Durruti’s Column #5

Dear Durruti,

What’s so funny about Anarcho-Capitalism?

Bob Bütthert


Dear Bob,

The challenge in answering that question is where to begin and what to omit.

1. It’s not really Anarchism or Capitalism. Anarchists think Capitalism is ridiculous, Capitalists think Anarchism is ridiculous, but fucking everyone agrees that “Anarcho”-Capitalism is ridiculous, even people that don’t agree on anything else.

2. How can Capitalism possibly exist without the state? Private property is that which you don’t really need, that you can make a profit on because other people need to use it. That you have exclusive ownership rights means that you make the rules and you can exclude others from access to what they need if they don’t comply. That in itself is statist and if you don’t have the threat of the state’s monopoly on force or a private security force that would be exactly the fucking same, then people will just take what they need. Why wouldn’t they just take it from you if you’re depriving them of it?

3. How is it “voluntary” if people can either obey the rules on one person’s private property or gtfo, but the only other places they can go are also somebody else’s private property? If people accept your rule because everywhere else is ruled by someone like you, that’s not voluntary hierarchy is it. And its really no defence to say that people could work to earn enough to buy their way out, to buy freedom by buying their own private property. Some slaves were able to work their way to a kind of freedom, but that doesn’t justify slavery.

4. Anarcho-Capitalism seems to require it’s followers to have strange, Social Darwinist views about class, race, disability and gender etc, survival of the fittest views about competition in business and in social relations that make it clear that AnCap is essentially just fascism trying to steal the identity of more popular movements, to ride on the coattails of a different reputation to it’s own, as fascism always has. Beliefs about superiority and the separation of people with different beliefs and of different races and the totalitarian merger of the private sector and the state, as the private sector becomes the state. That, my friend, is fascism.

5. AnCaps claim John Locke, the father of classical liberalism and EMPIRICIST as a forefather of their ideas, but they themselves believe in Praxeology which is a completely made up science that rejects the scientific method of empiricism!

It would be a dystopian nightmare if it weren’t wrought with self-defeating contradiction and it would be scary for the world if AnCaps weren’t a predominantly white, male group of basement dwelling, fedora sporting, cheeto dust in neckbeard scratching keyboard warriors and paper tigers.





Can Anarchism and “Anarcho”-Capitalism co-exist?

Okay, so I’ve spent the weekend educating myself on what people are calling Left Wing or Classical Anarchism. It’s been an interesting ride on Youtube, and I’ve been enjoying it. But what I’m not seeing here, and correct me if I’m wrong, is a reason that Right leaning Anarcho Capitalism couldn’t co-exist within the classical anarchist schema or vice versa. I think for the most part, these competing philosophies reconcile themselves pretty well with each other. What am I missing?

There are a few good videos on YouTube about this. I recommend Anarchopac’s channel, anything with Chomsky…but other than that it seems to mainly be horrible robotic sounding audiobooks read by Microsoft SAM and people who have opposing beliefs, explaining what they think they know about our views. A lot of what I’ve seen on YouTube about it is loaded with misconceptions and a lot of them have an agenda to present anything to do with Communism in a bad light. If you can tolerate the robotic audiobooks, listen to some Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker books. Or just actually read books by those people, like in the olden days when people read books.

Anarchism is opposed to certain things that “Anarcho”-Capitalists are not opposed to. For example, we’re against rulers, against hierarchy – but Capitalists are in favour. They seem to want society to be structured like a pyramid and for it to be necessary for people to try to climb over each other to reach the top. Maybe they don’t want it to be like that, but they believe that human interaction must necessarily, naturally happen like that. We have a different view inspired by Kropotkin, that actually cooperation is more of a defining characteristic of humanity than competition.

“Anarcho”-Capitalists also seem to believe, strangely, that Capitalism is the driving force of human progress and innovation. They believe that competition is the harbinger of technological advancement. We think it’s more about sharing knowledge ideas and that if a high standard of education was accessible by all, and if those people put their heads together, there would be even more technological advancement and innovation.

