“Left” Anarchism is Impossible

By Christopher Cantwell

Make mention of anarcho-capitalism, and the lefties are never far behind to tell you you’re not a real anarchist. You know, because studying economics and improving one’s station in life, that’s for statists, maaaan.

I suppose “left anarchist” might be a broad brush, including all sorts of incoherent ideologies. The anarcho alphabet if you will,  anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-mutualist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-socialist, anarcho-tribalist, Zeitgeist whackos, left market anarchists, and a dozen or so other hipster anarcho-adjectives that have yet to fly through my twitter feed. They all fall under the same flag (yes, that’s an insult) of people who ultimately want freedom, not from the State, but from reality, they want equality, not of opportunity, but of outcome.

nacomNow, we can drop some of these from our discussion before going too far into this particular article. Socialism is defined as State ownership of the means of production, so An-Socs, please collect your participation trophy at the door, and exit the building. Having computers centrally plan the planetary economy is as statist as it is sci-fi, so Zeitgeisters sign off immediately and tell your mother that you’re off the modem, so she can make phone calls again (Yes, I’m that old). In fact, all you people who don’t believe in markets, get lost, it’s time for the adults to have a discussion.

Pull up a chair, left market anarchist. Can I get you a coffee or something? This is long overdue.

Yesterday, when I sat down to write “Sorry Fake Libertarians, Capitalism Requires Anarchy” the original title ended in “and Vice Versa”. When I realized I was already over 4,000 words into deconstructing Binswanger, I realized tackling State capitalism and left anarchism in the same article would lead only to the cutting of corners, and this is really too important for any of us to get lazy on.

So, as promised, here is my response to Anna Morganstern‘s piece at Center for a Stateless Society titled “Anarcho-”Capitalism” Is Impossible“.


4 replies »

  1. This article and the preceding two only highlight my disillusion with the modern anarchist “movement.” Anarchists of the West would rather argue over the details of the economics of an imagined stateless society with each other, on bullshit blogs, than actually unite and oppose real American foreign policy. They might as well be virgins on 4chan arguing over who’s sexual preferences are superior.

  2. I have actually begun to observe improvements in this area in more recent times.

    The most fanatically PC anarchists are imploding as a movement due to their internal bickering about who is most oppressed. I am also coming across a greater number of left-wing anarchists who do not seem to be as bought into the Social Justice Warrior left-fascism. Non-leftist anarchist factions are also growing rapidly, and start to match the PC anarchists in terms of size and influence, particularly the anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian milieu. As a response, some of the most fanatically PC anarchists seem to have dropped the “anarchist” label and have adopted the term “anti-oppression” instead. I have also noticed a growing interest in anarchist tendencies with a “without adjectives/hyphens” flavor.

    Of course, ATS and some of our allied tendencies go a step further than all of that and recognize that liberals and the Left have become the primary enemies of anarchists at this point, at least within the Western countries, rather than the declining right-wing in its many forms. Further, we recognize that the traditional socioeconomic base of anarchism, the poor and working class, are normally more socially and culturally conservative than the cosmopolitan elites and liberal middle class, and that recognition of this principle has to be incorporated into our overall analysis and strategy as anarchists.Lastly, we reject the divisive “privilege theory” of the PC anarchists in favor of liberty and self-determination for all.

    Our objective should be to cultivate unity under the black flag:

  3. “Anarchism” isn’t exactly a winning brand name at this point, so why exactly are anti-state libertarians so hot and bothered to appropriate the term in the first place? Presumably the ideal ideal state of Anti-state Libertarianism is not a condition of actual anarchy.

    The ideology Rothbardians are trying to sell has what exactly in common with the confused and incoherent beliefs of modern anarcho-leftards? It has no historical connection to the anarchism of the old left, and in fact Libertarians tend to regard the old labor movement as a satanic enemy.

    While lifestyle anarchism remains the main trend within the left coast dropout culture for degenerate and retarded upper class white brats, you hate all those people (and they hate you right back), so clearly you aren’t going to be converting any large numbers of them. This is a good thing considering the number of snitches that come with this crowd (not to mention the foul smell and all the infectious diseases).

    The last thirty years of pathetic political failures and the infamous crimethinc crackheads have made anarchism the most widely despised cliche on the American left. During the Occupy movement it became obvious that even the most of the other protest ghetto leftards are finally tired of them.

    Outside of deviant subcultures, anything “Anarcho” (capitalist or socialist) is the political equivalent of radioactive waste. As far as 90% of the country is concerned, you might as well be going around with a picture of chairman Mao.

    How is that actually useful?

    Why would you want to go and smear homeless and on crack all over your Brand by associating yourselves with the worst possible form of mooching protest hippie (the actual Anarchist).

    Why are Libertarians trying to steal some castrated vegan hippy’s identity instead of coming up with their own?

Leave a Reply