Anarcho-comunist vs. Anarcho-capitalist - What is anarchism? [Part one]



how their Victor process and her kiss tart is talking to you today well I guess the subject had to come up inevitably the issue of a narco communism versus anarcho-capitalism it's funny to note how this the inspiration for this video got underway I'm a friend of mine on facebook who had this very playful way of categorizing certain traits that known for and under certain categories where he said Victor Victor you're the 3 a's atheist anarchist artist not necessarily in that order but it's funny that I guess I've been challenged on the proposition that I man I'm an artist too maybe just a few times that's to say that those specific people didn't care for my work so therefore I'm not an artist and in regards to atheists I know there's been other people who said well that's your religion then that's your God ok you know and now recently I've gotten an email stating that i'm not an anarchist so I looks like these categorizations that my friend playfully gave me atheist anarchist artist I have no right to claim so the recent objection in regards to that I would you know designate myself an anarchist was an outrage to this person who is a an article socialist and the reason why he would object to my making such a claim as a philosophical designation for the sake of economic categorization and a physiological slotted area to know in a certain capsulation those principles that I were to buy by which is denoted by the word there's a mouthful but you can't say that forwards and backwards while eating cheerios but anyway I the reason why he objected so vehemently was that anarchists are said to oppose cohesive hierarchies so if I'm sitting off there advocating and espousing and approving of property rights and capitalism then by what right do I have to call myself an anarchist and what comes to mind of course here is protons what is poverty or what is property and the inevitable answer is that property is theft but on being one of the original anarchist fingers and writers and I don't know too much about his works but no matter I think I can pretty much stand up to giving a defence and definition of Anarchy which I don't believe that there's any final word haha when it comes to such a thing there's principles and you either you're abiding by those principles or you're not but there's no final word like some gospel truth revealed once and for all and that it's a absolute in a mystical sense philosophy proper philosophy anyway just like the scientific method doesn't come with come to final words on things as final arrival points it's an ongoing investigation science studies the physical the physical world and philosophy being much more of an abstract discipline deals with the nature of reality and human beings relationship to it so you have within that metaphysics epistemology and ethics and of course ethics leads off into politics so these are the disciplines that are that science the scientific method and philosophy it here's to not ideology in which there are certain victims that have been laid down once and for all there in mutable their final and absolute as tikrit by one person is usually the founder of a given religion or ideology uh that's that's a religion okay that's not philosophy that's not science so and that's why further thinkers have developed anarchists thought beyond the original anarcho communist and I would like to make my own contributions in a very small smidgen hardly not of the erudition or depth that stefan molyneux would bring to it but in my humble effort has wearing a second half as a philosopher I'm primarily an artist i will make a stab at it if you're at all interested i hope you are ok so now dealing with the concept of anarchy as a school of thought as a philosophy and tracing back my own reasons for giving that philosophical philosophical designation to myself is why be an anarchist is because I oppose violent hierarchies ok now when it's in the vernacular or in current popular parlance anarchy is said to be associated with disorder in chaos and so forth but we know that that's just propaganda but there's another definition that really gets to the core of it that's quite accurate is that being opposed to the government an anarchist is someone who does not believe in a government and for him and that's a conclusion the lot would be the reason to be opposed to government ok it would be an ethical opposition ok the the ethical now when we look at government and what it is ok we understand it to be a monopolization irrigated by a small elite of people who have appointed themselves as rulers and who have irrigated to themselves a moral and legal right to initiate force initiate list of the words initiate I don't want to hear this pacifism a trap again ok there's a difference between initiation of force and retaliatory for us ok and issue and the type of force that we are speaking here of is physical force as imposed by a small band of roots mall band of ruling class backed up by the various