link to original reddit post by /u/hunterthearies
TL;DR: What can anarcho-capitalists realistically do to change the status quo of our society? Is it even worthwhile to be an anarcho-capitalist? Should I even use that word?
Hello,
I recently found this video of Chomsky, who toys with some idea of anarchism, discussing why right now, in our current circumstances, it would be unwise to eliminate the state because the corporatists (my word, but I think represents who he's talking about) would retain their tyrannical position. Whether or not that may be true, the little bit of anarcho-capitalist theory that I've read usually builds principles from the ground up in a vacuum completely displaced from our reality. Which leads to me ask how an anarcho-capitalist would respond to that question, that is, what steps should we (either individually or as a society) take in order to eliminate the tyranny of the state as well as the tyranny that monopolies hold over the marketplace? Would it be counter-economics, the praxis offered by agorism? (many proponents of which reject "anarcho-capitalism" or even capitalism in general, although from my perspective they seem quite similar.)
Chomsky's solution, at least to the healthcare example he gives, just seems to bend the knee to both the state and the monopolies while throwing around the word "socialism" to make it seem like it's actually in favor of individuals. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding him. But in our world, is there an alternative? Or is there no hope left and we're wasting time calling ourselves "anarcho-capitalists"?
Yeah I can undermine other businesses and the state by selling home grown vegetables to my friends and not pay taxes, but how can I undermine the corrupt healthcare system by selling medical treatment to my friends?
In thinking about this problem, a question also arises out of the inconsistencies of language and connotation. I use the word "capitalism" to generally mean a free market, private ownership economy. However, a libertarian socialist (what Chomsky calls himself, I'm not looking to debate its validity here) or even an agorist has cronyism or corporatism connotations of the word. In such a case, using the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" does not do justice to the idea I'm trying to convey, which makes me consider dropping that label entirely in favor of something more neutral and descriptive. "Agorist" or "market anarchist" are possibilities. And if "libertarian" really has corporatist connotations too as purported by Chomsky here, which I have never heard before, then I hesitate to even use that word either (especially capital 'L' Libertarian).