Some newb thoughts on AC (long)

[Dane S]

The last few days I've been devouring AC material ravenously. I've read the forum's AC faq, most of its links/linked threads and the faq at http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18.
I am seriously intrigued and compelled by much of the logic and I wanted to throw a few of the ideas that have cropped up in my head out here to see what supporters and detractors of AC alike think of them, and to test my reasoning.

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

To begin with, I love imagining AC-land along with you guys and I think it's a very worthy and relevant undertaking. I think that lines about AC being worthless because it's only a theory, or it's ivory-tower, or it's unrealistic/impossible etc. are supremely stupid. All political ideas are essentially abstract theories. Democracy is abstract theory, monarchy is abstract theory, economics is abstract theory, but abstract theory guides the course of concrete action. What people believe in drives the choices they make and the courses of action they pursue, regardless of that belief's generally held plausibility. If AC-land is the best imaginable society, that is extremely important, because if it is the best, that means it will be convincing to intelligent people, and those intelligent people will think of ways to make it convincing to less intelligent people, and that is how large shifts in cultural attitude can happen.

That said, I think I would like to see more discussion of the principles of AC applied to current situations, and I would like to see these discussions not always regressing (imo) into emotional debates on the minute details of AC-land. I want to know how the principles of AC can guide analysis and action in the here and now, and I think this is primary. As important as AC-land is, I think it only gets its importance from the principles that can be derived from it.

2.) Marketing AC: state corruption of language

If AC is at its heart a theory of free market and competition, then I think it's important to evaluate this theory as one of many competing theories in the market of ideas. The state, a criminal, tyrannical organization (of this I was easily convinced by the AC logic), has a monopoly on force, justice, minting, etc. but it still hasn't achieved a monopoly on ideas (God help us if it ever does). Of course, the state uses its monopolistic power to push its enabling ideologies as hard as it possibly can, but the human mind retains the power of choice, which means the market of ideas remains free, however large a share the state has managed to control. I think it's important for anyone who is looking to change minds (which is the core of the AC mission, right?) to not shy away from this competition.

It seems to me that one of the main ways the state maintains its ideological dominance is by controlling language and meaning. It literally redefines words within a culture's understanding in order to influence opinion. Think of the words communism, atheism, terrorism, democracy, etc. These words have one meaning in political discourse, but their culturally accepted meanings have been totally corrupted in order to deter the masses from embarking on lines of thought that will eventually reveal to them the realities of state brutality and greed.

Perhaps you've guessed where this is leading. I HATE the term Anarchocapitalism. It's accurate enough, sure, but I hate it from a marketing perspective. The word anarchy has been linked to fear of chaos and war among the media-conditioned population, and the seeds of this conditioning can remain even the minds of very intelligent and intellectual people. They see that prefix "Anarcho" and you've immediately lost them. Their minds will close and they will go into defense mode and they'll never seriously consider a word you write or say. If the goal is convince through solid reasoning, I think it's important to present your ideas to others in such a way that they will be forced to confront the logic, perhaps initially believing that it SUPPORTS their position, instead of giving them an easy pretext for dismissing it out of hand according to deep, irrational prejudices that words like "anarchy" will call up.

I don't think I'm at all qualified to come up with new labels, but I'll give it a try anyway. Here are just a couple ideas:

Free Market Society

I like this one because, while it is a perfectly accurate descriptive term for the ideas of AC (as I understand them) it subversively plays off of values that the state itself promotes: freedom, capitalism, social unity. It doesn't throw controversial, polarizing terms in the reader's/listener's face. I mean it sounds positively groovy! What republican won't listen in on this one to hear his supposed "free market" bias confirmed? And those on the left should be piqued by the word "society".

Free Market Government

Same basic idea; though AC is certainly anarchist in the political theory sense, it also certainly provides for the existence of government as the common American thinks of it. Rights, laws, courts, enforcement, military will all exist; it seems important to establish this up front.

Somewhere in the reading I recall a selection about one of the state's major accomplishments being creating a false identification within the populace of law and order and government with the state. A label like this tackles that dichotomy immediately and hopefully sidesteps a lot of anti-anarchy prejudice.

3.) AC as a utopian petri dish

I think the thing that excites me most about AC's ideas is the potential I imagine for a free market of competing societal models. I am in truth more of a utopian or socialist anarchist at heart but I recognize the enormous impracticality issues, the most serious of which is that using any form of power to reorganize society is a form of tyranny no matter how noble its aims and cannot be acceptable. I see AC not as an end but as an intermediary phase between the dark ages of statism and a final golden age where humanity would be free to experiment with millions and millions of different societal models. If the rapid natural selection of the market can't solve the issues of human nature that plague utopian ideals, then nothing can. And if we can never create a worldwide utopia, at least we'll be free in the meantime, and perhaps opportunities for many small utopian pockets of society will exist.

I think many socialists in these discussions have been way way off in their criticisms of capitalism. The important part of AC isn't capitalism, it's freedom! AC would present unparalleled opportunities for socialists to recruit VOLUNTARY followers, and spread their humanist messages through a truly free media. Private property is indeed a myth, but it's a myth that is necessary for making a smooth, non-violent transition to a decent civilization.

Thoughts?