Hey yall, dunno if this is the right community for this kind of talk. I was just wondering if anyone has read up on Michael Malice’ and his work. I’ve been watching some of his interviews and debates, and one thing that I’ve noticed is he seems very staunchly anti-communist. I found it’s quite common for fellow leftists to be critical of the Soviet Union etc, but he makes the point of communism being the failure of the Soviet Union and China, not authoritarianism. And on more often occasion, he never really talks about collectivization. I noticed he always kind of talks from this sort of individualist point, that anarchy requires “everyone fend for themselves.” He never really makes a case for anti-capitalism.
This guys an anarcho-capitalist, no? Is it common for anarcho-capitalists to nab socialist anti-state talking points but then justify them by doing capitalism the libertarian way? If yes, it seems like a very disingenuous way of presenting anarchism. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of libertarians in the tech-bro sphere, who naturally turned to monarchism, because (surprise, surprise) anarchy for them just meant "I get to do business MY way, with no rules.
I feel like it’s a very important discussion to be had. There’s anarchy being presented the wrong way. And it should be called out. Because right-wing libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two very different pairs of shoes. It’d be interesting to read what your peeps’ thoughts are.
You mean the guy that showed up on Joe Rogans podcast? Yea that guy is a fraud, there’s a whole video about him by a youtuber called Chill Goblin, you should check it out: Anarcho-capitalism and the TRUTH about Michael Malice | Chill Goblin
Often times I found myself agreeing with him at first, but then realising… this dude doesn’t know jack. He responded to Joe Rogans question that was “All anarchists believe in abolishing the police. What do you do to protect yourself?” and he responded with something along the lines of “You hire private security.” He even says things like “there should be an open market for security guards.”
Any anarchist that tells you there should be a “open” market for security is a giant red flag. Michael Malice is trying to steal the label “anarchist” just like Rothbard did with the word “libertarian”. These are people that steal leftist labels and actively discredit REAL anarchist thought by spreading their shitty ideas and labeling it so. Do not buy into this shit and call it out if you ever encounter it IRL.
Sounds like a libertarian capitalist, who fantasises about stateless capitalism (good luck enforcing ownership and property without a state or large capital).
Yeah, in the common sense of anarchist, the libertarian socialist sense, this guy isn’t an anarchist.
No anarchist would say the reason authoritarian “communist” states failed was “communism”. Most would actually call these states, “state capitalist” who just replaced the ruling class controlling the means of production from a bourgeoisie to a party elite.
Yep, blaming the failure of the soviet state on something they didn’t have; communism. And not on their answer to every problem, brutal repressive authority. Much like where the US is now speeding towards. Just screams either disingenuousness or ignorance.
There are many flavours of anarchy. And no objectively wrong ways of presenting it - what are we going to do, regulate lol?
I think it would be more sensible to name your flavor of anarchy correctly, instead of using umbrella term and then pull one subset to fill it while expelling others. Yes, ancaps are just like you described. Some people want cyberpank dystopia. Some people want chuche. Sume people are just jerks and dumbass.
No idea who the fuck is that dude you talk about tbh.
Well anarchism, as defined by most sources, is the abolishment of the state and capitalism.
So when a capitalist claims to be anarchist, it raises some questions.
For example the leading paragraph of the wikipedia article:
Anarchism is a political philosophyand movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism.[1] Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).
The page on anarcho-capitalism gives better credit to this problem:
Anarcho-capitalism developed from Austrian School-neoliberalism and individualist anarchism.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Almost all anarchist movements do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist because it lacks the historically central anti-capitalist emphasis of anarchism. They also argue that anarchism is incompatible with capitalist structures.[40][41][42][43][44][45] According to several scholars, Anarcho-capitalism lies outside the tradition of the vast majority of anarchist schools of thought and is more closely affiliated with capitalism, right-libertarianism and neoliberalism.[40][46][47][48][49][50] Traditionally, anarchists oppose and reject capitalism, and consider “anarcho-capitalism” to be a contradiction in terms,[51][52][53] although anarcho-capitalists and some right-libertarians consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism.[54][55][56][57]
Apparently, it’s hot potato in academics; and it’s just stupid, for it’s an argument about definition. Call it Susan if you like it, just define it. And clearly, “anacrchism” as general term is not exactly friendly term then. People’ve got to be more specific to be understood correctly.
Indeed, the missuse and coopting is how libertarianism was stolen by the right as well. People more often associating it with the antithesis of libertarianism. Ghouls like Peter Thiel. And not Joseph Dejacque.
Yeah, I remember, when I used to live in Texas, there was this “libertarian party” that had nothing to do with liber- but just ultra right religious jerks sucking for the Trump party.
And there was some “tea party” guys that were into libertarianism at the time, but really were Trump supporters essentially, just more sensible otherwise. The situation was unmeasurably stupid, considering how the whole idea of the US was about libertarianism and no movement really promoted its ideas, just “let’s regulate something else and make each others lives more miserable” things.
But then I’m pretty sure this theft of libertarianism is effective only in the US.
Especially in the us? Definitely. Just in the US. I think it’s impacted everywhere. Things like the internet have seen to that. Just look at the situation when it comes to libertarianism. If one was to do a search for libertarianism. 99.9% of the information you turn up regardless of where you’re from. Will deal with the right wing larpers. You actually have to dig to find out much about Joseph dejacques or any other early libertarians.
I definitely think things are better over in europe. Having much more political diversity and better education. It’s harder to co-opt terms than it is here. But it’s still informs language choice these days to not be confused. Those on the left much more likely to be identified as Anarchist than libertarian. So as not to be associated with those right-wing ghouls much as communist often refrain from identifying his communist due to all the people who larped as Communists and all the crimes they’ve committed.
Don’t overestimate the cultural influence - it’s strong, but not that strong. And generally people are not all that dumb. And most people start search for political theory in native languages, which is quite rarely English, for lingua franca is tainted by this stuff like OP mentioned for the benefit of US political circlejerk.
I do hope you are correct.
