I don’t think authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a black-and-white subject, i.e. there are varying degrees and types of authoritarianism. Believe me, Capitalism does have its issues, but I still think it’s a hell of a lot better than Leninism, Feudalism, or Fascism. Of course, there are still more liberating ideologies out there, and I encourage people to do their research.
Regarding ancap (Which I prefer to call voluntaryism), most lefties and anarchists will tell you that it’s not a real form of anarchism. I, on the other hand, believe that it’s not a real form of Capitalism. The whole point of voluntaryism is for the markets to be completely free and consensual (so no slavery) without outside intervention. A misconception people have is that Capitalism is about the free market, which is not the case; instead, it’s about the accumulation of capital to turn a profit. Voluntaryism is not about profit; instead, it follows the principal that when two parties make a trade that they both think is good, both will be better off. I think that principal is undeniably true.
however considering that authoritarianism is a complex spectrum it goes alot deeper then that, liberal principles of classical liberalism evolved out of fighting an extremely authoritarian force (i.e monarchism and feudalism), its ideas is that individuals make a few concessions to an authority in exchange for common and equal basic rights, which liberalism viewed all men had (except slaves for 200-300 years).
It isnt a valid anarchist ideology because the fundamental basis of anarchism is the abolishment of hierarchy (or colloquially called unjust hierarchy). Modern anarchism as both a set of principles and ideas, and ideologies directly evolved as a counter to liberalism in almost the same way liberalism arose against feudalism, anarchism was born out of an anti capitalist force and theory, on private property and economic power being an inherently political power and therefore a potential source of oppression (anarchism is deeply related to marxism for this reason)
Anarcho capitalism is essentially the crony capitalism myth taken when people forget its the state that is what makes private property a thing in the first place. Otherwise classical liberals literally would have been ancaps ,
While some systems are certainly more authoritarian than others, economic systems can certainly harbor inherently authoritarian hierarchies. While the various components that factor into the ultimate authoritarianism vs libertarianism of a society, the constituent components can certainly be more authoritarian than libertarian. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, relying upon subservience and dependence resulting from private property ownership and capital accumulation.
While accumulation of capital is certainly present in capitalism, the fundamental defining feature of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production via private property ownership which property owners extract value from laborers. Anarcho-capitalism is certainly still capitalism, as the aforementioned property relations would still persist.
While it does draw from said principle, at least in the minds of some, profit and extraction of surplus value would certainly be characteristics of an ancap society. The principle which you refer to does not factor in the circumstance under which these transactions occur. Hierarchical structures can effectively coerce certain parties into accepting transactions and exchanges which to greatly further the wealth and power of one of the parties involved, while keeping other parties oppressed in society, much as the renting of labor under capitalism does.
The issue there is that the arguement of the means of production as one single entity is itself a socialist concept and in the mind of a capitalist said idea is much more spread out and complex. Capitalism rejects the idea of the means of production as a single entity, instead focusing on contracts, markets, supply/demand, private competition, and of course capital
In capitalism the worth of each individual determines their gain. So a relatively low-skill factory worker doesn’t make as much as an engineer because the latter is more valuable as an individual. However, the union of factory workers as a whole are more valuable than anyone else individually. Socialism takes it to mean that the latter requires a majority-takes-all approach while capitalism splits each individual up by their individual worth.
@Ka1serTheRoll Benjamin R. Tucker,Max Stirner,Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,Errico Malatesta,Clarence Lee Swartz,Voltairine de Cleyre and Emma Goldman have all argued for socialist economics on an individualist basis.Likewise,capitalist thinkers such as Locke,Keynes,Rawls and even to an extent Adam Smith himself have used collectivist and populist arguments to justify a market structure.This clearly contradicts the Randian notion that capitalism is necessarily individualist in all instances and that socialism and social anarchism are necessarily collectivist in many instances.Also note that many anarchists both historically and in the modern day reject individualism v. collectivism as a false dichotomy and opportunistic misreading of evolution.
Those are all different doctrines of capitalism. Keynesian capitalism is fundamentally different from Randian Objectivism, which itself is an extreme version Hayek’s economic theory. Capitalism is not a monolithic entity; it’s a broad and broad structure centered around markets, mutual agreements, trade and supply and demand
I know that,the problem is most capitalists whether Randian or not act as though their variant of capitalism is the gold standard of all capitalism just as Marxist-Leninists and Democratic Socialists(The latter of which has with few exceptions devolved into a slightly more progressive brand of neoliberalism and welfare statism)act as though their socialism is the gold standard of all socialism despite both Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism being revisionist as fuck.
Individualist anarchism and mutualism both include mutual agreements,markets,trade and supply and demand.Both are considered anti-capitalist philosophies because as much as neoliberals such as yourself try to reductively boil capitalism down to those factors,those factors predate capitalism which is defined by land monopolization,tariffs and high taxes upon the peasantry,usury,rent and state distortion of “natural market activity”.
There are different doctrines, but the workplace under capitalism is undemocratic, and a few people with sizable wealth exercise great control over others. It’s not monolithic, but hierarchical nonetheless.
Well the mean of production aren’t everything, but they are a very large component of the economy. Socialists don’t view it as a single entity, it is a series of property relations that dominate economic interaction. Socialist don’t reject supply/demand either, and some don’t fully reject the market either.
The boss determines their gain. They might be able to get higher wages if there labor is more specialized and in lower supply, but ultimately the progression of the individual is limited by what their bosses have and do decide to give them.Under socialism, all individuals are able to see decent gain since more of the wealth people produce is given directly back to them, or at least falls under their power.
Well yea kinda, I mean, socialism values democracy, equality of economic power, and more egalitarian outcomes. Although it is worth mentioning that discussion accompanies democracy and workers can work together with compromise and changing of plans, even if the majority desires something a certain way initially. Capitalism selects the individuals most wiling and able to have value extracted from them to fuel the profit of property owners. I don’t think the latter if a very ethical system.
From personal experience I can tell you that unions are often just as bad. The teacher’s unions in NY for example. The senior union members just screw over everyone else including the students. People will always work towards personal gain. To expect otherwise is foolish. Capitalism attempts to harness it rather than create the illusion of altruism
While they can be corrupt, workplace democracy is superior to workplace authoritarianism. Even so, at least in Catalonia, a decently high number of unions were willing to participate in cooperation and decentralized planning to meet the needs of the citizens, even if it means redistributing profits.
You claim that capitalism tries to harness desire for personal gain, but in reality, it allows those that desire the most to rise to the top and take from others. However, libertarian socialism allows equal representation for numerous individuals who generally desire their own gain as well, but due to the economic inequality, generally vote in such a way that resources are distributed in a fairly egalitarian fashion. Capitalism allows individual vice to divide individuals and create inequality. Socialism allows people to share in their desire for gain, but due to the egalitarian nature of society, prevents them from creating oppressive hierarchy and taking from others.
Ok, fair enough. The unions need to be decentralized however, otherwise they just end up as another hierarchy to deal with. If unions can compete directly with one another then that creates a de facto market, which is pro consumer.
One way to prevent a union hierarchy is to completely ditch tenure. This takes the seniority of union elites out of the picture and makes them actually democratic instead of just being another oligarchy. They also must be regulated in the same way corporations are, lest we have an anti-consumer system. Should these needs be met they may very well be a preferable alternative to corporations. Should they not the pot is being stirred for little meaningful gain