• nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    no they don’t. anarcho-capitalists are fascists. they don’t want the state gone they just want it minimal and out of the way so they can exploit whoever and whatever they want to build their own empire like a robber baron of ages ago. there is no place for capitalism in anarchy.

    • NoLifeKing@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Bro did you drink paint? Either you are anarchists (anarcho) or Faschist, you by definition can’t be both. Faschism is maximum state influence, real faschism is closer to communism than capitalism.

      And there is place for capitalism in the concept of anarchy. By definition you can do whatever you want in anarchy. Wich is completely idiotic but that’s a different story.

      What you describe is a form of Plutocracy not Ancaps or something similar.

      • nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        9 months ago

        ancaps are not anarchists was my whole point bud. and no, the point of anarchy is not ‘do whatever you want even capitalism lol’. anarchy is recognizing that power over others breeds corruption and endeavouring to flatten hierarchies as much as feasibly possible to limit it. anarchy is ‘no ruler’ not ‘no rules lol wheeee’.

        • NoLifeKing@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          And your point is bs because its against a literal definition. You might mean something else, what you mean is rather Plutocracy than ancaps but you don’t seem to understand that.

            • NoLifeKing@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              No im not wtf im a social Democrat you just throw around words and don’t even know what they mean.

              • nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                35
                ·
                9 months ago

                everyone here is disagreeing with you about this. maybe you’re just wrong. i am an anarchist. ancaps are not accepted by any other faction of anarchists and are recognized as fascists in hiding. just like libertarians are just fash who want to smoke weed, ancaps are fash who want no regulation in the way of their riches, both hide behind minimal lip service and labels. just like fascist states nk and russia hide behind their democracy label.

          • kwedd@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            9 months ago

            According to classical anarchist political theory anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Private property (as in a select few owning the means to production, not as in personal possessions) will lead to hierarchy and oppression.

            Of course self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists disagree with this point. They believe a free (unregulated) market would be empowering for everybody.

          • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Anarchy is a form of society without rulers.

            An- (Greek: “without”) + arkhos (Greek: “ruler”)

            • Oxford Languages

            The literal definition in the political sense and the literal etymology are “without rulers”.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            And your point is bs because its against a literal definition.

            Maybe a dictionary definition because dictionaries capture common understanding, which in the case of anarchism is abysmal. Good dictionaries will also list the actual meaning. But, as you said, a literal definition? That’s exactly “The absence of rulers”. Not the absence of order, the absence of norms, “lawlessness”, that’s called anomie.

            And even if we here were wrong and you were right that still wouldn’t matter as by your own admission we can do as we please, including using terms in ways which seem disagreeable to you. But we don’t because we actually care about theory and the general intellectual integrity of things (in a material sense (in the actual meaning of material)) as without theory there’s no praxis, only actionism.

      • Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        9 months ago

        In anarcho-capitalism, the person with the most money is indestinguishable from the state, they’re just called something else.

        And yes, i did drink paint. Mmm tasty 😋🎨