They believe that resources are scarce and that there’s a need for us to compete for them, like animals seem to compete for resources. But we believe that resources are not really scarce, they just seem scarce because the money you need to gain access to things in a Capitalist economy is concentrated into the hands of a relatively few people. There are more houses than there are people who need houses and a fuck tonne of food is just thrown away.

Money is power and it seems like the Capitalist drive for profit and accumulation will always lead to a centralization of power. But Anarchism is opposed to the centralization of power. We want power dissolved, collectivized! With everyone becoming master of their own destiny.

Obviously An-ARCH-ism is opposed to hierarchy, to rulers, to illegitimate claims to authority. But Capitalists advocate hierarchy. They want private owners of property to be able to dictate the pecking order of the people who actually make use of it. But we’re also against private property, although that’s not as scary as it sounds!

We understand private property to refer generally to an ownership claim to something you didn’t create, you don’t use and you don’t need – in a lot of cases, people own private property without ever actually going to it. It’s something that you claim to own and you either exclude others from using it or you let others access it for a price. For example, somebody who owns 3 houses rents two of them out or leaves them empty and sleeps well at night because they have the security of having those property assets. The houses might be in different locations and they might not even ever visit the buildings they “own”, as other people can be paid to deal with maintenance etc.

Somebody who owns a factory or two can either employ people to make money for them or close it down and leave it on their books as a property asset. But they don’t work in the factory, they don’t even ever have to go to the factory as everything can be done by employees. That’s the kind of property we oppose, rather than say your home or possessions that you use, the things you work to produce or the things you actually need. But “Anarcho”-Capitalists don’t oppose these absent property claims.

I mentioned that we oppose illegitimate claims to authority – implying that some claims to authority could be legitimate. Bakunin said something along the lines of, for problems with your boots you consult the boot maker. That just seems obvious, if somebody is AN authority on a topic, you’re probably going to want to do what they say. But if somebody claims to be IN authority and expects you to do what they say, and they can’t demonstrate that they’re AN authority on what they’re talking about, you’ll probably reject their claim to authority. I think everyone has probably at some time encountered a manager or supervisor who has no idea what they’re talking about.

A Capitalist economic system of any kind is always going to have private property, which inevitably leads to this hierarchy with the owners at the top and the management chain becoming like a de facto state, veryone else scrambling for the highest places below that. There will always be inequality in Capitalism. You have to ‘capitalize’ on any advantages you might have over other people.

I don’t see how Anarchism as we understand it is at all reconcilable with “Anarcho”-Capitalism. If they were anti-statists that would be necessary but not enough to call them Anarchists. But they’re not even anti-statists as they just want the bosses to replace the state.

When talking about the good things they mistakenly attribute to Capitalism, like food and the internet, they say “look at what capitalism has given us”. But when talking about all the really bad shit that comes along with Capitalism they say “but we’ve never had REAL capitalism!” They say that for Capitalism to REALLY be Capitalism, it has to be unrestricted by state interference.

If I don’t like Capitalism when it is restricted, surely I’m going to like it less, not more, if it were to be unrestricted!?

The Anarchist FAQ on http://www.infosop.org is brilliant and does have a whole section on this, you should check it out: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF



The state is not the problem. The state is a problem.

So are you guys not fans of any forms of anarchism?

We’re all Anarchists. We’re fans of all forms of Anarchism I think. But “Anarcho”-Capitalism is not a form of Anarchism.

The state is really the problem though. How do you see an anarchist society combatting issues like murder, robbery, etc? Also, what do you think is fundamentally wrong with an-cap?

I think the state is a problem…
Organized religion, the state and capitalism all involve people deferring responsibility for their fate to an imagined “higher” being instead of looking to themselves and each other. If we dismantled the state and capitalism could continue, the capitalists would just take the place of the state. And when the state and private sector become the same thing, owned by the same group – that’s fascism. I actually don’t think capitalism could continue to exist without the state though. Capitalism is private ownership for profit and private ownership is when you claim property rights over something you didn’t produce and don’t need to use. It involves excluding others from access to what they need and even to what they produce.

