Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
Taken from the Wiki on anarchism and capitalism.
Leftists would likely associate me with national-anarchism - or simply the 'fascist creep' into anarchism. My English ex knew Troy Southgate and Siegeists have adopted anarcho-primitivism, a form of lifestyle anarchism, as the means forward.
Still, I agree with the basic history underlying this. Both anarchism and libertarianism were originally movements of the radical left that capitalists associated themselves with, or 'stole' if we're to be uncharitable.
Anarchists who demand others conform to a historical description of anarchism (often selective history), are retarded. You would think radical people would understand that radicals before them didn't look to history to define themselves but simply expressed their ideas. Modern people can do that to and so need no regard to the history of anarchism. Sometimes history is useful to have shared language over ideas. But that's language, not a demand of conformity.
I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, because I have my own values before any labels are ever applied to myself or others. Then I need to search for the language that best describes my ideas, rather than conform my ideas to someone's language. What are you going to call me if I don't think the people in government have any special moral authority. Nor do I think they have the minds for real moral reasoning. And I also want to interact freely and reasonably with other people, including the ability to trade and own things and pursue business ideas without consideration for even a second that it might offend someone's autistic ideological obsessions?
Well if people don't believe in government that seems pretty anarchist. And if people believe in freedom of association including free economic cooporation that seems pretty capitalistic.
Their critique of the label anarcho-capitalism as invalid really comes from a place of absolute and blind reverence for the ideas of a few names they happen to recognize, devoid of logic, and without any critical assessment of those ideas. That's not very radical. They are the most un-radical, un-self-thinking, brain-dead, conformist radicals the world has ever seen.
Have you read Rayo by chance? He was a right libertarian but I think accurately made the case in this work that anarcho-capitalism just leads to a new form of government.
https://z-lib.io/book/14639212
Not that anarchists of the left have had particularly well thought out critiques either. But some things even make government necessary. Like private property. Or complex economies. Anarcho-primitivists understand that stateless societies are only feasible in smallish tribal bands where simplicity is a reality. Or at least you're going to need something "fundamental" to human behavior to build around to make this minimalist society possible.
People don't like being told what to do. So the obstacle is not even so much the state as limiting the proliferation of rules.
Southgate's movement has been described as working to "exploit a burgeoning counter culture of industrial heavy metal music, paganism, esotericism, occultism and Satanism that, it believes, holds the key to the spiritual reinvigoration of western society ready for an essentially Evolian revolt against the culturally and racially enervating forces of American global capitalism".[1]
https://archive.is/4yZ8c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-anarchism