Amir:
> Pablo, you made a good outline for a general anarchist theory which
> still needs some development because it leaves out a path for creating
> this society from our current context. Bookchin has very strong
> arguments for a sort of federal democracy by creating civil society
> movements that take political power through local municipalities. In
> Catalonia for instance, there's an anarchist cooperative we work with
> called the CIC (http://cooperativa.cat) organizing small local
> businesses and cooperatives to evade the economic system through
> economic disobedience, such as using the law to avoid paying tax (like
> the big corporations do). The Kurdish movements in Turkey switched from
> a struggle for de jure independence to a struggle for de facto
> independence heavily influenced by Bookchin's ideas of libertarian
> municipalism.
>
> Bookchin's ideas are refreshing because they point to a real path to
> political power that is actually very contemporary and being employed by
> anarchist groups in multiple places. Combined with free market mutualist
> or syndicalist ideas which give a path to economic power, and we have a
> solution for strong thriving anarchist societies. The key is civil
> society development and this is where the postmodernists like Nietzsche
> or Foucault have a massive contribution that point to big flaws in the
> fabric of our moral systems that are life-denying and the propensity for
> lying through rationalist positivism (which makes Objectivism look
> ridiculous). Philosophy influences scientific development and rational
> truth- words like central planning, command and control economy, and ...
> are old fashioned today. Instead we're more likely to use words like
> tipping point, butterfly effect, ...
>
> Ours is an age of movement, uncertainty and transition. By necessity
> anarchism has to change with the times. It feels that this age of
> materialist Marxism has tainted anarchist thought since Proudhon, making
> anarchism anachronistic and dogmatic at times. That's not to say that
> anarcho-communism has nothing valuable to offer. The liberating thing
> about anarchism is that every strain of anarchism (even
> anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism) tells us new interesting
> things, and offers up new strategies and tactics for fighting
> authoritarianism.
>
> By saying you are a proponent of anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism
> means you believe that questions of class and economy are the most
> important issues- not our ethics, how we administrate and govern, the
> relations between people and culture. However one philosophy gives us a
> history of experience for organizing economically. The original
> criticism of capitalism emerged from Proudhon, the anarcho-syndicalist
> and first person to call themselves an anarchist.
>
> The other philosophy gives us practical tools like Bitcoin, smart
> contracts and agorism. It also teaches us about economics and the
> destructive role played by central banks and corrupt government
> intervention in the economy. These are all useful, valuable ideas and we
> should not reject ideas completely without studying them all first, and
> then you deciding what to take, and what to leave.

+1.

Really nice explained mentioning Bookchin as a point to start.

We can also talk about some opposite views: Freud.

His theories are directly related with individualism ("I", "super-I",
etc..) which are intrinsically related, from a humanistic point of view,
with capitalism methods.

Nietzsche... +1

What about capitalistic dogma: "More Benefit for Less Cost"?

Can an "anarcho-capitalist" tell me that follows that doctrine by using
contemporary market to engage anarchism?.

Aren't they hidden "neoliberalism"?. For that to read
"anarcho-capitalism" for me sounds confusing.

To be pragmatic doesn't means to be individualistic. Collaborative
pragmatism is a powerful tool. And capitalism, almost as I am realizing
it, trying to be as most objetivist as possible, is fundamentally based
on forgive problems derived by manufacture, such as plastics, CO2
emissions, etc, but also slavery processes on "third development"
countries like de-localization, tax evasions, etc...

I think it is really easy to talk about "anarcho-capitalism" from a
social classes point of view. Mostly if you are on the Occident part
because capitalism has indeed "bourgeoisie".

What about "anarcho-bourgeoisie"?.

Maybe "anarcho-capitalists" are confused with "anarcho-bourgeoisie"
which is more related with Marx's anarchists doctrines...

> psy:
>> You will cannot practice never anarchism by using capitalism.
>> You always will be subjugated to market rules which are really
>> anti-socials.
>
> That's a very dogmatic thing to say. How do you feel about projects
> organized by the Catalan cooperative which are using the free market to
> support socialist projects. Are they not practicing anarchism because
> they are using capitalism?

Well. I am agree with an interventionist market in which products and
services are directly related with the ecological/human problems they
cause to be made. Before and after consume them.

I am not agree with "free" market rules. Almost, with actual neo-market
doctrine based at offer/demand. I am agree with engage nature/humanity
more up than "tagged projects", etc. So social/cooperative individuals
greater than social technocracies.

For that I on the way of that Catalan cooperative ideas. I just only
remarking that needs more next steps to be done. And that is not
"anarcho-capitalism" what they are trying.

> If you like cooperatives, then you are supporting non-authoritarian
> socialism.

Even mutualism. +1.

> Nietzsche teaches us that we can create our own moral systems. There is
> nothing authoritative or intrinsically right. Just societies and values.
> And this is where it gets exciting- the Kurds are postmodernists. When
> you say this or that isn't anarchism remember Wikipedia:
>
> "Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism
> does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world
> view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."
>
> "Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are
> mutually exclusive."
>
> Different strategies and tactics from different schools of anarchism can
> be used side by side, and mixed together in different ways to create new
> societies with different values. Anarchism is far too rich to reduce it
> down to a single school or even reject recognized schools in their entirety.

Totally agree.

I just putting in context what "anarcho-capitalism" is giving to that
theories/practices.

By the moment, I cannot see any good one to follow it at the point to
self-tag me as: "an anarcho-capitalist".