stop using our words for your capitalist pig theories!

[latefordinner]

okay the title is a little tongue in cheek, but I'll explain as I have recently finally filtered my way through multiple forums and landed here after a year or two of reading 2+2 off and on.

I have identified as an anarchist for about 10 years, have participated in quite a few organizations, projects, mutual aid organiztions, etc that either explicitly or implicitly identify as anarchist, yet in just starting to read through this forum I find (predictably as I would characterize many poker players as rightwing-ish libertarian leaning capitalists) tons of talk around anarcho-capitalism.

Yet, from my perspective, that of a libertarian socialist with a healthy dose of postmodern philosophy shoveled on top, I find that compound phrase to be completely oxymoronic (as no doubt some of you would find the phrase "libertarian socialist")

However, I would argue than in terms of classical anarchist theory (and in looking at the tendencies of many indigineous peoples pre-civilization but that's another whole discussion) history stands squarely on my side -- ie; anarchism has historically been socialist in theory and in practice and nearly all classical anarchist theory is socialist in orientation (and most European anarchist theory still is)

Yet on this board I find a lot of people talking about AC principles without ever reckoning with the extreme radical break that AC represents in terms of its relationship to the vast majority of anarchist thought.

So I'll go back and do a search for libertarian socialism and the like and see if I can find any good discussions, but I'm more wondering about those of you that appear to be well versed in AC theory but utterly disconnected from the pantheon of classical anarchist thought -- did you come to AC another way (say from Libertarianism with a capital L in the US) and are just not aware of most anarchist theorizing, or did you come to anarchist theory through classical anarchism and somewhere along the line reject its socialist orientation? or something else entirely?

Does that make sense? Not trying to start a fight, I've just never seen so many people in one place that reconcile anarchist thought and capitalist economics as sympatico rather than strongly opposed.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

Yet on this board I find a lot of people talking about AC principles without ever reckoning with the extreme radical break that AC represents in terms of its relationship to the vast majority of anarchist thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure most anarcho-capitalists (here at least(not all though)) leaned strongly capitalist already and along the line rejected government as antithetical to the free market. They did not decide to be Anarchists and then pick AC as their flavor of choice. Does that make sense? So classical anarchism is not really in line with the roots of their thinking; in fact ACists and A-Socialists make uneasy allies at best, and there have been some heated arguments between adherents of the two on this board (search for a poster named 'neverforgetlol').

[ QUOTE ]
I find that compound phrase to be completely oxymoronic (as no doubt some of you would find the phrase "libertarian socialist")

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much.

[latefordinner]

yes it makes perfect sense, and obviously anarch as a prefix could be equally applied to capitalism without government as well as socialism without government, it's just eerie to see so many of you folks I strongly disagree with all throwing about a term that has historically been much more identified with "my side" than with yours (nyah nyah [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

I'll wait for the next nice here's-how-something-will-be flippin-awesome-in-our-AC-utopia thread to wade into the fray with my flamethrower

[vulturesrow]

lfd,

This observation has been made by several of us, myself included, in passing at the very least. Its not a particular point that has been zeroed in on very much and I for one am quite interested in your perspective.

(and yes, I do find libertarian socialist to be just as oxymoronic as anarchocapitalism) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

yes it makes perfect sense, and obviously anarch as a prefix could be equally applied to capitalism without government as well as socialism without government, it's just eerie to see so many of you folks I strongly disagree with all throwing about a term that has historically been much more identified with "my side" than with yours (nyah nyah )

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think we feel when John Kerry and Hillary get labeled as "Liberals"?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll wait for the next nice here's-how-something-will-be flippin-awesome-in-our-AC-utopia thread to wade into the fray with my flamethrower

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome aboard, I'm sure. Arguing with Skidoo all day is a little... unrewarding.

[almostbusto]

latefordinner,

i don't i agree with you on much relating to politics or economics, but i share your frustration for self-described ACists on this forum who don't really even understand the framework their theory is based on. Of course not all are that way.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
latefordinner,

i don't i agree with you on much relating to politics or economics, but i share your frustration for self-described ACists on this forum who don't really even understand the framework their theory is based on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I'm saying is that ACism is not built on a framework of classical anarchism.

[bdk3clash]

This Wikipedia entry might be something worth checking out.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
latefordinner,

i don't i agree with you on much relating to politics or economics, but i share your frustration for self-described ACists on this forum who don't really even understand the framework their theory is based on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I'm saying is that ACism is not built on a framework of classical anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you actually.