Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


–1 vote
I understand LS is an "umbrella" term which contains many theories within it, including AC. But some people claim that LS differs from AC in these points, so I was wondering if they were talking about LS or just some other form of Anarchism, all these labels confuse me :D
The Points I'm talking about :
1- View towards markets, paper money. I read about Anarcho-Communism and I understand they oppose both, is LS different?

2- Dealing with private property that may benefit society, but is not means of production.

3- Dealing with minorities, opposition. I understand that allowing difference in opinion is a cornerstone in anarchist principles, but this was unclear in some anarchist literature, for example I did not see many Anarcho-Communists oppose the destruction of churches in the Spanish civil war...etc.

4- Dealing with the term "Authority", I read somewhere that LS was different from AC in their view of the term "Authority"; that LS believed in some form of "Authority" as long as it did not contain any form of coercion.

This question was asked before on your website, but it was more simplified, and it was provided with two answers, and both answers were criticized.

Also, if LS really is an "umbrella" term and is not a complete political ideology; I always wondered; are there any non-Capitalist Anarchists that believe in markets in general? I am interested in reading the debates between the two points of view.

Thank you :)
I'd like to comment on question #3 if nothing else - as I understand it, the Catholic Church was a frequent collaborator with the Spanish state at the time, and was seen as an organization that was fundamentally opposed to everything from social democracy to communism to anarchism. There were Catholic paramilitaries serving on the fascist side of the Civil War, and I'm sure there is even further context to explain why churches were such a frequent target. It's impossible to abstract this situation to "anarchists are against religion and have no qualms with destroying it militantly".

But on the subject of this question, I think there's this stupid tendency within the right wing (or maybe politics in general) to take a specific situation and turn it into an abstract dichotomy. So for example, if anarchists violently oppose fascist groups, it becomes the abstraction of "anarchists are pro-violence" or "anarchists will use violence to destroy any political opponent they choose", when obviously that's not even a remotely factual or nuanced understanding, and turns everything into a black-and-white issue.

1 Answer

+3 votes
Not really a fan of this question in how it is posed.  I'm assuming LS = libertarian socialism.  I don't identify as a libertarian socialist, though I suppose I could still be lumped under this term as an anarchist.

1. Market anarchism, typically collectivism, mutualism and some forms of individualism are not necesssarily against markets, exchange or the use of money in paper form.  Some may have a more nuanced argument on the type of money to be used, but generally market anarchists tend to view anarchist communism as one choice of market anarchists could have.  I don't agree with this view and find markets to be part of creating systems of domination.

2. All anarchists while under capitalism can, if they own property, turn that property to common use to "benefit society" or they may use their property in a way that creates a benefit to society.  Market anarchists tend to have amended views on property that vary based on the anarchist, but typically the different with pro-capitalists is based on possession.  What a person possesses is theirs and they can turn a use towards it, but what isn't part of a person's possessions may be used by others seems to be a typical position for some market anarchists, though others might have a stronger sense of property that mirrors the current systems views.

3. Collusion between the church and the state is common enough to see the church as an institution of domination, which makes it a target.  There may be some that view a secular society's relationship with religion to be less dominating, but the reasons for the anarchist communists of Spain, in that period, to attack the church, I accept and don't lose any sleep over.  Differences of opinion will always occur and most anarchists are willing to maintain relationships that exclude domination from their lives.

4. I'm not certain of what kind of answer you are looking for on this point.  There is not a single definition to any word, especially key words that are of principle to how anarchists view the world, like authority.  Libertarian socialism is broad enough to include non-anarchists, like libertarian Marxists or anti-state liberal activists, in some interpretations.  In other interpretations libertarian socialism = anarchism, so the noted examples wouldn't be considered part of this tradition.

As noted above, market anarchists exist, though to other non-market anarchists, they find their interpretation to be splitting hairs at best and at worst, not really anarchists and in favor of an ideal capitalism rather than being against capitalism.
by (3.9k points)