Critics of ancap are flaunting their predictions as fact just as much as some ancaps are.

Certainly, but I think because we reject not just the involvement of the state but also the more subtle power relationships that stem from it, we have different tolerances. For example, in a non-corporatist economy, maybe unions wouldn’t need to exist at all, and therefore the question is moot. However, while capital is artificially concentrated via privilege, unions are not the first to go for a left libertarian because they embody organizational principles that, while imperfectly realized, provide a real alternative to hierarchical corporatism.

There is a huge issue here of organizational ethics: the question, not of “how do you want people not to relate to each other”, but rather how you DO want them to relate. So what organizations exist because of the state, what orgs exist in spite of the state, and what orgs don’t exist at all because of the state are all very pertinent questions. There’s a lot of room for opinion here, and ACs just don’t seem to be too curious about the possibilities because they seem pretty cool with hierarchy for its own sake.

That’s the perception, at least – it’s not necessarily accurate.

You guys are so naive about left-anarchism, it’s just unbelievable. It is clear that not a single one of you have ever read Bookchin or Kropotkin or Goldman or any other left-anarchist author. Read up on what they think of private property and get back to me.

“He also refuses to recognize that many of the so-called “right-anarchists” are functioning as apologists for the status quo, and are just corporatists and even monarchists in disguise (see Han Herman Hoppe).”

I never “refused to recognize” this at all. I have said that ‘vulgar libertarianism’ is a problem, but that it has turned into a witch-hunt and that the term is misused by many (to the detriment of Carson’s original point).

The thing is, it’s pretty difficult to tell what would be around and what wouldn’t. Critics of ancap are flaunting their predictions as fact just as much as some ancaps are. Many ancaps don’t see the point in condemning every single business transaction that exists just because we don’t live in a free market, just as left-anarchists never seem to condemn unions or worker cooperatives (regardless of the statist conditions around them).

“They appear to want the existing corporate capitalism without any sort of government, rather than a free market for its own sake.”

Some do, some don’t, some don’t care either way.

My personal opinion is that capitalist corporations (or similar structures) would definitely continue to exist, unless forcefully suppressed. I don’t think people are going to give up their mutual funds without one hell of a fight.

As for the radical work, we mostly support it, as long as it goes in the Anarchist direction. We are still too few and too dispersed to join you guys yet, but believe me I am itching for some action.

Anarcho-capitalists who criticize big corporations and “existing capitalism” are treated as badly (if not worse) as those who cuddle up to them.

I can only speak to the ACs I’ve interacted with. Setting aside clear personality and communication conflicts, I think the reason for this is simple: to many, they appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. Capitalism is whatever is happening in the market that they approve of, and none of what they disapprove of. Which is fine, if they’re willing to be more thoughtful and exploratory and imaginative.

Here’s an example: ACs often highlight existing capitalist institutions as models from which they extrapolate proposed market-based alternatives to state-provided services. It’s not that this is necessarily bad; it’s just that because they generally agree with the power relationships outside government, they don’t have a lot of imagination about what’s possible. They appear to want the existing corporate capitalism without any sort of government, rather than a free market for its own sake.

The conclusion many draw is that you see anarchism as a means to, rather than alternative to, the current power relationships in society. I’m not saying that’s a correct conclusion; but given that you see left libertarians and other left anarchists doing *radical* work in alternative organizational ethics, you gotta admit that ACs don’t seem to be on the same page as us.

Agreeing on principles is great, but when we start talking about alternative institutions – what we build instead of what now exists – we often just don’t see eye to eye. It’s often framed as a difference of cultural preference or bias, but I think it’s usually more than that. We disagree on our predictions of the likely anarchist world, without realizing that we could both be right, or both be wrong. And so ideological identities interfere.

“One day you will understand that it is not the “statist distortion of markets” the left-anarchists oppose (they love that stuff and demand more of it), it is the market itself.”

I consider myself a leftist and I completely support the market – not as it currently exists but as in the ideal of a free market. The problem is that many anarcho-capitalists end up defending markets and property titles as they are (which is not a free market at all) by falling back on a cold and dry utilitarian economic analysis divorced from any comprehensive concept of justice (a criticism that Rothbard himself made in “The Ethics of Liberty” – which I believe Kevin Carson is merely extending upon with his crticism of vulgar libertarianism). As a consequence, they function as neo-mercantalists or corporatists in actual fact. This is unfortunate.

“They demand the compulsory abolition of private property, which is statist.”

The problem is that the definition of private property is semantic with respect to the debate. It is my contention that even anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists actually support private property in some limited form, despite their protests to the contrary. They may make arbitrary distinctions between “personal property” and “private property” or between “property” and “possessions”, but at the end of the day they are advocating for some form of private ownership. Their societies would also have money substitutes, so their opposition to money is also based on a misunderstanding.

This, from someone who doesn’t like “sweeping generalizations.”

One day you will understand that it is not the “statist distortion of markets” the left-anarchists oppose (they love that stuff and demand more of it), it is the market itself.

“The fact is that capitalism isn’t itself ambiguous – it means very distinct things. The problem is that it means distinctly different things depending on who you are talking to.”

Both sides define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production (because that is its definition). Nobody who has read any left-anarchist text could possibly say otherwise.

“Uh… you do realize that there are leftist anarchists, don’t you? Not all leftists are statist.”

They demand the compulsory abolition of private property, which is statist.