XmrBazaar (beta)

What’s the difference between “market anarchism” and “anarcho-capitalism”? Citing Center4StatelessSociety article,

«The difference between market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is contentious, and somewhat semantic. Anarcho-capitalists choose to use the word “capitalism” because they believe it denotes a laissez-faire system of economics, free from government control. Market anarchists are far more critical of capitalism, as they believe the term “capitalism” does not denote a truly freed economic system. Market anarchists avoid using the word “capitalism” because it often refers to our current, unfree economic system, dominated by corporations and vast income inequality. Market anarchists say that “capitalism” places too much emphasis on capital, implying rule by the owners of the means of production, a form of oppression which market anarchists oppose. Many market anarchists believe that in a freed society, the world would look very different from how it looks now under state capitalism. They believe that freed markets would not result in corporate domination and hierarchical firm structure. If such firms did exist, they would be few and far between. As Gary Chartier and Charles Johnson write in Markets Not Capitalism, “Market anarchists believe in market exchange, not in economic privilege. They believe in free markets, not in capitalism.”

Adherents of anarcho-capitalism believe a capitalist, laissez-faire economic system is desirable for maximum freedom and human flourishing. Market anarchism does not seek to prescribe a desirable economic system. Instead, market anarchists recognize that not everyone in a free society will desire to engage in a profit-oriented market, and alternative voluntary economic systems, such as cooperatives, gift economies, and communes, may flourish. While market anarchists may often advocate market exchange, pluralism and decentralization are also of great significance. As long as these different voluntary economic systems can peacefully coexist, market anarchists take no issue with such alternatives.»

One of the main problems with anarcho-capitalism is, of course, that it is not really anarchist: paradoxically, while anarchy advocates the absence of hierarchy and authority, ancap is indeed resisting the state, but does not resist the workplace hierarchy at all. Quoting Bob Black, «the source of the main and direct violence experienced by the typical adult is not the state, but the employer. In a week, your immediate supervisor gives you more direct orders than the police do in ten years». (Black was openly anti-leftist, by the way — he hated the leftists just as much for the same workplace fascism, or arguably even worse.)

Hierarchies are destructive: I deny economic, racial, or gender hierarchies as much as I deny state's. I will not present other arguments against capitalism (or anarcho-capitalism) here, leaving room for discussion.

Here few more good short articles (mostly no longer than this post) for further reading:
• Are market anarchists for or against capitalism? https://c4ss.org/are-market-anarchists-for-or-against-capitalism
• Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace “Anti-Capitalism” https://c4ss.org/content/1738
• On Inequality, Injustice, and Anti-Capitalism https://c4ss.org/content/31650

Also, a bit longer article, rather micro-book, good intro into market anarchism is “Markets not capitalism”. Read it
• here: https://marketsnotcapitalism.com/
• or here: https://www.scribd.com/document/68608541/Markets-Not-Capitalism-Individualist-Anarchism-Against-Bosses-Inequality-Corporate-Power-and-Structural-Poverty

please set up a tip address, so I can tip your based comment! :D

talking about hierarchies — good point with the surgeons, indeed temporary hierarchies by strengths might be justified. on the other hand, while genders and races have differences, they're greatly exaggerated — also, treating them different might be not justified. classical example: forcing someone to die at the war for elite's interests based on their gender creates an undesirable gender-based hierarchy.

I don't know how to set up a tip address..

Hey iDrive, to add tip address you:
1. Click your profile in top right corner.
2. Click "My profile".
3. After that on the left you'll see "Edit profile", click that.
4. You'll see settings and then on top you'll see 3 buttons: "Account Settings", "Forum" and "Notifcations", click on Forum
5. You should see "Tip address (optional)" bar and there you should put a monero address

You'll need to verify password below and click "Update Settings" and that's it :D

Got it, thank you.

Yes. The force is unethical. Though, I feel it's a bastardation of what is fairly natural: the man of family, or the men of the tribe naturally being the ones to go out and protect the more vulnerable from danger.

Anytime I've had a girlfriend, there's no doubt both of us expected me to be the one to deal with threats to her physical safety. I've never had a problem with that. It makes me feel good and useful, needed for something important. It gives me a sense of pride to know that I make my loved ones feel safer. And few women I've dated had the natural strength or propensity for violence to be able to match me, or most men, in that role.

Eggs are mathematically more rare and precious in economical terms to the species than sperm, by many many multiples. In a tribe, I would imagine the men would expect and need each other to band together to protect the women, children, and elderly -- each other's families -- shaming or putting pressure on the men who were not doing their part, because it's basically theft to expect the others to defend yours while you don't chip in.

At one time it might have even made sense extended to the national level. But at this point, the kings aren't going to war themselves, and the wars are not natural or necessary. It's an exploitation of the natural sense of duty and common interest. It's no longer to mutually defend the sovereignty of the individual or family.

Most of the problems can be boiled down to uneven trades, where outcomes aren't mutually beneficial, where there is information or compensation withheld from one party. Lying, seduction, baiting into harm. It happens along every vector.

Women exploit men for defense and resources, without delivering anything. Men exploit women for sex, without delivering reponsibility. Militaries exploit soldiers through sense of duty, or sheer threat, with little recompense.

The Natural Law Institute has many interesting things to say about this cascade of reciprocity violations.

> Hierarchies are destructive: I deny economic, racial, or gender hierarchies as much as I deny state's.

Hierarchies are creative.

The Universe is an ordered hierarchy, from galaxy clusters down to planets, nations, communities, families, your circulatory system, and then atomic structures.

Humans naturally crave Structure, Order, and Predictability.

They become very unhappy and psychotic if you deny them those things.

they draw "A" in a circle, saying O-rder is the base of A-narchy. i think another way: cosmos might be an example of the most unhierarchical order — if you can impose hierarchy on objects without will.

humans naturally crave Structure, Order, and Predictability — and that's why I hate hierarchies: they make weak and corrupted structures, they voluntarily change orders and they undermine predictability in your socity, taking it away even from your own body. furthermore, humans naturally seek for equality [1], peace [2], reducing suffering and, arguably, growth — this may be achieved vastly more effective in a horizontal space.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07155
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-is-not-part-of-human-nature/

I think anarcho capitalism would violate the agorist principal of noncoercion, while market anarchism wouldn't, as "need" is often exploited to create an unappreciated assymetric power dynamic, as well as one party often not being fully informed. I tend to specifically think of capitalism/"capital" as meaning specifically the arbitraging of vulnerability/need/desperation.

I don't agree necessarily with your take on hierarchy. In many cases hierarchy is natural and critical. You would want a brain surgeon to be telling their assistants what to do, simply based on experience and knowledge. Some people have deserved natural authority in certain contexts. Imposed, artificial hierarchy is different. But in general people naturally flock to good leaders. Plus, some people literally prefer to follow.

I would say that the problem with calling these race/gender type things "hierarchies", is that much of it is actually just differences. Actual differences. Races, genders, IQs are not uniform. Everyone has their talents and weaknesses. And the left goes too far in trying to avoid "hierarchy" but denying/destroying natural niches in the process.

Capital extraction = imposed costs