Debate:What's Worse: National "Anarchism" or "Anarcho"-Captalism

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by bazer63.

Proposition

Anarchism is a school of thought which advocates the replacment of the capitalist state with a state-free society, run by direct democracy. In this philosophy, there are several sub branches that claim to be part of it. Among these are Anarcho-Capitalism (the more well known one) and National Anarchism. They each are each defined by the rest of the anarchist community as 'not anarchist,' one for being a corperate run state (anarchists opose capitalism), and one for having a racial hierarchy and being patriarchal, as well as homophobic (anarchists by definition are anti-hierarchy.) My question to you is: Which is worse?

Your definition of anarchism is way off. First, not all branches of anarchism are into democracy.

Second, you're just arguing No true Scotsman. Yes, national anarchists and anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. Just because every other branch of anarchism shuns them doesn't mean they magically stop being so. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin'} 14:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

no true scotsman seems to be the new debate killer. let's look at that: ever heard "true atheists don't believe in UFOs or ghosts or racism or tax cuts for the rich" etc etc. i bet, the overwhelming majority of atheists would subscribe to not believing in extra-naturalism or irrational economic claims or innate social superiority none of that has to do with atheism. atheism is a claim about divinity. that's why that whole atheism+ stuff is nonsense. there are already people who subscribe to what atheism+ declares. they're called secular, non-theist liberals.

for no true scotsman to apply here a movement has actually to be an anarchist one. that means it has to feature the core principles that define anarchism in the first place. if i simply call myself an anarchist does that make me one? U.S. libertarians (another violation of an already occupied term) can call themselves anarchists all day long but for that to carry any water they have to identify with the principles behind it. as of now the only anarcho-capitalist principle that comes even close is that of statelessness, mind you, due to a rejection of democratic, i.e. non-capitalist, legitimation of government. anarchists reject capitalism ever since kropotkin, proudhon, bakunin and the original syndacalists came up with it. the inventor of anarcho-capitalism, murray rothbard didn't even like that term for that reason! but they liked the appeal anarchism had.

no other anarchist school allows for monopolies, but there is no safeguard against total private tyranny in anarcho-capitalism if you have the monetary means for it. by the same token not all anarchism is collectivist. see, there are important nuances with regards to words and their definitions and how they're applied.

same for socialism. who called the soviet union socialist? the soviet leaders did because they wanted to use the appeal of that term and the rich history of that movement to justify their dictatorship to the working masses and keep them in line. but were the means of production in worker's hands or were they controlled by quasi-absolutist elites? you see, things like that matter. who is owning property is kinda the central question in socialism. you can say, "well everybody always called the soviet union socialist, so there you go." ahem. and why did the other large propaganda system of the world, the USA, call the soviet union then socialist. well, to connect the term to that disgraceful and cruel dictatorship. cos US elites certainly had no interest in US workers familiarising with a rival ideology and rising up against their corporate oppressors. now it's a curse word. mission accomplished.

it's hard to detach oneself from conventional wisdom but that stuff certainly doesn't fly in the world of science where i come from. when i say a certain molecule is a protein, i can only make that claim justifiably if that molecule features the elements that match the definition of a protein.
and to answer the OP's question: it is like choosing between cancer and the black plague. i'd prefer anarcho-capitalism cos i think it would crumble faster. EauDeCologne (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that being run exactly by direct democracy isn't a requirement for an anarchist society, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-nationalism (along with other insanities like anarcho-feudalism and anarcho-monarchism) are nonetheless not anarchist ideologies. They don't follow the essential requirement of being anti-hierarchical. For them to be anarchist, they'd have to show that capitalism is a necessary and/or just form of hierarchy and that racial and sexual hierarchy, and patriarchy, are necessary and/or just forms of hierarchy (respectively).

And I'd also prefer whichever of them would crumble faster or be destroyed quicker. My bet would be anarcho-capitalism, as there probably would be more people unhappy and rebellious. Depending on the country, obviously. Anarcho-nationalism in Brazil, Nigeria, would surely fall faster because of the bigger number of non-white people that could fight against the system.~epix^{Say What?} 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)