideology.
damn one of the slimes old vids, takes me back
Aren't they basically feudalists?
"hey so states suck right? let's replace that with structures we can't even influence with a vote lol"
ancaps have brain worms
[removed]