private property?

I'm a little confused by the group description which refers to the goal of creating a "free market private property" society. I'm sorry, but that's NOT a goal of anarchism, as espoused by Pierre Proudhon.

In the past, I've met plenty of so-called "anarcho-capitalist libertarians", but to be quite clear, those people are not espousing anarchism. I hope this is a real anarchist group, and not a libertarian group.

I have really never understood how people can confuse anarchism with libertarianism. Corporations are absolutely tyrannical, and replacing the government with a "free-market private-property" society would simply reduce most of the population to feudal serfdom and abject poverty.

Ultimately, Proudhon was quite clear, "Property is theft!" If you don't agree, you aren't an anarchist. Of course, Proudhon was not saying that you do not have the right to own your own clothes, or a place to live. What he meant by "property" was the existing legal definition, based upon Roman law, via which an owner is free to do with his property as he pleases. In so doing, the owner robs the community of that property.

The notion of a "free market" system of "private property" is really the exact opposite of anarchism, as it rejects the basic notion that property belongs to the community, rather than to the individual.

-Adam Rinkleff

There are two broad forms of Anarchism, namely Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism/Anarcho-Syndicalism.

If you want to look into the first grouping, I would suggest the work of Stefan Molyneux (a self-described Anarchist), who runs "largest and most popular philosophy show on the web" (40+ million downloads of his podcasts, videos, and books) at http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/ and https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot. He also has a number of free books on his website (http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx), including two dealing specifically with the philosophy of Anarchism (Anarcho-Capitalism in his view).

There is a large group of his people on his forum, and with Mr. Molyneux being as professional, logical, and intelligent as he is, I suspect you could have a deep and respectful conversation with the members of the board should you be so inclined.

He also has an open-line show every Sunday (usually 1.5-2 hours long) which he takes all callers, indeed he has been looking to debate an anarcho-communist/anarcho-syndicalist but has had trouble finding one of any prominence who is willing to debate him in public. Feel free to call in (Skype is supported) if you wish to debate your views publicly. He also apparently devotes about a couple of hours a week on average to private discussions with those who wish to challenge his views, you might be able to get a private conversation with him if that is more your style.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't Anarchism, its just Capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists are intellectually dishonest, attempting to hijack the word 'anarchism' for their own selfish goals, just as they have hijacked the term 'libertarian'. Even though Proudhon explicitly denounced the rights of property, they subvert his philosophy in order to create a religion of property.

True anarchists denounce the very notion of a ruling class, but anarcho-capitalists wish to become petty tyrants within the bounds of their own private property. They seek nothing more than a resurrection of feudal rights, the very reverse of what anarchism espouses. Although they denounce the tyranny of government, they do so only because liberal governments seek to regulate and restrict the grotesque nature of unbridled capitalism.

There is nothing to 'debate' on this issue. The term 'anarchism' refers explicitly to the philosophy developed by Proudhon, just as as the term 'communism' refers explicitly to the philosophy developed by Marx & Engels. When anarcho-capitalists espouse the rights of property, they are completely rejecting the writings of Proudhon, and they cannot be anarchists. They are, in fact, mere capitalists, nothing more.

The notion of 'anarcho-capitalism' is no more anarchist than 'national socialism' is socialist. Both concepts are blatant perversions, which distort the philosophy which they seek to destroy. True anarchists know that tyranny derives from the ownership of property, and that the abolition of capitalism is a fundamental principle of anarchism.

there is a 3rd one, the Hakim Bey's version of anarchy the TAZs, the PAZs and the ontological anarchism and poetical terrorism

http://hermetic.com/bey/

I believe the individual should retain the right to earn a living by offering their own skills and labor to society. That one should  receive just compensation for their labor. That so long as a person, or group of persons do not exploit another individual, or the  community as a whole in doing so, then to prevent them from practicing their labor without just compensation is another form of tyranny. So long as one is not using  coercion in the form of monopolistic corporate power, or central government rule; I see no reason why a person should not be allowed to prosper by their own labor. 

Anarchists don't have a problem with someone prospering by their own labor, but owning property, skyscrapers, malls, factories, and mansions... that's theft. If you don't understand that, I'm sorry, you aren't an anarchist! Either read what Proudhon wrote, or stop pretending to be an anarchist.

You can't expect people to understand you if you change the meaning of words and phrases.

As I wrote before: feel free to rewrite if you think it lacks clarity. 

Smith wasn't a capitalist. One of the embarassing little facts about American intellectual culture is this obsession with the idea of Smith as the "father" of capitalism. Students are taught this by teachers who have never read Smith's writing. It's simply wrong, as one can easily discern from a thorough reading of his text. Smith strongly condemns the power of corporations and the morality of wealth.

I suspect this fallacy comes from the fact that he advocated a system of interchangeable parts and the division of labor, which influenced the American factory system. However, he was absolutely not advocating capitalism, which he saw as inherently corrupt and abusive.

I did not study Smith at a college. I read him on my own free time. I'm also aware of his Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he outlined the negative contradictions inherent in his follow up work, The Wealth of Nations.

I agree that he did not  "invent" capitalism, but in describing market forces of mercantilism, he laid the foundation of modern capital economics. So in this way, he did invent it as it is known. Capitalism's history, of course, stretches back before his time. 

Not really, but its not worth arguing about.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

I have a PhD so I'm not impressed by Dr. Asimakopoulos.

You need a PhD to be not impressed?

Impressive.

Nevertheless: I am not an advocate of capitalism: I believe it evolves into corporatocracy. 

I'm not going to block anyone from joining this group, or restrict their ability to define or redefine the groups description; unless they are attacking the group as a whole.

Anyway, I agree: not worth arguing about.

Regarding the idea of a corporatocracy, it should be noted that most businesses shrink or die fairly quickly, and are this (usually by virtue of being out-competed by better businesses) seems to be occurring at faster rates as time progresses. This turnover would probably be quicker if not for governments enacting barriers to entry for competitors, including by way of regulatory capture by the biggest of corporations.

Without the legal (read: government invented and applied) shield of the LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) designation and other governmental (civil) law inventions, it seems likely that common law would hold people - including those joining together as "companies" - accountable for their sins.

Without the ability to use the state to dominate and/or keep competitors out, I really don't see how any corporation would be much of a threat to the common good.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16611040

The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today, according to Professor Richard Foster from Yale University.

Today's rate of change "is at a faster pace than ever", he says.

Professor Foster estimates that by 2020, more than three-quarters of the S&P 500 will be companies that we have not heard of yet.

Edit: I forgot that the OP here was against private property, and am not looking to invest the (probably quite significant amount of) time to debate my views in their entirety at present. Anyone looking to learn about libertarian or an-cap ideas with an open mind and the willingness to do some basic research may PM me for ideas or resources, or join my group "Libertarian Chess" where I and others may expound on those ideas.

The Well-Read Anarchist - An Introduction to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Thanks for the discussion, I am in the wrong group.

If you are looking for a market anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) perspective, check out the libertarian chess group, or the work of the Mises Institute (plenty on their website @ mises.org), or https://youtube.com/stefbot.