Private ownership is also sometimes called absent ownership, because a factory owner rarely even goes to the factories he owns, if ever. It’s the same for a landlord who owns multiple houses and charges others rent to live in them. Without the state, would you keep paying rent to someone who needs one more house like a beach needs more sand? Would you keep working and allowing someone else to take a chunk of the value of the product of your labour, just because they think they own your workplace, having bought it with what they’ve taken from others? I wouldn’t. I think most people wouldn’t. Without the threat of state violence to protect an absent property claim, I just don’t see how that would work.

An Anarchist society would encounter issues like murder and robbery, of course. There are always going to be people like that in the world unfortunately. It’s a cliche but the simple answer is that some people do like to steal or even to kill and that’s exactly why we need Anarchism – so we can stop giving those people the power and money to carry out those desires.

Anarchism would address the economic and structural issues that lead people to acts of desperation. Robbery is more prevalent the more unequal the society, so addressing inequality by opening up more opportunities for people and allowing them to retain the full value of the product of their work collectively would be a sensible approach. By this I mean that the workers in a factory should own the factory and own all that they produce between them. They shouldn’t have to pay tax if they don’t want to and they shouldn’t receive just a portion of what they make as a wage, they should get all of it. If you and I work to produce something, we both own it. If there were 500 other people involved in manufacturing a fuck tonne of something delicious, then we all own it.

It makes no difference to me whether things are owned by the state or a capitalist private owner, because neither represent or include me. Either way I don’t own shit. But with collective ownership, everybody in the collective has a stake in the ownership. Even better would be common ownership, everybody has a stake because everybody contributes something to society. This makes theft slightly more difficult – how do you steal what already belongs to you or what would be freely given to you if you needed it?

We wouldn’t want to force everybody into equal poverty like in Soviet Russia…we’d just like to create a society with a healthier balance between competition and cooperation – people working cooperatively/communally because they see the benefit of it, not because they’re told or forced to. In a capitalist economy, the point is kind of to capitalize on others, to take advantage of whatever and whoever you can to get ahead. It works because people don’t feel like they need each other, they just need to be able to pay each other. The fantasy is that I can be rude to the waiter because I’m a paying customer and he needs to keep his job. The reality is that while I still get my food, it might have spit in it. So in Capitalism but not in reality is it of benefit for some to view themselves as being above others.


Dear Durruti Column #2: “Value is subjective, right?” – “So the fuck what?” says our Agony Uncle.

Dear Durruti,

But all value is subjective, right? Laborers have nothing to do with creating value, right? RIGHT??????

Yours Insincerely,

Chris P. McDoughnut.


Oh Crispy, you poor misguided little fuck nugget.

You people…I swear to fucking dinosaur-god you’re going to give my ulcers ulcers, and those ulcers will get their own ulcers and through mutual struggle & shared experience, those ulcers will gain a sense of themselves as a unified gastrointestinal class, and overthrow their ulcerous overlords and usher in an age of enlightenment based upon common ownership of my stomach.

That is until I down a bottle of Pepto-Bismol, flip a table and head-butt a line of capitalists – then the revolution will be over for them, and it’ll begin for me. Why? Because I’m Buenaventura Durruti, goddamit – and I am sick of your bullshit.

First off, subjective is not a synonym for ‘arbitrary’ or ‘pointless’ or whatever other stupid ass noise you neckbeards make before cackling and adding another line to your “internet arguments won” whiteboard while swilling sixteen to thirty-two ounces of ‘Mountain Dew: Code Red’ in a single gulp and lapsing into a diabetic coma where you dream of a woman made of equal parts Anime and ButtCoins.

Subjective means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. Lots of important things are subjective: ethics are subjective, so is morality and so is the value of commodities like that gold you keep stockpiling because Alex Jones told you to. (What he DIDN’T tell you is that the value of gold is SPECIFICALLY subject to the personal feelings, tastes, and opinions of Goldman Sachs and the other major investment banks, who can control its value via their access to the Commodities Trading Index, but don’t think about that: just buy more of it to stuff in your Prison Planet (R) bug-out bag along with rounds and rounds of bullshit K-Mart ammunition and the 1987 Urotsukidoji – Legend of the Overfiend OVA.)

HUMAN RIGHTS are subjective – the only reason you have any at all is that OTHER PEOPLE have chosen to grant them to you, and they in turn back up those rights with violence – and that’s a good thing, (well, not in your case, but usually) because rights like the rights to life & autonomy are incredibly important. They’re a big part of as to why we’ve survived as a species on a hostile planet for nearly two hundred-thousand years. They’re also why (sadly) people like you have yet to be eaten by wolves.

So what does this have to do with the subjective value of labor, or ButtCoins or those holographic ‘Yu-Gi-Oh!’ trading cards in your closet?

It reveals that when you throw this shit at me – what you’re really doing is playing a game.

See, when you brought this to me, I’m sure you thought I’d pull out the Labor Theory of Value, and talk about capitalists stealing Surplus Value and you thought you’d counter with Marginal Utility and try to present Labor as a commodity and we could go back and forth about how that does or does not specifically incentivize a perpetual cycle of war & poverty until FRIGGIN’ RAGNAROCK. Thor could be grappling with Jörmungandr and we would be talking about more obscure bits of Econ you copy-pasted from Wikipedia while parroting back to me jargon from a Praxgirl video that you left running for a few minutes after you finished fapping to it – but why go through all that trouble? You don’t give two corn-filled shits about economics; If you did you wouldn’t be an AnCap.

If economic theories were something you really cared about you’d STUDY ECONOMICS at university, get a degree & come up with ACTUAL, FALSIFIABLE theories, that could be tested in laboratory conditions and then you’d test the shit out of them because every discredited theory would get you closer to the truth.

But you don’t do that, because you aren’t a scientist like most real economists – you’re an ideologue. Your dicktwat ideology is what’s important to you here, not economics and NOT the scientific method.

What you’re doing now is engaging a rhetorical framing device in order to get me to say: “Geeez, I guess you’re right – The only human labor that matters is the capitalist’s, and fuck everybody else – they’re just commodities like coal, or iron, or those bars of gold you keep buying because Alex Jones REALLY thinks it’s a good idea.”

Except I’m not going to do that, no matter how many ways you try to frame an inherently unequal, unjust, and ill-advisable social relationship to make it seem positive and just. Why? Well first off because you can’t generate value at all without human input (that’s that whole subjective thing) and literally NONE of this stuff is possible without Labor – but MORESO, Because, like morals and ethics; markets, value & prices exist to SERVE HUMANKIND. Not just a handful of humans, all six-billion of us – and the SECOND they stop doing that? Well then it’s time to change them & make them better. Why? Because WE’RE F*CKING PEOPLE AND THAT’S WHAT WE DO.

You, shitlord – are presenting me with one TINY, misunderstood fact that’s not going to do dick for you, or anyone else. Why? Because I am not interested in living in a world where industry and politics are dominated by a tiny, plutocratic minority of property owners – no matter HOW MUCH value you claim they generated. Yes, even if they DID generate that value themselves with their own golden penis – even Jesus does not deserve to be a billionaire, and no matter WHAT your contribution to society is, you do not get to be a dictator.

I do not believe in hypothetical rights that can only be realized by those who can afford them. I believe in universal human rights, both positive and negative. I believe in an end to starvation and exposure and the crimes caused by them. I believe in human life and dignity over all laws that man has made, and ever will make. I believe this because I am an anarchist – and you do not believe this, because you are not.

I’m Buenaventura Durruti, goddammit, I have an economic & political system to overthrow – so get the f*ck out of my way.