thugs that they have in their employ okay that is what government is that is what it does so when I sit here and I say yo I oppose this institution this violent institution because I imposed violent hierarchies it's so therefore I oppose government and because it is a violent institution it's a violent hierarchy okay so that's why I oppose it so if I oppose government because for the reasons that i stated why i do a moral reason and i really feel quite entitled to cling to my breasts the badge the honor of designating myself as an anarchist but let's just say that the anarchic communists would grant me at least some title meant to the to the title of being an anarchist to that extent if he was that generous he says however you are faced with the fundamental contradiction in that you have not opposed all violent hierarchies you you're off to a good start you're off to a good start but you don't oppose all violent hierarchies which is in the case of private property and capitalism so this is where we come to an impasse and but as I would say that what is fundamental here what is fundamental though to the anarchists position to the anarcho-capitalist position here is the initiation of force but physical force ok now the an article Communist will state other categories of aggression such as the fact that if you're a property owner you'll have a factory in which you employ people and exploit them so forth and give them starvation wages or ratchet to working conditions that it's a form of aggression something has to be done about that private property as such is is aggression so but we can get all into the into the you know details later I want to keep these videos short and sweet into the point I'm going to do a series of them right now I'm just dealing with the issue what the hell let's get us our head around this word an orc as I'm anarchy so it's fundamental to the anarcho-capitalist position that what when they oppose government what they are opposing is force the initiation of force in the type of force that they're opposing is physical force physical force I don't know of one anarcho-capitalists who would disagree with me on that when they say hey I'm an anarchist I'm an anarcho-capitalists anarchist then that they would state some other reason why they oppose the government because of that type of violent institution that it is that it is uh it's not a matter of a differences of opinion as to whether it is if you if you're sitting there saying though we'd go on about the social contract or a voluntary plate pay my taxes below blah then you were as far as as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure a lot of other people would be bleep would agree with me is that you are thoroughly entrenched and being brainwashed so let's just get back to reality and understand what this institution is it is it is a violent institution that plunders the wealth of people in prisons them and takes their very life if it's so deems as necessary and fit and irrigating to themselves immoral and illegal right to do so whatever checks and balances that they pretend to put in place they still go by their favor okay so now that is what I oppose and it's to that it is for that reason that I am an anarchist because I base it on a moral argument that this is wrong aggression is wrong and I think that they entered the specific anarcho communist that I was talking to said no no that's not the reason is private property it's a capitalism is well slave wages blah blah blah blah it's not about the non-aggression principle Wow well yeah if you consider these these these forms of exploitation as aggression well then how can you say you're not against the non-aggression principle okay which is it I mean this person with contradicting themselves in the same paragraph he would say make a proposition in the next pair sentence in the same paragraph would contradict his original stated premise it's ridiculous man and this whole this whole idea for that property is theft well I theft how can there be such a thing is theft if you don't acknowledge the fact of property okay but the issue here are guesses I suppose private private property oh the lone individual it's an attack on individualism when you get down to it but in this video at least I wanted to establish that much as to getting a grip on anarchism in my opposition to it in the anarcho-capitalist opposition to it but now we have to get to the issue of that what is made the original claim against me that i am not an anarchist is because i advocate property rights and capitalism when properly understood and defined how I'm not go whatever's going through the mind of the person has quite a different definition of capitalism as the type of mercantilism cronyism that is so characteristic characteristic of it I am not advocating that but that's for another video as for the next video so so the issue will be property rights and capitalism in the next video thank you for listening as Victor process and archaea start is signing out pop goes the culture




