Sabitlenmiş Tweet
The idea of "anarcho-unity" poses the interesting idea that ancaps and ancoms should work together to abolish the state. I first heard about the idea from @AncapAir and have been reading many people's opinions since.
From what I've seen, we really need to clarify the scales at which we're operating here. macro (society-wide) vs. micro (small-scale communities).
Ancaps like myself tend to view anarcho-capitalism through a macro lens. In a stateless society, free trade and the private ownership of the means of production naturally emerge from individual rights and self-ownership. This is just the natural result of people interacting without coercion. Capitalism really is anarchism at a macro scale where no central authority dictates outcomes.
True macro-scale communism is incompatible with anarchism. If "the public" collectively owns the means of production across an entire society, it requires enforcement mechanisms to manage resources and resolve disputes. This would inevitably centralize power into a de facto state, undermining the meaning of anarchy in this case.
I think we all know that history shows repeatedly that attempts at large-scale communist systems devolve into authoritarianism because incentives break down without private property.
Here's the interesting part. From what I've read, it seems that many ancoms approach anarcho-communism on a micro scale. They envision many small, voluntary communes where resources are shared. These communes would engage in free trade with other communes or private enterprises without imposing their model universally.
Here, where you have voluntary anarcho-communism on a micro scale, this is actually already allowed under anarcho-capitalism. Voluntary communes are just one type of private association in a free market. An anarcho-capitalist society explicitly allows people to form co-ops and communes on their own land, as long as participation is consensual and no rights are violated.
Think about it this way. Within the context of my family at home, I'm a "communist." I share resources equally with my wife and kids based on their needs without tracking their contributions or payment. This works because it's a small, trusting, loving group with shared goals. If you scale this up to millions of strangers, it collapses immediately. Misaligned incentives and coercion become inevitable.
The same applies to the anarcho-unity debate. Micro-scale ancom communes may thrive within a macro anarcho-capitalist framework. But flipping it around, imposing anarcho-communist principles on the macro level, requires a state to enforce redistribution since a trust structure isn’t there.
What it boils down to is that I believe unity is only achievable if the society is an anarcho-capitalist society on the macro scale. Ancaps provide the macro structure which would be stateless capitalism with universal respect for property rights. Ancom principles may operate here at the micro level, by forming voluntary communes that trade freely in the broader market.
In practice, this "unified" anarchy is still anarcho-capitalism, just with some micro-voluntary-ancom-communes. Ancoms living their ideals voluntarily in small groups aren't a threat. This is a feature of freedom.
But if anarcho-communism demands macro-scale collective ownership under one centrally managed system, unity breaks down. That path inherently recreates the state, violating anarchist principles for everyone.
TLDR:
An anarchist society where there are anarcho-capitalist principles on a macro scale can work with anarcho-communist principles on a micro scale. The reverse cannot be true, because communism on a macro scale implies the state.
I am all for “anarcho-unity” in the macro-ancap-sense, not in the macro-ancom-sense as I’ve described.
Let me know what you think.
English
