[beaeglebeachedd]

That's one interpretation. Another us the idea that only voluntary interactions and transactions are legitimate -- i.e. taxation or forceful socialist takeover of capital is archist.

The common thread is the idea of decentralized, ideally evenly distributed, power.

[vidarh]

Plenty of anarchist movements have supported armed dismantling of the state, and by extension takeover of capital by dismantling the means by which property rights are enforced and removing them.

[goatlover]

Why do they think this will lead to anarchism and not a military dictatorship?

[beaeglebeachedd]

Ideally it will lead to a military dictatorship where the population of each country is 1. Whether that becomes reality...

[pessimizer]

> Another is the idea that only voluntary interactions and transactions are legitimate -- i.e. taxation or forceful socialist takeover of capital is archist.

That's not another idea, that's really the same idea. Voluntary interactions are not unearned. The only problem with that is that it accepts kings (i.e. the legitimacy of primitive accumulation and the fencing off of the commons.) If you just say that King Charles owns England, and everything within it, he can even force you into a contract in order to use his roads to leave.

But of course anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate Anarchist strain. As it is now, it exists with a fake pedigree from Objectivists and Libertarians, who are simply Republican anti-communists minus the Christianity, but you can see the same beliefs within what was at the time accepted as fairly orthodox anarchism in Benjamin Tucker.* There are still interesting libertarians that don't accept primitive accumulation, and simply think that the creation of interlocking markets is a better way to organize a free society than the glorification of wage-laborers.

I'm largely a Rudolf Rocker anarchist myself, and Homage to Catalonia changed my life as well. Speaking of groups, I was a card-carrying anarchist who volunteered at the 223 infoshop in Portland during the 90s. I had always suspected that Chomsky was an anarchist, and the confirmation was when he spoke in town and made his first political donation to that same infoshop. It was his first occasion making a political donation of that type, and everybody in left politics noticed.

edit: A quote from John Zerzan, an primitivist (or the primitivist) anarchist who hated Chomsky, illustrating how impactful that donation was:

> In the fall of 1995, Chomsky donated much of the proceeds from a well-attended speech on U.S. foreign policy to Portland’s 223 Freedom and Mutual Aid Center, better known as the local anarchist infoshop. As if to honor its generous benefactor appropriately, the infoshop spent the money first of all on a computer system, and several months later financed a booklet promoting the infoshop and the ideas behind it. Among the most prominent quotes adorning the pamphlet is one that begins, “The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realizable...” The attentive reader may not need me to name the author of these words, nor to point out this less than qualitatively radical influence.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-who-is-c...

-----

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

edit: I would also mention that Benjamin Tucker was almost entirely in line with current Libertarian thought, still thought of himself as an anarchist and a socialist, and was one of the biggest misogynists possible. When people seriously engage with ideas instead of stereotypes, they come out in weird places. When you seriously engage with ideas instead of conventions, you start to realize that we're already in a weird place.