Comments
  1. You are NOT a anarchit. You are a FASCIST. Stop spreading fascist propaganda, it's a direct attack on others ad HORRID for your health..

  2. Legal right to initiate force over a given geographical area, which is what land owners would do to "defend" their property in ways such as shooting "trespassing" hikers, charging rent to stay, or to ask for compensation for access to their natural resources. The property owners are the ruler of their property and the NAP could be used to justify defense of their property even if the defense is violent and disproportionate to the violation.

  3. Just look up the definition of the state. You will see that privately owned land is a state, therefore stateless societies can't exist in "ancap"

  4. Private corporate institutions use private security to put down the working class, unions, people who want to unionize, as history has shown. If you got rid of government this would continue and in fact get worse because unions interfere with the ones at the top making the vast majority of the money, because the market encourages the capitalist to make as much money as possible and steal from their workers by not paying them a fair wage, which is why every millionaire and billionaire is against the minimum wage. Private corporations use physical force just as much as government to keep down the people when the people fight for equality. That is why I, as a social anarchist, am against capitalism and see anarcho capitalism as not true anarchism, but merely tyranny.

  5. Anyone can use the word if you like, but it is radically opposed to traditional anarchist thinkers.

  6. What do 'anarcho' capitalists have to complain about? This, what we are living under IS 'anarcho' capitalism! Just because there is a state, it doesn't mean that it isn't controlled by private institutions. The difference is only that it exists under the pretence that it is democratic (which of course it isn't). If we dissolved the state overnight, the largest business entities would immediately establish a private institution (i.e. a privatised state) to protect their economic interests and social influence. It is only because an institution that serves that very purpose (the state) already exists that the elites of society don't seek to dismantle it.

  7. Capitalistic institutions IS the monopolization of power and force. There is a reason anarchy is opposed to top-down hierarchies in all it's forms because abuse naturally flows from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. That is why anarchist such as myself want all enterprises to be democratically managed, want communities to be autonomous and democratically managed, and want power to be equitably shared. An anarchistic society aims at minimizing power disparity as much as possible, and maximizing a level playing field in which nobody has any power over the other to impose their will, or subordinate them in any way, whether it be political, social, economic, or otherwise. When anarchist say they want no rulers, they mean it, that means we do not want bosses or master to serve in the workplace, we want to serve ourselves, own the full extent of our labor and democratically manage enterprises on the basis of being anti-hierarchy and the fact that people our investing their labor to keep it functioning.

  8. All anarchy means is "without rulers". So anyone that proposes that we don't need government or rulers is an anarchist. End of argument. Now you can get on with debating which flavor of anarchy is better.

  9. Hey,

    Should an ultrarich Person that owns 1000's of fertile land have the right to hold that property in any way they like such as if they choose to just sit on it for speculation or develop it with the blood sweat and tears of landless laborers/farmers? What rights does a person who owns nothing but their own labor have in this kind of society? I suppose property rights do not apply to them but only to the monied class? I read that Anarchism is big on protecting the property rights of landowners, but is there such a thing as excess in wealth, and what about the landless peasants? I envision a world that your dream about that is non regulated where the richest people have the financial means to buy up all the best land, and the majority who would not have the means to buy their own land or means of production would end up like serfs laboring away day in night just to put food on their table by working the land of some land barron, keeping 20% of the fruits of their own labor to sustain their lives, and paying 80% back to the landowner in tribute for being a rich landowner. In other words we would surely return back to feudalism under this scenarios. The big question I have to all your anarchists is, "Does a man's property rights and wealth supersede the moral right to provide thy fellow common man with the means to progress beyond surfdom." Should the land and resources not be shared equitably between the real producers (farmers) and not the speculators? Should we really be given the right to own more land then we could ever use for our own use, especially if we are not going to use it for productive purposes but to speculate on? Any thoughts on this? Thanks!

  10. Homelessness is not violence unless whenever you are trying to put up a home, someone keeps coming along and knocking it down. If you are unable to build your own home and want to force someone to do it for you either through threat of violence or by stealing their money such as through tax to pay someone else, THAT is violence. If someone decides to have 1000 kids and then claims that the responsible person who only had one or two needs to give them some food, THAT is violence, not the other.

  11. And no one would need to work if all labor was automated. Anyone who wanted to could still work, but no one would be forced to work or starve and be homeless, etc. However, I am not talking about anarcho communism in this comment. However many people do mistakenly believe that an RBE is communism or socialism with no regard for individual needs or rights. That is a fallacy, but no matter how many times you try to explain that to some people, it never seems to register.

  12. I totally agree with you on this part of your above comment:

    "buying" the labor and reaping the majority of the profits, while the people DOING the labor get a significantly smaller wage..

  13. In some cases people are chosen because of being born into already connected families. And in some cases people are noticed because of certain things achieved later in life and not approached until they are a bit older. Aaron Russo was somewhat older before they noticed and approached him, and asked him to join up with them. But, he said no. The system is truly rigged against the vast majority ever making it to the highest economic levels.

