What is the difference between a Libertarian socialist,an Anarcho-syndicalist, an Anarcho-communist.

What is the difference between a Libertarian socialist,an Anarcho-syndicalist, an Anarcho-communist. and an Anarcho-capitalist?

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
What is the difference between a Libertarian socialist,an Anarcho-syndicalist, an Anarcho-communist. and an Anarcho-capitalist?

Still waiting for the punch line.

But it's not coming, is it..?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

most likely nothing.
anarcho capitalism a fraud

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I find all of them hilarious. Each of them is basically the opposite of anarchism. It's like whoever came up with those titles thought that if they added anarcho to the title that somehow the idealogy doesn't still support a state and violence as a means of maintaining order and eliminating the free market.

A hamster, a toothbrush and a 9-iron...

A soiled clown suit ?

2nd...

All are just labels. In the final account, there are two parties; one wants to control you and the other has no such intentions.

Anarcho = Stateless (without government/hierarchy) so if you place anarcho in front of any other word means the context of that word would be stateless... so stateless-communism etc. That said... anarcho-captitalism is an oxymoron because you can't have capitalism without hierarchy (the boss, the lender of capital, the shareholders of capital) and it's not anarchism if there's hierarchy.

ETA: And Libertarian Socialist is just a less scary term for Anarchist.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

What is the difference between a Libertarian socialist,an Anarcho-syndicalist, an Anarcho-communist. and an Anarcho-capitalist?

In chronological order

Libertarian Socialist, probably the first socialists. It sounds like an oxymoron. The word liberal originally meant small government, maximum freedom. About the time socialism first appeared, 1850, some "liberals" changed from freedom of action to freedom from want. I think they would be the Libertarian Socialists. Not really Libertarians, mostly European.

anarcho-communist -- no state everyone equal. magical thinking IMO 1870 -1900

anarcho-syndicalisim -- no state, union type organization of everything. Lots of networking to keep things stable. Mostly NOT COMMUNIST 1900 - 1920

anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard invented this term to describe his economics. All governmental functions paid for directly, like insurance. No taxes. Anything that hurts no one else is legal. Property rights and rule of law, enforced by citizenry or persons hired by citzenry. 1970 to present


The rules are

Anarchy means no government.

Capitalism means freedom of economic activity, which requires property rights.

Socialism means equality enforced by something most powerful.

Libertarianism means maximum person discretion, and usually implies very small and weak government.

Classical Liberal means society alone causes most behavior and economic development.

Modern Liberal means government needs to guide society.

a reply to: Kali74

That is not true.

Just because you have capitalism and private property does not mean you can't have anarchism.
Defending private property rights is enforced by the person/family in stateless capitalism not the state.
Its the absolute monopoly of force(statism ran with corruptible people) that anarchists do not believe in.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Good post.

I learned something new. So Rothbardian anarchism is more far right and Chomsky's anarchism is more far left.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Good post.

I learned something new. So Rothbardian anarchism is more far right and Chomsky's anarchism is more far left.

I think all of the commonly heard terminology is collectivist.

It is said that NAZI's are right and Communists are left. They are closer to each other than anything else. How could they be opposites on a scale of all possible governments?

Since the liberals are on the "left" and want more governmental power, I think the state is on the left. Stronger state means further to the left.

To me that puts anarchy on the right, which is a barrier to communication.

That is why the mainstream uses the left-right terminology. Like Orwell said in 1984, (not a quote) Eliminate the way to express an idea and the idea goes away. Double plus good!


The original left and right come from the seating arrangements at the National Assembly of the French Revolution. The conservatives, who wanted to keep the things they had, sat on the right. The radicals who wanted to remake society, sat on the left.

I guess left and right really shouldn't be used if at all possible.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Kali74

That is not true.

Just because you have capitalism and private property does not mean you can't have anarchism.
Defending private property rights is enforced by the person/family in stateless capitalism not the state.
Its the absolute monopoly of force(statism ran with corruptible people) that anarchists do not believe in.

Private property can exist without capitalism. Read some Mikhail Bakunin for the origins of Anarchism and some Noam Chomsky for a perspective on a modern Anarchist. Rothbard is not anarchism. It's small government and run away capitalism.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Kali74

That is not true.

Just because you have capitalism and private property does not mean you can't have anarchism.
Defending private property rights is enforced by the person/family in stateless capitalism not the state.
Its the absolute monopoly of force(statism ran with corruptible people) that anarchists do not believe in.

Private property can exist without capitalism. Read some Mikhail Bakunin for the origins of Anarchism and some Noam Chomsky for a perspective on a modern Anarchist. Rothbard is not anarchism. It's small government and run away capitalism.

A big difference between anarcho-capitalism and the others is:

Anarcho-Capitalism would only happen because everyone lived in that way. Over time, people make more and more of their own decisions and eventually will make all of their own decisions.

All other systems require coercion to start or maintain their ideals.

a reply to: Kali74

Good point.

I misspoke. Thank you.

a reply to: Kali74

Private property means that each person is a legal entity equal to any other. Each person is a state.

Bakunin and Chomsky have good arguments against rule of life by authority, but they are both collectivists. There cannot be private property in a collectivist system. Everything is subject to control of the greater whole of society in a collectivist system. The greater good is the rational for control of each person.

There is no real private property with Bakunin or Chomsky or any collectivist.

Noam Chomsky on the original meaning of Libertarian Socialism

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Care to explain how there is no private party in collectivist systems? Also it's important to understand that for people like Bakunin and Chomsky... there isn't a set system, there's no State that's all. If people want to collectivize they can, if people want to be on their own they can.

Let's say I join a farming collective. The farm belongs to everyone that works on it. But peoples homes surrounding the farm, belong to individuals or even if it's one giant house, your room belongs to you, your possessions belong to you.

a reply to: Kali74

A collectivist system begins with the idea of control of the whole society and all of its resources.

The legal basis of any privately controlled property goes against the reason the collective was adopted.



Private property begins with the idea of individual human consciousness.

The law is the customs of individual behavior codified.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Care to explain how there is no private party in collectivist systems? Also it's important to understand that for people like Bakunin and Chomsky... there isn't a set system, there's no State that's all. If people want to collectivize they can, if people want to be on their own they can.

Let's say I join a farming collective. The farm belongs to everyone that works on it. But peoples homes surrounding the farm, belong to individuals or even if it's one giant house, your room belongs to you, your possessions belong to you.

This isn't the way collectivists really think. That might be the theory some of them put forward but what actually eventually happens is they eventually start to see individuals as inferior and flawed and frankly, wrong. Eventually, they always try to force everyone into their collectives. Either by literal force or by luring them in somehow.