Anarchist Memes is now pro-Capital! Wait what?

As reported at CounterPunch, one of the most stalwart anti-Capitalist pages on Facebook, Anarchist Memes (I've linked you to the current iteration), was taken down Thursday January 9, 2014. I won't get into the story of that, as CounterPunch does so fantastically. But what is of particular interest is that the same day another page was started with the same name, the same (mostly) logo, and the same approach to political graphics and propaganda. Yup. There's another Anarchist Memes page, but they have nothing to do with Anarchism at all. They're AnCaps. And if you click on the links you'll see that the same logo is being used, only the latter has changed the flags to yellow. Bright, happy, yellow flags denoting their devotion to Capitalism.

I saw that and felt like I had just gotten punched in the dick about thirty times. In terms of sensibility and common decency, the creation of this new group is a direct attack against the very active and formidably-mobile Left. Over the past several years, the very real and very dangerous ideologies of the extreme right have been targets of coordinated attacks by groups on the social network. Leftist groups have dismantled arguments by voluntaryists, free-market ideologues, and everybody else who falls under the AnCap umbrella (though, like hipsters, we're all aware of how vehemently they all deny being AnCaps). While they have ventured into our territory a number of times, their arguments are quickly shredded and they leave claiming the "I never cared to begin with" card or just up and quit. This, however, is a direct appropriation of ideas, images, and intellectual property from their ideological opponents.

Now, I'm not saying we should fall to pieces over an internet pissing contest. Honestly, what good is happening in the world by us fixating on these Facebook-based ideological wars? In terms of real human terms, such as lifting people out of poverty, asserting the rights of labor over the rights of capital, etc., these Facebook wars do nothing. But, knowing Facebook's attitude towards the far left, this type of appropriation stings deeply. We know that in any battle between the two AM pages, Facebook will ultimately ax the original, the radically left AM instead of the radically right AM. We know this to be true, and so the existence of the usurper represents an existential threat to one of the most vibrant and well-managed anarchist communities on Facebook.

This is a threat that must be answered according to the strictest code of solidarity. Yes, we've seen the way Anarchists attack Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyites, etc. We know that Anarchists are just as sectarian as we are. But to stand silently while this battle rages only means it will be that much harder the next time this happens. And the next, and the next. Always remember Niemoeller's poem, "First they came..."

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
This is the environment in which we are finding ourselves. Because of this, we must be willing to defend each other in the face of a reactionary right that fancies itself "humane", but laughs as the left is torn to shreds in the name of "Community Standards". They can have their misogyny, their racism, their classism, their homophobia, and their Islamophobia. This is something we know that Facebook will not remove. But our existence and are goals are made easier, more evangelistic, more attainable by being allowed to speak on a social network that has defined the dominant social paradigm of our age. When they take this away from us because we cannot unite in the name of solidarity, the fight will be the same fight we were undertaking in the 1980's and '90s, and the Left's crisis of relevance will be magnified a thousand fold.

This is why the usurped AnCap page is so important. This is why our petty arguments on Facebook are important. This is why solidarity is important.

What Is an Anarcho Capitalist?

Ask anyone on the left what they think of Anarcho Capitalism and they'll give you various responses. Generally, the response refers one to a picture of a neckbeard:

You know, the Fedora-wearing "nice guy" who also has a penchant for shitting on women's rights, minority rights, LGBTQ rights, and supporting an unrelentingly de-regulated free market. Oh, he also screams "statist" all the time as a pejorative insult but has a flag.

Wikipedia explains it like this:

Anarcho-capitalism...is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through punishment and torture under political monopolies.

Word salad complete. And this is all fine and dandy, but anybody who has ever read a distopian novel knows what this kind of society inevitably looks like to the average imagination. So the question becomes not what an Anarcho-Capitalist is according to his beliefs (trust me...it's not a his/her thing here), or what he looks like based on stereotyping and meme-generation, but what he looks like based on raw numbers and data. Luckily, we have that. So, what is an Anarcho-Capitalist?

A survey done on the /r/Anarcho_Capitalism subreddit provided some interesting numbers. The results can easily be looked at here in easy-to-read pie chart format. The information provided does not provide what the total estimated census size would be, but the sample size of 688 respondents is pretty good, considering the type of sample sizes informal polling tends to generate on the internet in general. The survey broke down demographic information according to age, gender, country of origin, occupation, religious affiliation, and how long one considered himself to be an Anarcho-Capitalist. The rest of the questions were divided between philosophical concerns, strategic concerns, and miscellaneous concerns (like, what your operating system is). Now that we understand the data set we're dealing with, let's start breaking things down.