  14. And how many wealthy CEOs are not either members of the 13 blue blood families, or someone noticed by one of the blue blood families while in school, because he showed him or herself to have prodigy traits. They do keep track of all of us, from our school records, and when they see signs that a child is a prodigy, that student is taken under their wings and their talents are developed in a way that can be used by the system. Then they are invited to join up, when they get older.

  15. You stated in part of this video that you are opposed to violent hierarchy. I am opposed to all hierarchy. How can any hierarchy not be violent in one way or another? Violence is much more than just physical. There are also non physical forms of violence. Poverty is violence. Starvation is violence. Homelessness is violence. Factory farming methods are violence. Foreclosure is violence. And, I could go on and on.

  16. What about Anarcho-Primitivism? Rewilding? Living with nature? Anyone like the idea of living in the woods?

  17. In an anarcho-syndicalism system you have the right of personal property I believe and they have no right to take your lawnmowers away and keep them, they're being coercive and are breaking the Non-Agression principle and have the right to take it back.

  18. ah, that makes sense. So, it's really the same commodities under the same rules of Private Property in terms of acquiring it through labor or purchasing.

    I'm particularly interested in Property Rights through labor; it doesn't make sense to me how money (as a store of value and medium of exchange) can also be used in the process of value creation itself by just simply "buying" the labor and reaping the majority of the profits, while the people DOING the labor get a significantly smaller wage..

  19. In short, personal property is considered movable private property that you have a fair right to exclude other people from. Different people have different opinion of what constitutes personal property, but examples are clothes and basic household appliences.
    Search for "personal property" on wikipedia (I know, you shouldn't rely on wikipedia as a source, but this perticular article is actually pretty good, accurate and straight forward).

  20. What exactly would you distinguish between PRIVATE property and PERSONAL property, and how do they differ in how they are obtained?

  21. I think it's important to distinguish PRIVATE property from PERSONAL property. I haven't (personally) met many anarchists of our age that opposes personal property, wether they were capitalist or socialist or anything else.

  22. So, beating you isn't ok, that's too violent; but it's totally cool to have complete apathy to your living conditions and obvious structural violence that predisposes you to become violent, have terrible health, etc?

    There are decades of data showing the direct relationship to the gap between the rich and the poor, and violence. The more the gap, the more the violence and general deprivation overall.

    How inequality harms societies
    watch?v=IeswJY0o2uA

    (Funny, but relevant)
    watch?v=IeswJY0o2uA

  23. Locke is the father of the idea of private property. He's pretty weak, as is Hobbes and Darwin. In fact, the whole Enlightenment of hyper-rationalism is embarrasing. They did much harm to humanity. Kropotkin tore apart Hobbes and Darwin. The Russian anarchists gave us a tremendous and rich intellectual heritage. We as Americans need to access that, rather than relying on a form of "nationalist anarchism."

  24. When I hear anarcho-capitalists defend private property, they usually say something like "ownership must be assigned." This is where they go wrong. Ownership is always acquired through violent means.

  25. Your notions of anarchism were well thought out. I agreed with them. Governments are violent and hierarchical. Cooperation is a higher form than privatization.

  26. Kropotkin made a good argument that property is theft. My problem with markets is that it relies on scarcity, which is highly artificial. I can't justify an ideology that purposely creates scarcity. Not only that, but anarcho-capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, which requires State authority.

  27. Lies Lincoln is responsible for no deaths it was all the souths fault for breaking the law "firing the first shit"

  28. First the South started the Civil War. Those 600,000 casualties are Jefferson Davis' responsibility. Lincoln did not want war–he did not even originally want to end slavery. But reuniting America required the abolition of slavery which the Civil War accomplished.

    Abe Lincoln ended slavery. Now I am not in the business of defending presidents of the USA past present or future.

    Lincoln was not a mass murdering tyrant. He did not massacre southerners. He was criticized for being too lenient.

  29. group =/= collective. Look up "herd mentality" and you'll find it isn't always a nice thing.

    And what's this about being "ruled by supply and demand"? Are you ruled by your free will? Nonsense. Are you ruled by scarcity? Obviously; unavoidable though.

