schratze
schratze@todon.nl
Since apparently people still get confused about this: so-called anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.
Anarchism is the opposition to unjust hierarchies, especially capitalism and the state. But also other hierarchies such as organized religion, racism, sexism, queermisia, ableism, and so on. Ancapism opposes the state (or claims it does) but has absolutely no issue with any of the other patterns of oppression.
Most anarchists understand anarchism as being a type of socialism, that is, a movement that wants to institute democratic control of the means of production. Ancapism is fundamentally opposed to that since it regards private property as sacred.
3
1
0
schratze
schratze@todon.nlAdd to that the fact that ancaps will regularly embrace autocrats such as Pinochet just because they removed regulations and killed leftists and you will realize that they have absolutely nothing in common with anarchists.
2
0
0
schratze
schratze@todon.nlI could get into how ancapism is a fantasy ideology that will never work, and if it did, it would produce a horrible dystopia. I could also get into how most of its proponents have questionable opinions about the age of consent and about immigrants. But honestly, that's giving them too much credit.
There are no serious proponents of ancapism. The ideology is a red herring for them to propose unbridled ultra-capitalism and all its horrible consequences. It's a troll political theory, made by trolls for trolling anarchists.
1
0
0
@schratze granted, i'm not an anarchist, but i feel like this alone should be the reason for someone to be considered just as, if not more, toxic to the whole anarchist movement, as stalin or mao supporters are to the left in general
1
0
0
Inga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
IngaLovinde@embracing.space@twinkle @charlotte @schratze uhh so I think Austrian school is somewhat close to ancap ideology? Parts of ancap seem to rely on Austrian school at least.
And they did have some thoughts on whether money requires a government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denationalisation_of_Money
(Just adding some context here.)
1
0
1
@charlotte ancaps want to be the state. they want to set the rules for themselves and others
0
0
0
Inga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
IngaLovinde@embracing.space@twinkle @charlotte @schratze (I just happen to know something about this because in uni, in "history of economic thought" elective course (mandatory for philosophy majors but I just decided to join them for a bunch of stuff despite majoring in theoretical mathematics), we studied diverse parts of that history; so one day we could be reading Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" or fragments from "Das Kapital" (not in the way they used to do it in USSR but critically), and the next day, von Moses's "Liberalism" (equally critically).)
0
0
1
Inga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
IngaLovinde@embracing.space@charlotte @twinkle @schratze btw the Hayek book I linked to is about fiat money; and in the context of that book, Bitcoin and to lesser extent gold have qualities that would make them very uncompetitive and therefore not very accepted forms of money.
1
0
2
Charlotte 
/Cinny 
charlotte
Show content
@twinkle @schratze
> Bitcoin and to lesser extent gold have qualities that would make them very uncompetitive and therefore not very accepted forms of money.
that reminds me about the theatrics afd did in opposition to the introduction of the digital euro because cash and, apparently also bitcoin, can be used during their blackout scenario
1
0
2
Inga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
IngaLovinde@embracing.spaceShow content
@charlotte @twinkle @schratze ah no, "uncompetitive" as in their value is very unreliable and subject to sharp changes.
From wikipedia synopsis:
> Hayek makes the assumption that competition will favor currencies with the greatest stability in value since a devalued currency hurts creditors, and an upward-revalued currency hurts debtors.
and bitcoin is like the opposite of "stability", hugely hurting debtors most of the time and also hugely hurting creditors some of the time.
0
0
2
Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC
LordCaramac@discordian.social@charlotte @schratze That's because property isn't "real", it is not an observable fact, it is a legal fiction which only exists as long as there are authorities enforcing it. Without a state, without laws, there would only be possession (which is indeed an observable fact), but no such thing as property.
0
1
0
