Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Is it possible to have a productive conversation with an "anarcho"-capitalist?

0 votes
asked Sep 3, 2011 by enkidu (6,110 points)
I am one. Message me any time. JaysThoughts on youtube. I remain civil as best I can and will be constructive and open minded.
I'm an Ancap, and yes I promise I will not waste your time.  Google hangout- Keithknight590
Skype-Keithknight13

3 Answers

+6 votes
 
Best answer
to me it seems it will be as productive as having a conversation with a conservative, a fascist, a social democrat or a leninist. There are good reasons why we don´t meet in real activism and real life.

Just because anarchists share up to a point "anti-statism" with neoliberals be it of the "minarchist" type (Milton Friedman, Republican Party) or the more radical "anarcho-capitalist" type, it doesn´t mean we have a lot to find in common with. If just coincidence in one issue was sufficient for that then we can have as much to cooperate also with maoists and followers of the North Korean government just because we share with them "anti-capitalism". Also anti-racism and feminism can makes us cooperate with social democrats and I can say just as well anti-parliamentarism can makes us cooperate with fascists and nazis. To me reaching a "productive conversation" with any of those kinds of people will be just as useful.
answered Sep 6, 2011 by iconoclast (3,250 points)
+1 vote
yes. but it's quite rare, in my experience. unfortunately, the most reasonable ones are unlikely to come here i expect, having their own circles that they do stuff in, and unwilling to be constrained to the limitations that this site will enforce.
answered Sep 3, 2011 by dot (52,800 points)
edited Sep 3, 2011 by dot
The limitations of good faith, for example?
Fair enough. It was a pretty flippant question.
+3 votes
No.  If you have such a bad understanding of anarchism that you think it can be compatible with capitalism (or vice versa), you don't deserve to use either term.  The only productive thing that can come out of it is to get them to stop calling themselves anarchists (or stop calling themselves capitalists, depending on which one they actually are).

...like that's going to happen...
answered Sep 4, 2011 by Taigarun (1,720 points)
lol, i don't call myself a "capitalist," i'm an anarchist...you're a communist.. what kind of anarchist.. a person who doesnt believe in rulers/government, is anti FREE MARKET?
if you want to go live on a "collective," go for it (what's stopping you currently?), as long as you're not running around claiming/taking/"abolishing" everyone's "private means of production," then i guess you wouldn't have much of a problem... i don't claim a monopoly on the concept of anarchy (like you do, lol), i just recognize that you telling me i cant have any property is you trying to rule me, and laying claim to all property in the world while pontificating about how you don't "believe in rulers" OR property.... lol, who the fuck are you to tell me what i deserve? or that i "have too much stuff" if i didn't appropriate by initiation of force? who the hell are you to tell me that i can't trade with other poeple for a profit, that i cant increase my standard of living...without having to drag along a bunch of lazy communists who just want to take stuff they didnt even put any labor into... or be a serf to the 'collective' farm, get my daily collective ration, etc..since i cant own/operate my own private, productive property... that's the whole point.
it is possible to have productive conversations with people you strongly disagree with, isn't it taigarun?
@Dot
yes, of course it is.  I know I'm a bitch a lot of the time, and, in all honesty I tend to like this site and it's participants a lot.  I just wish that it was more upfront about being centered around post-left theory.  Maybe: Post-left anarchy 101 Q&A?  Of course I don't like post-left theory, but I do enjoy some of the conversations here and I have learned some valuable things over the year(s?)

I'm usually not this much of a bitch in person... but sometimes I am :p

@ RedBlood
I am an anarchist and a communist.  The idea of a free market places more importance on the right to own property than on human need.  This is why it is an anti-anarchist and anti-communist idea.  Property is something that you deny others use of (whether or not you are using it), that is why anarchists say that property is theft.

"If you want to go live in a collective... what's stopping you?"
Capitalism and the state.  I don't own any property and I never will in my life time.  I am poor, there is nothing available to me in this world.

I am not ruling you.  I am telling you that you cannot tell me not to use a thing that you are not using.  If I need it and you do not, I will take it (and it will be available for you when I am not using it or when I no longer need it, or when you need it).

To own and control large amounts of property is to wield coercive power over other.  It puts you in a position of making significant decisions that affect the lives of others.  That is not anarchy.

p.s.
You have never asked me what I believe in.  Where do you get off assuming that I want you eating rationed raisins?  You're living in a fantasy land.  You value profit over people.  That is enough to discredit you in any anarchist circles.
The idea of a free market places more importance on the right to own property than on human need. - how are you going to fulfill your needs with no property?

"If you want to go live in a collective... what's stopping you?"
Capitalism and the state.  so capitalism,  which "places more importance on the right to own property than on human need" is stopping you from making a commune? how? because someone else got there first? so you just wish you and your "comrades" were the first "born" on earth? (like every communist basically)
"I am not ruling you.  I am telling you that you cannot tell me not to use a thing that you are not using.  If I need it and you do not, I will take it (and it will be available for you when I am not using it or when I no longer need it, or when you need it"  

 right- so you're telling me that you have a higher claim to decide what is done with ALL property.. (based on your or other people's 'needs') than i have on what i claim/acquire as mine? (stuff/property you clearly didnt even own anyway, since you dont "believe" in property..i cannot say YOU cant take it because i will need it in the future)..... so you are claiming all property as yours and saying you are "non-propertarian," like all "anarcho communists"

so you have the right to take it if you need it (no matter who had it first), i dont have the right to stop you, and you have the right to decide that i can use it when you're done? sure sounds like you're claiming it as your own property (you are.)

--telling me what i can/cant do with stuff you dont even own is both claiming to rule all property, and me.

"anarcho" communist says "excluding people from the use of things is an authoritarian act, so you cant own any property" o.O
...