Political Crossfire Forums

Taliesin · Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: Proposal For An Anarchist HQ

There was recently a proposal put forth for the formation of an Anarchist HQ in this thread.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58138&highlight=

If the poll is correct, and the majority of the voters, along with the minority who stated that they would join such an HQ if it were to be formed are serious, there would be 19 members who would join the Anarchist HQ. Does this warrant an Anarchist HQ? I do not know if a minimum number of members is required for the formation of an HQ but if a mod could look into this it would be most appreciated.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 14042 Location: Himalayas

I wouldn't join, but I support this idea.

Zoot · Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 1897

I'd join an anti-capitalist Anarchist HQ, sure.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10750 Location: Podunk, Colorado

The HQ would make perfect sense.....

Kalu · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 756

I'm suspicious of "anarcho"-capitalistm as an ideology (the majority of an Anarchist HQ would be "anarcho"-capitalists it seems). I'd prefer sticking with the Radical HQ, especially since there aren't really dogmatic Marxists there or anything. I'd probably agree with the people there on most issues than in a PCF Anarchist HQ.

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

Devaka wrote: I'm suspicious of "anarcho"-capitalistm as an ideology

I believe its just how you define anarchism. I perfer just be general and say that anarchism is the prohibition of agression/coercion. But a lot of the "left" anarchists view anarchism not only as prohibition of agression/coercion but also the prohibition of capitalism, property and hierarchy.

Zoot · Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 1897

On account of capitalism being institutionalised injustice that requires authoritarian violence to persist, certain kinds of property being institutionalised licences to unjustly profit, and certain hierarchies being inherently authoritarian.

Æ · Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:34 am Post subject:

I'd consider myself an anarcho-relativist: I believe in the abolition of the state and replacement of the state with self-governance in contractual sectarian societies. I'm opposed to both collective coercion of life AND collective coercion of individual property.

Anyway, I don't think this HQ is necessary because there are many brands of anarchism and throwing all anarchists into one HQ is not going to make for a happy time.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:37 am Post subject:

I think its a mistake.

I have anarcho-capatalist sympathies, and i can't see the idea of an organized anarchist political party anything more than idiotic, after all whats the point of hard core individualists playing the popularizing game.

I also think its a mistake as your never going to get anarcho-sydacist and other left wing anarchists to sit nice with anarcho-capatalists.

Kalu · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 756

Several things,

First off, anarcho-capitalists and left/post-left anarchists want radically differents outcomes. While some would say (ie. George Monbiot) that market fundamentalism is the direct outcome of anarchy, I would have to disagree and say there could be very different outcomes of anarchy depending on how it's implemented and the basic principles the people behind it support (ie. The Spanish communes during the Civil War). I know most left/post-left anarchists abhor the idea of private property ownership in an anarchist society whereby the richer person or community might then be able to crush and enslave others (ie. A plutocracy). I personally support social ownership versus private ownership, since in my view that tends towards a more democratic system where no single individual can monopolize the means of production.

Second, anarcho-capitalists and left/post-left anarchists do not focus on the same issues. Whereas anarcho-capitalists are more concerned with economic deregulation in our current system, left/post-left anarchists are very much focused on anti-war/anti-imperialist movements and also such things as abolishing the IMF and World Bank. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be more concerned with the economic side of things rather than the left/post-left anarchists who, in my view, tend to take a more holistic view and also focus on social issues (ie. queer rights, animal rights, etc.)

Third, anarcho-capitalism and the various other trends in anarchy spring from very different places. Whereas anarcho-capitalism was mostly developed beginning with Murray Rothbard and the market anarchists, anarcho-communism, for example, was developed by people such as Peter Kropotkin who very much placed an emphasis on class struggle. You might find some common ground with the individualists/mutualists, but overall the anarchist movements are very divided.

It is my general view that since anarcho-capitalism and various trends of left/post-left anarchy are located yes at the libertarian side of things but also at very different sides of the economic spectrum, it would be foolish to create an Anarchist HQ. These are such diverse movements that I think it would be better if people who identified more with capitalist values and systems stay in the Libertarian HQ, and people who are anti-capitalist stay in the Radical HQ. There can always be exchanges- I know we've (the Radical HQ) had a few anarcho-capitalists/individualists, such as Foadi- but I think overall that's the best option.

To sum up, since joining an Anarchist HQ would be like joining an Authoritarian HQ where Marxists and fascists co-exist, I would not be joining it.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: I think its a mistake.

I have anarcho-capatalist sympathies, and i can't see the idea of an organized anarchist political party anything more than idiotic, after all whats the point of hard core individualists playing the popularizing game.

I also think its a mistake as your never going to get anarcho-sydacist and other left wing anarchists to sit nice with anarcho-capatalists.

People aren't trying to make an Anarchist HQ an actual basis for a political party, just like there's no Radical Party even though we have a Radical HQ.

Also, it's not just anarcho-syndicalists/anarcho-communists/left anarchists who wouldn't "sit nice" with anarcho-capitalists and vice versa, but also the post-left supporters of anarchy, such as the primitivists. I know one post-left anarchist in the Radical HQ has said that to them, fighting anarcho-capitalism is close to the same level as fighting fascism and Leninism.

Æ · Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject:

Devaka wrote: I'm suspicious of "anarcho"-capitalistm as an ideology.
I'm also a bit suspicious of it as well. It would seem that the concept of being free from coercion is diametrically opposed to collective markets.

I invented the term "anarcho-relativist" for myself as my view of life and property is relative. The value of life is relative to the person living that life and the value of a person's property is relative to that person. Anarcho-capitalists seems to support the former but disregard the latter.

Don Quixote · Joined: 24 May 2005 Posts: 1462 Location: Lisbon

Taliesin wrote: There was recently a proposal put forth for the formation of an Anarchist HQ in this thread.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58138&highlight=

If the poll is correct, and the majority of the voters, along with the minority who stated that they would join such an HQ if it were to be formed are serious, there would be 19 members who would join the Anarchist HQ. Does this warrant an Anarchist HQ? I do not know if a minimum number of members is required for the formation of an HQ but if a mod could look into this it would be most appreciated. This was actually my idea to begin with, now that im not the one proposing it.. everyone seems to agree with it. Guess no one likes meh... :roll:

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

Don Quixote wrote: Taliesin wrote: There was recently a proposal put forth for the formation of an Anarchist HQ in this thread.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58138&highlight=

If the poll is correct, and the majority of the voters, along with the minority who stated that they would join such an HQ if it were to be formed are serious, there would be 19 members who would join the Anarchist HQ. Does this warrant an Anarchist HQ? I do not know if a minimum number of members is required for the formation of an HQ but if a mod could look into this it would be most appreciated. This was actually my idea to begin with, now that im not the one proposing it.. everyone seems to agree with it. Guess no one likes meh... :roll:

No one likes a socialist who converts to libertarianism anyway :lol: