Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Anarcho-Communism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 11, 2012, 7:10 a.m. EST by darrenlobo (204)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This video compares and contrasts the fundamental ideas behind the so called Anarcho-Communists (a.k.a anarcho-syndicalists) and the Anarcho-Capitalists.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jart (1262) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Anarcho-capitalism is silly because it roots itself in dualism by asserting that the body is the property of the mind.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

From what I can tell, anarcho-capitalism simply means that we will trade a largely nonexistent public tyrant for a an actually dangerous private one. Yeah, you can probably get weed if you want to, and other "victimless crimes" would cease to be punished, but the idea of privatizing everything is ridiculous. It completely ignores a number of serious issues, beginning with the incredible tendency toward monopoly and consumer abuse in most completely unregulated markets (which under this model would include everything) and ignoring the fact that public services are actually cheaper and more efficient than private services in markets such as transportation and healthcare. This is unrealistic and naive at best and outright dangerous at worst.

[-] 1 points by jart (1262) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Something like that. I like to describe it as a hyper-masculine fantasy world of cutthroat competition with few adherents that consist almost entirely of young nerdy men from the internet. None of them actually do real activism and no one in the anarchist community or academia takes them seriously.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That was interesting. Looks like there are some other great videos on that site.

People just do not understand that central planning, failure to preserve property rights, and "for the collective" ideals lead to destruction of liberty.

There are great examples today of eminent domain confiscation of property rights. The most obvious is the Keystone XL pipeline. http://tinyurl.com/6qfj3bk.

Similar eminent domain cases are arising due to wind power initiatives.

There are also cases today where the government is seizing property for private developers to build planned communities. The real tragedy occurs when some of these projects end up failing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Instead of communism and capitalism, why not freedom and truth?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

That's why I advocate free market capitalism

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

Anarcho-Capitalism = Free-wheeling unregulated libertarian capitalism. Call it what it is and be careful what you wish for. How quickly we forget history. In the early stages of capitalism that is basically what we had and what else did we have? Dickensian living conditions for the masses.

Under an unregulated capitalist system the rich will get richer while the poor become poorer. Plain and simple. It is an economic system based on exploitation.

If you are so keen on this, why don't you ask some of your money-bag libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to even out every American's net worth in order to implement this. The answer will be a resounding no. Why? Because they know damn well that the person who already holds capital would be at a great advantage in an anarchic-capitalistic society. And, it wouldn't take long before it would return us to feudal times. They'd be the lords and everyone else, the serfs.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

I keep hearing this kind of stuff despite the historical record showing the opposite. In a free economy there are rich people, but so what? There is also decreasing poverty. Take another look at history, capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to the poor. Capitalism inherited poverty from the mercantilist era. Thanks to the industrial revolution capitalism made possible poverty is way reduced. It would be even less if the govt hadn't started its war on poverty.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

No. Any increase in the standard of living would have happened anyway due to technological change. And, all of what you are talking about happened with regulated capitalism, not unregulated capitalism.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

That technological change wouldn't have happened without capitalism. Anyway, the more regulated the economy gets the worse the economy gets.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

That's not true. When people feel secure they are free and they are creative.

If the economy is getting worse with regulation it would have more to do with the fact that the capitalists, the corporations, are sitting on their money in an attempt to bully everyone else in this country to give them the deregulation they want so they can extract maximum profits to keep for themselves.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

But they don't want deregulation. Industry uses the regulators to mess over the rest of us. For example, you don't hear big pharma calling for abolishing the FDA. Check this out: http://youtu.be/8vYu1bfyrs0?t=5m8s
The hospitals aren't looking to end regulation they want to control it.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

so your suggestion to the problem that even I see, is to totally tie the hands of the only cohesive institution in our union, the gov't. If big business is willing to manipulate the gov't to control market forces, what's stopping them from using their obscene amounts of capital to uneven the playing field in a anarcho capitalist society? It would be the same logic if some one suggested that we need to disband the police force because we have too many criminals.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

When it is the police that cause crime then, yes, you disband them. Same with regulators. They are the elites agents, bought & paid for. They are the ones that allow for the great concentration of wealth.

