Libertarian my ass!

[wdmw]

This insitence of stating that anti-capitalism is not inherent to anarchism makes me think you did not read/understand the works of Malatesta, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. If you did, you would have understood that they created their theory as a reaction and in opposition to the capitalists free market theorists.

It sounds to me like what you should be saying is "The first self-labeled users of the word 'Anarchism' were anti-capitalist".  

That doesn't change the definition of the word 'Anarchy', which means, literally, 'without leader(s)'.

edit: Myrkul beat me to it

[Rampion]

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.

That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

[wdmw]

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.

That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Think critically here for a second; you are calling an associative economic philosophy of early 'Anarchist's' the definition, while dismissing the actual etymological definition as foolish, stupid reasoning.

Also, National Socialism is 'National' 'Socialism'.  I recommend some Hayek on why it inevitably leads to what you identify as 'Nazi's'.

[myrkul]

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.

Well, as we've already established that "anarchism" doesn't mean "anarchosyndicalism," using "Libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist" doesn't rule out "radical free market, anti-state capitalist," now, does it?

Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Could you provide the definition you're using? It doesn't seem to be a standard one.

[Rampion]

About your question: I'm really not interested in discussing if anarchism is good/bad/practical/anachronic/whatever - I just wanted to point out the origin of the term libertarian/anarchist, which is used in a rather strange, twisted and funny way in the US (I also have an opinion about why that happens, but I would like to stick to the facts only and not to speculate)

Anarchism is used in it's actual meaning:
a-, an-   not, without
-arch-   ruler
-ism      doctrine, belief

Ergo: the belief that there should be no rulers. Not anti-market.

That is like saying that Nationalsocialism is only a form of "nationalist" "socialism", and it has nothing to do with intollerance or racism. Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

National Socialism is 'National' 'Socialism'.  I recommend some Hayek on why it inevitably leads to what you identify as 'Nazi's'.

Nazi's are Nazionalsozialists - and racism and intollerance is part of the core of the nazi ideology - full stop.

I also have read plenty of Hayek and Mises, same thing for anarchist theorists and even more important: history books - and this is why I lol when I read about free market capitalists calling themselves libertarians or anarchists.

[Rampion]

Then, around 1850, it was used for the first time by Joseph Déjacque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque) in reply to Joseph-Pierre Proudhon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) as a synonim of anarchist - and from there expanded as an euphemism for the anarchist term.

Thus, the modern US definition of libertarian as a "radical free market, anti-state capitalist" is rather funny.

Well, as we've already established that "anarchism" doesn't mean "anarchosyndicalism," using "Libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist" doesn't rule out "radical free market, anti-state capitalist," now, does it?

Please be serious, anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you want to have and use your own meaning for the word "anarchism" go ahead - but don't fool yourself with stupid reasonings.

Could you provide the definition you're using? It doesn't seem to be a standard one.

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... And Emma Goldman, Rocker, Malatesta, Stirner, etc. etc.

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard, and its a term that can be used seriously only by someone ignoring the true origins of the term anarchism. I will say more: no one who have read Bakunin and Kropotkin could ever use the word anarcho-capitalism without laughing out loud, even if they are convinced anti-state liberals.

[Richy_T]

Personally, I don't have much issue with drift of language. It happens. Now there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians. The underlying meaning is in support of increased liberties. Of course, I believe that the left-libertarians are misguided in their aims and understanding of liberty but that's a different argument (The left has a long history of using words in diametric opposition to their actual meaning in any case).

libertarian in the US sense seems to be gaining ground in the UK also. I read several sites from there and libertarian is typically used in this manner. This is hardly surprising. In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.

[Richy_T]

I also have read plenty of Hayek and Mises, same thing for anarchist theorists and even more important: history books - and this is why I lol when I read about free market capitalists calling themselves libertarians or anarchists.

I LOL when I hear people refer to the rear compartment of an automobile as a trunk or boot and the lid at the front as a hood or bonnet. Language lulz.

[wdmw]

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon... And Emma Goldman, Rocker, Malatesta, Stirner, etc. etc.

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard, and its a term that can be used seriously only by someone ignoring the true origins of the term anarchism. I will say more: no one who have read Bakunin and Kropotkin could ever use the word anarcho-capitalism without laughing out loud, even if they are convinced anti-state liberals.

Trying to re-define the word 'definition' makes it seem like we're being trolled.

From Emma Goldman:

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property: liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."

The bolded is the definition.  The underlined is Emma Goldman's interpretation of its application on society.  Those are different things.

[myrkul]

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...

I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...

Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have two distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

[Rampion]

The definition of the ones who used the term ANARCHISM for the first time - thus defining it: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon...

I see. So Libertarianism is still the opposite of determinism?

Anarcho-capitalism is something created from thin air by Rothbard...

Much like Bakunin created from thin air the term "Anarchism."

Today, we have to distinct branches of "anarchism" (Which, itself, is only, and can only, be defined as: "the belief that there should be no rulers"): We have Anarcho-syndicalism, which, as you stated, uses the prefix "anarcho-" to differentiate it from "the syndicalist conception of communist/socialist theories" - ie, State communism. Then we have Anarcho-capitalism, which uses the anarcho-prefix for the same reason: to differentiate it from state capitalism, which is what Proudhon was against, as well.

Just because for a time there was only one kind of anarchism - anarcho-syndicalism - doesn't mean that anarchism is defined as anarcho-syndicalism.

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

[myrkul]

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

[Rampion]

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.

[myrkul]

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.

He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops.

[FirstAscent]

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

[myrkul]

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

[FirstAscent]

"I shall begin with a definition.... Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

And do tell, where exactly does your fabled anarchism not depend on violence?

Anarchism - both kinds - proposes that all interactions be voluntary. Mutual agreement, not violence.

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

[Richy_T]

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

[myrkul]

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

[Richy_T]

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Sums it up well.

Oh, I forgot. Somalia. Of course, what was I thinking?