Anarchism vs Anarchocapitalism vs Anarchocommunism

Anarchism comes from the Greek words: ‘’an’’ (without) and ‘’archos’’, (i.e. leader, ruler) or archon (i.e. "authority", "sovereignty", "realm", "magistracy") and suffix -ism. Anarchist comes from the Greek word ‘’Anarchos’’ which means ‘’one without rulers’’. Anarchism therefore is the opposition and abolition of authorities or rulers (the biggest source of these being the state). That is the ONLY definition, words cant mean whatever one wishes them to mean, and etymology provides an objective way to determine Anarchism’s true origin and meaning. ‘’one without rulers’’. So no matter what other definitions one may claim to have of anarchism it is only that; nothing more, nothing less. Anarchism does not define economic models nor conflict resolution. (The NAP is not inherent to anarchism, but perhaps compatible, stop mixing up the two.)

Individualist Anarchism flag

CRITICISM OF ANARCOCAPITALISTS AND THEIR AUTHORITARIAN FALACIES:

A. Private laws, militias, judges, police.

Many (not all) Ancaps, including some Agorists, and Mutualists advocate private companies to act as police, judges and militias and enforce their authority on individuals who are ''supposed'' to hire their own police and judges. These private law firms either have to duke it out or let the market figure out conflict resolution between firms. That is facism, private statism. I call it ebay statism. The highest bidder gets to buy authority over others. Not all ancaps advocate this, I’d say 50%, a substantial figure. Who you trow your money at is your problem until you try to pay to enforce rules over me or others.

B. Ownership of land.

It is illogical for someone to claim ownership of a planet or a moon, right? He dint create it, he just happened to make a claim on it. Likewise, it is illogical and evil to attempt to control land that one does not use or possess. Land possession, advocated by Individualist Anarchists, is moral and logical, not land ownership. Why? If you don’t use/occupy/possess a piece of land then you have no authority to prevent others from doing so. Preventing others from using land you do not use is evil. In Anarcocapitalism, land is ''owned'' by homesteading or subsequent transfer; the claim is that by putting in some labor into a piece of land one somehow owns it. Then they can hire laborers, exploit them and go ''homestead'' another piece of land elsewhere. The problem is that under this model of ’’land ownership’’, land is easily monopolized and is it entirely possible for one individual or corporation to ''own'' all the land: they simply have to purchase ‘’claimed’’ lands. Making other humans rent slaves because all land has been ‘’claimed’’ long ago. In the past we called this feudalism. Today its called private land ownership. A piece of unoccupied land is claimed to be owned by individuals who paid a fee to the local mafia (the state), to other individuals, or whose ancestors ‘’claimed’’ large extensions of land long ago. Under that system every newborn human doesn’t have the right to provide for himself food nor shelter nor become independent because one must pay others for using land. Obviously at a certain point in time all the land in a region has been claimed, even if there are hundreds of thousands of unoccupied/free acres. Whether it is in the city or in the middle of a forest every square meter of land has been claimed or at some point in time will be. Another flaw with the ''homesteading'' model is that no one can own the planet; no one put in labor and created the land they claim to own. If you add value by working on the land, you can own whatever you produced from it like mining or farming or others, but it doesn’t not give you a ‘’right’’ to the land or planet itself. Hoarding land is evil. As tridimensional land mammals we require a 3D space just to exist. It is physically impossible for two 3D beings to occupy and use the same volume of space or land; therefore, it’s necessary for individuals to occupy different pieces of land. As a final point all human activities depend upon land, therefore freedom and anarchy is impossible without free access to land.

CRITICISM OF ANARCOCOMMUNISTS AND THEIR AUTHORITARIAN FALACIES:

A. Abolition of private ownership of goods and capital (excluding land): Ancoms are against individuals owning goods that create other goods (capital) so under that logic, private ownership and renting of plows, knives, sewing threads, a blender are evil. That is ridiculous. Ultimately how do ancoms propose to ''abolish capital''? How do they propose to prevent me from owning or renting capital (not land)? How can they prevent me from selling my labor or buying others labor. The only way is violence. Enforcing their ''authority'' over me. So i cannot trust ancoms.

B. Abolition of wage salary: most employment in this statist world is exploitation, but the mere act of selling or buying labor and services is not evil and is not exploitation. Wage Salary is not inherently evil. Again, how would they act against an anarchist that hires his neighbor? The only physical way to prevent it is through force. What if I want to tutor my neighbor and get paid for it; Im selling/buying labor but Im not harming anyone nor exercising authority over them. Extend that logic to other scenarios and ancoms have no grounds to ‘’abolish’’ wages.

C. Equality: There is no such thing as equality in the real world, neither of opportunity nor of outcome. Each individual will have different access to opportunities, knowledge, genetics, talents, support from family and Friends (some might be orphans, have zero support), Access to different geographical terrains, etc (we can’t all have a piece of land next to a body of water). It is physically impossible, and is evil, to force equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Ultimately, none of that is necessary to abolish authoritarianism, rulers, statism and establish freedom. Freedom and anarchy is possible without equality, its completely independent from it. Equality is irrelevant to freedom. However, it is recommended to empower individuals to prevent power gaps that could lead to sources of control and authority. Voluntary hierarchies are also discouraged for the same reason. A voluntary leader with too much power over to his peers could easily become authoritarian. Note to voluntarists: The whole notion of voluntary hierarchies, voluntary submission to others, is stupid to individualists. Submission is weakness.

CRITICISM OF ANCOMS & ANCAPS:

Both groups fear the chaos and non-organization of Anarchy and the lack of economic, defensive, protective, and social safe nets that the state and their models supposedly provide. In my opinion their supporters are inferior to real anarchists becuase they would rather sacrifice REAL anarchy for ‘’security’’ and ‘’order’’. There are no ‘’rules’’ in an anarchy other than obviously abolition of authority and rulers and the logical extensions of these; such as, killing an innocent person is enforcing your control over their life (authority). Many Ancaps and ancoms would rather control others through ‘’abolishing capital’’ or ‘’private law’’ to provide ''stability'', ''security'' and ''order''; rather than risk living in a chaotic anarchy. Anarchy IS Chaos. Chaos and disorganization are NOT inherently evil. Chaos is not necessarily everyone murdering and raping each other, Chaos is merely the absence of control. This is a GOOD thing. Think of chaos as randomness and unpredictability due to lack of control over humans. People fear not having control over their fellow human because they could possibly get robbed or harmed. Those who are inferior or brainwashed resort to controlling their neighbors’ actions in an attempt to produce a false sense of security at the cost of everyone’s freedom. I will not discuss human nature and motivation here; but I argue that in total chaos (total lack of control or authority over people) humans would NOT start murdering and raping each other at a higher rate than in an authoritarian world. I would prefer running the risk of getting harmed in a free chaotic world than deny freedom to myself or others. Therefore I believe ancoms and ancaps score significantly lower on the ‘’freedom scale’’. People who deny my freedom because they fear chaos are inferior pieces of shit. That applies mostly to statists but possibly to minarchists masquerading as ancoms/ancaps. I invite the reader to research Anarchism and Individualist Anarchism.