Thank you @ekklesiagora for your detailed reply, and for your explicit definitions. It should aide further discourse significantly. Now that this has been rephrased it makes a lot more sense. That said, I consider the term "libertarian socialism" an oxymoron. Libertarianism is all about individual rights and freedoms, while socialism is focused on all benefits going to groups.
There is a distinct difference between rulers and contractual obligations to another which you have voluntarily agreed. I understand the "classical anarchist" is against all forms of hierarchy, be they involuntary or voluntary, but that does not mean a landlord or boss is the same as a king or president (or any state official). It is a classic conflation of two different (yet often considered synonymous) concepts under one term.
A boss or a landlord does not "rule" over you. You agree to follow them, and can agree at any time to stop following them. They are "leaders" which are distinct from rulers. One you agree to follow, the other you do not. Rulers cannot be ignored or denied, while leaders and obligations contractually agreed can be rescinded.
- Leader: the person who leads or commands a group, organisation, or country
- Ruler: a person exercising government or dominion.
It is this distinction between voluntary and involuntary hierarchies that classical anarchists consistently conflate, which does not assist in understanding either anarchy as a principle, or understanding how capitalists can be for anarchy. In addition, the "individualist anarchists" are not for usufructuary private property. They were for absolute property rights and free markets.
You stated that anarchocaptialists:
.... say it's okay for a landlord to make rules for his tenants, since the property they live on is his. Thus, anarcho-capitalists consider any sort of rulership deriving from legitimately acquired property as being justified. Regardless of whether or not it is true that property can justify rulership, it is the case that anarcho-capitalists support some types of rulers that classical anarchists rejected, so anarcho-capitalism is a departure from the anarchist position.
Again, I'll point out the distinction between an agreed set of terms and a dictat. If a landlord changes terms, he often must agree it with the tenant prior to making the change, and at all times the tenant has every right to terminate the contract if said terms are undesirable. If a ruler changes the terms, there is no out and there is no recourse but to follow. To quote Darth Vader:
I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further.
Although it may make sense to exclude Anarchocaptialism from the discussion, it is a valid concept within the principles of anarchy. Although Morris and Shaw did not experience them, you clearly have, and should take the modern day reality of the term into account, if for no other reason than to reduce ambiguity (and avoid having ancaps critique your work).
I'll read up on your Rothbardian security post, but the video you shared unfortunately is not available in the UK (BBC Copyright violation). If you have some text to review I'd appreciate it.
Regarding the examples of "democratic socialism" from the Nordic region - I hear this argument a lot from socialists. "Socialism works, look at the nordic region!" However, the leaders of said region have explicitly stated they are not socialist.
Regarding Russia, I never mentioned it an example, and Russia is but one region of the world that has attempted Socialism. I can list several more, all of which ended badly for everyone, except the ruling class that still existed within every single regime. Cambodia, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia (prior to its total collapse as a nation), DPRK, Romania, Ukraine, East Germany - this is but a subset, and all of them considered themselves socialist or communist in their philosophical principles. All of them are examples of communism/socialism failing to work as predicted.
There is no claim being made here that markets are perfect, by the way, just that they are preferable to state based solutions. There will always be issues that crop up, needing some resolution. It is not, however, the responsibility of a mandated 3rd party (like a state) to force such resolutions top-down across an industry, but rather the consumers and their demands on the market, and the entities within that market who are responsible for meeting those demands. In most cases, a state does not do root cause analysis to determine what to fix, and their band-aid fixes hide the problem rather than solving it.
"Socialism/Communism wasn't tried in Soviet Russia/China/Cambodia/insert failed socialist state here". This to me, like Jordan Peterson, screams of arrogance. It is used consistently by communists to say "they did it wrong, but if I was in charge...", without making a direct claim that they should be ruler.
Regarding communism not requiring a state, and to use your tribal communities as an example, do these communities not have elders that are effectively the "rulers" of the tribe? What happens if someone in the tribe goes against the will of their elders? Do they get off scott-free, or are they punished by their "rulers"?
I've yet to see an example given of communism which is also holding to the "classical anarchist" terms that you expressed. Either someone is in charge, or everyone is beholden to a group, in which case the party itself is in charge, and they form a defacto state. Or no one individual is in charge of anyone else without consent, in which case it is a voluntary free society, which is the definition of a anarcho-capitalist state. FYI Communism was tried briefly in America at the Jamestown Settlement in VA. The principles were the same, and even the group's priorities took precedent over all individuals. It nearly died out repeatedly, until they finally allowed people to produce to their ability and needs individually.
I am glad you are a supporter of markets and against centralisation, but government is never the answer, regardless of the problem. The answers are, and always will be:
- Individual Consumer & Producer Responsibility
- High Levels of Competition in the Market
- Individual Liberties & Freedom
Anything less would be uncivilised.
RE: The Social Democratic Case Against Anarchism