Dear Durruti Column #1: “What the fuck did AnCaps do to you?” Our resident agony uncle reveals all in hot steamy rage!

Dear Durruti

What the fuck did AnCaps do to you to make you so bitter and hateful you crusty Maoist!?

Mine Sincerely,

Johnny Propertyz.


Dear Johnny

Umm, let’s see…You stole Anarchist ideology, twisted it to mean the exact opposite – to support one of the most total tyrannies the world has ever known. You helped set genuine anti-state movements back decades. Simply by existing you make it harder for me to communicate my ideas to others by misappropriating Anarchist language, and you make it possible for someone to mistake someone like ME with YOU. You lick the boots of the powerful and the oppressive. You dismiss the experience of minorities. You harass and slut-shame women. You apologize for rapists and racists and homophobes. You blunder into conversations you don’t understand like a confused bear, and rather than listen and learn and respond you just start saying random shit gleaned from 9th grade history textbooks and 80-year old Red-Scare propaganda. You tried to steal Anarchists memes. You currently trick honest confused kids looking for answers into following your slavish, deontological propaganda-driven ideology. You appropriate a grand, proud tradition that isn’t yours, and steal false ethos for your impotent, reactionary, cultish crank ideology. You are utterly ignorant of history and don’t even bother to read your OWN thinkers -preferring to listen to soulless, manipulative, YouTube charlatans. You confuse not paying your taxes with genuine revolutionary behavior. You despise and mock the poor. You deny that oppression exists, then blame the oppressed for their weakness. You do not listen. You do not respond to the arguments being made. You do not grow. You do not learn.m You do not employ your critical mind. You do not oppose authority, rather you just wish business owners wielded the power of politicians. You refuse to make a distinction between anarchists and Bolsheviks despite a long and bloody history between the two. You fear Stalin is hiding under your bed. You barge your way into communities and spaces not your own, assuming your welcome everywhere you go. You see devils where there are none. You are conspiracists and trolls and sniveling dogmatists. You try to convince people that anarchists wear bow-ties. You cannot keep a concept in your heads no matter how many times it’s explained to you. Now, I don’t mean “You” as in You personally – I mean “You” as in AnCaps as a whole. You, AnCaps are a living, breathing, MOCKERY of radicalism. You are corpses of dear friends long dead pulled out of the ground and paraded around; their remains worn like an ill-fitting suit, claiming their identity while besmirching their names and trying to hide their memory, YOU ARE HOT GARBAGE AND I CAN’T EVEN BRING MYSELF TO HATE YOU BECAUSE MOST OF YOU AREN’T PARTICULARLY SMART OR GIFTED BUT EVERY TIME I TRY TO FEEL PITY, EVERY TIME I WANT TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND OFFER YOU A FRIENDLY HAND YOU DO SOMETHING AWFUL, but yet I can’t give up the hope that MAYBE just maybe SOME of you might one day become a fully-realized human being – yet every day with the STUPID shit you say you prove me wrong. You shake my faith in humanity, because if people like you exist, then what HOPE is there for the rest of us? AnCaps are a sad pantomime, a twisted shadow on the wall, a sputtering and misshapen mockery of everything that I hold dear – because unlike to you guys this isn’t a game to me – class struggle and the need to move beyond capitalist ideas about private property is deathly serious – and you people showing up with your flags and you stupid assed-V’s and your pictures of socialists you don’t even know are socialists because you’ve never bothered to read them, and your STUPID poorly-crafted propaganda that only makes sense if you have NO IDEA what you’re talking About, and of course you don’t and refuse to learn EVEN IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO BETTER ATTACK ANARCHISM AND SOCIALISM. You shake. My Faith. In People. You Shake. My Faith. In Revolution. You Shake my belief in myself because I WONDER if through some fun-house mirror I am in a way like you. And that scares the hell out of me. Plus I don’t like yellow. It doesn’t go with black – unless it’s on a bee. “Git Offa Mah Lawn!” is not a political statement.