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?

[Nielsio]

0. Great

1. Sure, fine

2. The myth exists and renaming your worldview isn't going to change that. But yeah, I guess some connotations can go. But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth. For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing. This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

3. I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .


In conclusion: you're on a great path and you're doing great. Du Bist Ein AC-er!!

[ojc02]

Nice post.

I don't think this is such a great idea though:
[ QUOTE ]
Free Market Government

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all very well to remove the word "anarcho" from the name but you can't remove the meaning. If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

Just my 2c.

[valenzuela]

I like youre post, I think voluntary society its better

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's easy to let nitpickers bog you down with details. Ultimately, these debates about "how will such and such work in AC land" are undecidable. And anyone who says that shows a weakness in AC is completely missing the point. But that's really the only semi-effective strategy against AC in this regard; go after details and hope the AC-proponent drowns trying to nail everything down.

Of course, statism is vulnerable to the same attacks.

See my previous OPs: A big problem for evolutionists and A big problem for statists.


[ QUOTE ]
2.) Marketing AC: state corruption of language

They see that prefix "Anarcho" and you've immediately lost them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Marketing is not to be neglected. Precision is nice, but isn't sexy.

"Free market society" or "voluntary society" or whatever you want to call it, it's all good.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It certainly was no accident. You can't have people thinking they can actually help themselves! Just look to (e.g.) the UK, where self defense has become dangerously close to being outlawed. Keep in mind, of course, that the state gives itself no responsibility to defend you; they will try to let you *think* it's their responsibility, but when the chips are down, governments alieviate themselves of this burden.

[ QUOTE ]
3.) AC as a utopian petri dish

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy. I don't like seeing that.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I kinda see where you're going with that. But AC isn't just the "C" part; while some facets of AC may be hardcore capitalist, there's no requirement for that, as you've already realized. The final golden age is *still* AC, though I agree that over time it will look different.

[ QUOTE ]
The important part of AC isn't capitalism, it's freedom!

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner. Once that is achieved, *whatever* comes next is good.

Great post. Finally, one of the posters we were promised would be coming, bringing elevated discourse with him.

[ShakeZula06]

Great post. You understand a lot more about AC then most the others that come around "knowing" AC "can't work". Very interesting take on the name. I've noticed that not only does "anarchy" get a bad rap but so to does the "capitalist" part. A lot of people in the world hear the word capitalist and think of a bunch of greedy capitalist pigs running a global sweat shop ring. Or at the very least assume life will return to what it was like during the Industrial revolution.

Free market society has a good ring to it.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree breaking down the myth is also a useful undertaking. I think my point is to be mindful of who your audience is. Are you debating, recruiting, or preaching to the choir? Each activity requires a different kind of vocabulary, a style of rhetoric, and lends itself best to some topics over others. I think AC has a big leg up on some other radical ideologies like communism because it shares many fundamental philosophical values with the dominant paradigm instead of rejecting them. I think it's always better to establish agreement and common beliefs before launching an attack on someone. It gives them a chance to let their guard down; kind of like a Trojan horse.

So breaking down the myth is important, but it seems like it's only useful once the person has reached a certain level of understanding. Or perhaps you could also come at it from a completely different angle that doesn't involve AC.

In some cases I wonder if it isn't possible to simply sidestep the myth by espousing the free market and completely avoiding anarchy. If the person is more open to this line of argument, perhaps he can become convinced of the vast potential of the free market, then back his way into anarchy when he realizes that the state could in fact be made obsolete.

[ QUOTE ]
For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definitely be interested in an explanation of this or a link.

[ QUOTE ]
This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like all these, especially voluntary society.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definitely new to understanding markets. I know very little about economics or political economy. I took a political theory course my first year of college but I skipped all the classes about Marx and I found Hobbes/Locke unreadable [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

In the thread you linked, you write:

[ QUOTE ]
So when there are no territories, what is left (and what can flourish) are people interacting voluntarily (i.e. the market). So if that is the case, how can there be any socialism or communism?

Another aspect of property: there is a difference between communes and communism. Most families are communes, where the whole family shares in property. But the difference with communism is that communes choose to participate in this type of relationship. Under communism people are forced to give up control over their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the issue with the -ism portions of communism and socialism? I wouldn't advocate trying to force anyone into any form of society, so if that's what -ism implies, I won't use those terms anymore.

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining government? If you define it as a system of law, order, and defense, then government does exist in AC-land, right? It just doesn't have any connection to state power. It seems like stressing the governmental role which a free market can provide could be a good way to defuse many of the fears that are generally associated with anarchy. It also sounds less radical and stresses the critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny) which many many people never realize.

[Dane S]

Thanks for your reply. Your posts in the AC threads have been my favorite out of the whole AC gang. You're very good at eloquently applying AC principles to real world situations.

[ QUOTE ]
The final golden age is *still* AC, though I agree that over time it will look different.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't state that quite right in my post. The way I said it sounds like AC is something to be replaced, but really it will always continue to be AC at its core no matter how far it evolves, just like on some level we humans are still monkeys, and I'm very excited by the prospects of this evolution.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining government? If you define it as a system of law, order, and defense, then government does exist in AC-land, right? It just doesn't have any connection to state power. It seems like stressing the governmental role which a free market can provide could be a good way to defuse many of the fears that are generally associated with anarchy. It also sounds less radical and stresses the critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny) which many many people never realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government = taxing coercive territorial monopolist. There isn't a "critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny)". Government = state = taxing coercive territorial monopolist, regardless of whether it uses those funds to invade countries, pay judges, or subsidize farmers.
I don't know how many defense and law AC threads you've gone through, but we have these debates constantly. Some of the statist newcomers reply like you are describing, with "ZOMG PEOPLE WILL RUN AROUND KILLING EACH OTHER." But there are actual discussions about the viability and efficacy of free market solutions to certain essential services that the government monopolizes.