A free economy tends towards a greater spreading of wealth. Without regulators & licensing competition flourishes. That would keep the "obscene amounts of capital to uneven the playing field". "Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves in Three Generations" happens in e free market. Entrenched wealth only happens when there is a govt to protect it.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

They'd prefer no regulation, but if there's going to be regulation, then they want to control it. They know there's not a great chance of having no regulation.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

How do you know that they want no regulation? At least we agree that industry controls its regulators. Very corrupt.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

You are the one positing that libertarian capitalism is the preferred way to go. Under libertarian capitalism there would be no regulation other than "self-regulation" if there is such a thing.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Actually, no, there is something called market discipline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_discipline). There is also the fact that entities like Underwriter's Labs, Consumer Reports, Angie's List, & all those websites where one can leave a review function as honest "regulators". This self regulation idea is a red herring.

BTW, you still haven't said how you know that the 1% want no regulation.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Of course, they'd love no regulation, but they know they have to have it so it's not really an option. Any capitalist would love to operate as freely as possible to extract the most profits.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Some prefer to use the violence of govt to extract the most profits. It's called corporatism, what we have now. I'd like to return to my previous point, "But they don't want deregulation. Industry uses the regulators to mess over the rest of us. For example, you don't hear big pharma calling for abolishing the FDA." Seriously, there's no indication that big business wants deregulation, quite the opposite:

"Politicians who support business regulation are not doing so because of deep-seated concern for public safety—they are merely meeting the demands of lobbyists who are hired and paid by businessmen. With only a few exceptions, the entire body of government regulations applying to business in the world today was designed and created by the very businessmen who are being regulated. These are self-imposed restrictions. However, do not think for a moment that these businessmen are altruists. These regulations are not aimed at them; they are aimed at you. Business regulation is the cleverest of all methods ever devised for taking money from you without your knowledge.

"Sound far-fetched? Of course it does. We have been programmed our entire lives to believe that the government acts in the interest of the individual. We believe it is one giant consumer protection agency. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. It is one giant agency programmed to protect the business interests of established firms at the expense of the individual consumer." http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/regulation/

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

Well, with Citizens United, it certainly is. Get money out of politics and this, hopefully, will change.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

A powerful govt is a corrupt govt. As long as they command the money & resources they do people will seek to corrupt them, Citizens United or no Citizens United.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20414) 2 years ago

That's a very libertarian perspective, no faith in the government.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The title should read straight up Anarcho-Capitalist propaganda.

The ideas presented are so flawed as to be laughable. Private ownership of every last blade of grass is the goal of this demented ideology. And this brainless system is nothing but corporate feudalism, just a furthering of the crap system we have today.

What gets me is the simplistic nature of this completely blinders on anti-logic stance. These ideologues never address the problems of ownership. How it arises, and how it concentrates wealth and power by it's very nature. The video talked about ownership that is "legitimate" because the market in some mythic way makes it so. Never any mention of stolen lands, (or people, slaves) or even how one can ever come to own land, or any other resource for that mater, when we are all born naked and with no possessions or money of any kind. This majicaly owned property can then be bequeathed to the wealthy children of the wealthy, thus perpetuating the concentration of wealth.

Anarcho-socialism on the other hand is a much more interesting prospect, not an end state but an ideal to always be worked towards. A fully participatory system, that for good reason works to include all in the decisions that effect them, while limiting the claiming of ownership of resources that simply belong to all.

How can one own the air, water, trees, fish, land, etc. This is a simple justification of greed and wealth concentration not liberty or freedom, in fact it always leads to the opposite state.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago


You seem to not see that the concentration of wealth occurs because property rights are violated. The 1% use the govt to take from the rest. If property were secure they couldn't do that.

You wrote about corporate feudalism, we're the ones opposing it. Corporations are creations of the govt, not free market entities. We ancaps are pulling the rug out from under them.

On the other hand a great example of the failure of anarcho socialism can be found in the graves of the Pilgrims at Plymouth: http://www.fee.org/seminar/our-first-thanksgiving/

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

It's really Social Utopians vs. Neo-Feudalists.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

maybe it's the Martians vs. the purple polka-dot people eaters. Neo-feudalists? How can liberty be equated with feudalism?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

It's Feudal in that it will be about factions vying for more capital (power). The markets will be fully exploited for this purpose first, and, even if the first generation vows non-violence, the preceding generations will make their own choice about whether violence is ethical or not. Short-term, it'll be uber-capitalist; long-term, it'll be a return to feudalism.

Think about it.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

More likely he'll see a repeat of what happened in the 19th & 20th centuries. Relative non violence will be replaced by govt violence once progress & prosperity are taken for granted.