    Altruism is nice, but the reason greed works in ancap is because no matter how greedy you are, you'll still be helping everybody. It CAN'T fail due to greed nor altruism, therefore it's stronger than collectivism.

  30. Yes this is controlled through reason not greed or selfishness.

    This is why humans consider men like Socrates as men worthy of emulating and not John D. Rockefeller.

    Socrates wasn't greedy or selfish and that is why his story has lasted thousands of years. It is why we remember Abe Lincoln and not Millard Fillmore.

    Men are not cockroaches or rats to be ruled by the laws of supply and demand. We can reason.

  31. Your comment proves nothing i'm afraid. France has a massive drugs problem and massive no go areas for outsiders (ghetto's), that even the police are afraid to patrol in single units. You remove the law and you open the gates for these elements to overtake forcibly the more decent areas. It starts small but history has proven the World is full of invaders and conquerers. You honestly believe that this can be controlled?

  32. The best way of proving ancaps wrong is showing how greed is bad. Greed is a form of ignorance.

    When people say responsibility they mean responsibility towards a thing greater than themselves–a broader context.

    When people say a human has soul (as opposed to a soul)—they are referring to a greater awareness of the world and their actions.

    If famous men like Abraham Lincoln and Socrates were greedy we never would have heard of them.

  33. That is correct–a collectivist pack.

    When people say "herd mentality" they think they are insulting herds. Animals that form herds do it in protection and do not give up there freedom.

    Animals naturally form herds–even lions. It is how they survive, propagate and prosper. Being part of a collective does not mean giving up your freedom. Human beings form herds in the same fashion–it is how cities are made.

  34. Different societies have different values.

    Consider France: the French once had an empire and conquered all of Europe and Africa and substantial parts of Asia.

    Now the French value art and good food over conquest and domination. People think that makes them weak when actually it makes them smarter and happier.

  35. It isn't about "giving up your wealth".

    Wealth is created through organization and labor.

    What prevents tyranny from arising in society is people working together, AKA collectivism.

  36. Collectivism: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control.

    Forming groups for the purpose of self-defense is NOT collectivism and is not opposing anarchism as long as the non-aggression axiom is applied.

  37. Doberman's got nothing on a pack, but we aren't dogs so being on your own is not the only alternative to being part of a collective. Protection is a trade.

  38. "And who will regulate this market?" *facepalm*

    The difference between police/soldier and private agents is the choice and competition that the latter offers; this guarantees that it'll get better over time. So what happens if one agency forces their customers with guns? Government. How do we combat this? Revolution is one way; this particular government allows voting (how nice of them!), so that's another way. The last thing we should do is sit back and accept it; but that's the reality today.

  39. Today we call those organizations that protect us policemen and soldiers.

    You haven't changed anything just the names of what you call different things.

    It seems to me to be a complete waste of time to have a revolution just to change the names of things.

  40. And who is going to regulate this market?

    The people with guns (especially men who are able to organize other men with guns) will be able to dictate to their customers.

    The biggest beneficiaries of the centralized nation-state are the capitalists.

  41. When people are aware they form groups (collectivism) to defend themselves against tyranny.

    That is why individualist anarchism will never work.

    In the dog eat dog world the doberman is king.

  42. Capitalism is based on a strict social hierarchy which is imposed using coercion of property.

    This is why conservatives who favor laws banning certain religious sects and believe in racial privilege are capitalists and not socialists.

    Social hierarchy (including the social hierarchy created by capitalism) is unnatural.

  43. An (without) archy (rulers)

    There are no rulers in capitalism. Only leaders. The difference being that rulers use coercion, and violence to enforce their rule. Leaders however are only followed by people who choose to follow them of their own free will.

  44. Well they wouldn't just uphold the clients rules because the accused can also be a client of someone, but instead of expensive war there would be arbitration (arbitration exists today). Arbitration is fair because both parties would never agree to an unfair one.

    As far as intimidation goes, you assume the criminal organization is stronger, but they have no power without theft so they're a blight to everyone. Private companies are incentivized to cooperate if they cannot do it alone: more money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *