AnCaps are anarchists in the same sense that Stalin was a Marxist. They're merely capitalists who think they can rig the market more effectively without buying out whatever state happens to regulate it; they don't actually want anarchy, just a type of order which removes a chunk of the transitional layers between money and power. Note, in particular, that they don't reject the existence of organized militaries, police forces, courts, or even laws, just that they don't have sole control over them.
Well, either I'd either replace the first comparison with, oh, let's say mutualists (in the Proudhonian tradition) or the latter with Communists. AnCaps are anarchists and Stalin was a Communist, but anarcho-capitalism is its own distinct school from most other conventional schools of anarchism in the same sense that Stalinism can be distinguished from Marxism. And, in the same sense between the black or red schools of the left, you end up with "true believers" who immediately try to say "that's not *real* X" because it doesn't jibe with their own particular dialectical school of thought that, in its extremes, becomes almost Pythonesque (fitting, considering the infamous scene I refer to was in fact inspired by actual debates in the far left circles). Indeed, I think by your statements that they don't reject that list of things that you're confusing them, at least in part, with minarchy (basically paring down the government to the bare minimum); anarcho-capitalists consider the state in itself as a coercive monopoly. It's basically anarchy when you approach it from an extreme libertarian, rather than an extreme social (that is, in the sense of reciprocity and the exchange between equals) context.
Actually, apparently Proudhon was also a proponent of a limited state as well (to ensure worker's rights, rather than property rights), so minarchism does have a long history in the anarchist movement in general. I did not know that before compiling this post; learn something every day, I suppose. ^_^
EDIT:
Whoopsie, this is the Happy thread. Political debates are not happy. Political debates are the exact opposite of happy. I'll be going, now.
Ah, you're correct on the edit, of course, but I was more shooting for "espousing an ideology which one does not practice as a form of propaganda." The dictatorship of the proletariat must actually
be of the proletariat, not of some dude who claims to represent them. AnCaps are neither anarchistic literally (they fail primarily in that the system and actors they want are not inclined towards voluntary individual participation or the lack thereof -- the desire to be the ruling class does not equate to supporting individualism), nor (unlike anarcho-syndicalists) in terms of the underlying values and goals of their ideology (which in that example are fundamentally democratic and need-oriented rather than anti-democratic and profit-oriented, though I suppose you could argue that it's just as anti-individualistic, albeit in a less socially damaging way).
But yes, I'll shut up as well.
Author
Topic: [MILK] There were 12 eggs here what did you do with them? (Happy thread?!) (Read 16286046 times)