First question: How old are you?

Possible responses ranged from 0 to 66+ in predictable groupings. I would list them all but an overwhelming 86% fall between the ages of 15 and 30 (592 total). That's just old enough to be flirting with political ideology and just young enough to not have too much responsibility. (For reference, only 94 respondents answered in the 27-30 range) So we're looking at young people, the vast majority of which fall within an eleven-year range of 15-26. These include a) high schoolers who are eager to rebel and find something "different" that marks them as "special", b) college-aged students who have successfully taken their first steps in academic political discussion and found something "radical" to latch onto, and c) graduate-level or post-finals undergrads who have entered the work force and are seeing the problems faced by the world and are seeking some kind of answer. This "c" group also includes people who have never been to college but nevertheless are working and having to bear some responsibility for their own livelihoods. The numbers here shouldn't really be surprising, as this is the prime age range for political activism. Nothing really to see here, then. But we can say that Anarcho-Capitalism does seem to have a certain appeal to youth activists.

Second question: What's your gender?

Possible results: Male, Female, Other. This is an immediate red flag as modern gender theory lists Male, Female, Transgendered, Queer, and Intersex as five distinctly separate, yet inter-related genders. This all-encompassing "Other" category belies a prejudice in favor of the gender binary. And should we be surprised? 97% of respondents said they were Male. Four responded with "Other". The data set lists this as 1%, but it works out to be only slightly more than one half of one percent. It's an infinitesimally small number. Given the stereotype of Anarcho-Capitalists giving absolutely zero fucks about LGBTQ concerns, it's no wonder that it would have attracted the attention and praise of only 4 out of the "other" category. The remaining bundle? 17 women. So a total of three percent of the respondents fit somewhere other than male. Three. Obviously something isn't appealing to a non-male demographic, and it's appealing less than the GOP's war on women.

Third question: Where do you live?

Possible results include a long list of European countries and a range of geographical regions. Of all the respondents, 88% live in the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, or Canada, all countries with exceptionally high standards of living. That means just 12% of respondents live elsewhere in the world. I understand reddit probably is not available in every country in the world, but many of the places hardest hit by Austerity, de-regulation, and the collapse of global capitalism including Portugal, Spain, Greece, Hungary, and Ireland had between 1 and 2 respondents, tops. South America, a region with a long and less-than-pleasant history with Capitalism, had a combined total of 5 respondents, and Central America, another Capitalist Imperialist playground, had 2. What we are seeing here is a pattern developing of a young, privileged male that probably had a very easy upbringing. Let's see if this demographic pattern holds up.

Fourth question: What is your occupation?

The results here kind of start moving around. We don't see the huge accumulation in one demographic range as we saw before, but there is some definite skewing. Knowing what we know about the current age demographic and what Anarcho-Capitalists believe, we can pick out a certain range of categories:

Student
Part-time student
Self-employed
Employed, I don't work directly or indirectly for the government
Student and employed in the private sector

These are all occupations that fulfill the Anarcho-Capitalist "acceptability" matrix (ie, what an honest Anarcho-Capitalist should seek in terms of employment versus what he should reject as possible avenues of employment). Because we are dealing with young, privileged males, I left out "retired" or "unemployed", as it can be assumed that they are probably of college age or eager, bright young people who can easily find work. Now, let's look at how large of a sample fits this profile we have created.

doo doo doo....doing math...aaaaaaand.....82%. Does anybody see a pattern emerging here? We have an overwhelming majority showing up in education settings and favoring private-sector or self-employment. This creates a bubble in this part of the occupational bubble where they can positively-reinforce their own viewpoints by being surrounded by their peer groups that already agree with them. I'm pretty sure we are developing a pattern that is holding strong and will be validated further the more we dig. But, let's continue.

Fifth question: How long have you considered yourself an Anarcho-Capitalist?

"I don't consider myself an anarcho capitalist" garnered 10% of respondents. So 90% do, and so far, we have a demographic population that fits within that self-identification. The fact that 10% didn't consider themselves part of that demographic should be enough to pause and wonder if the overall demographic picture applies to the Anarcho-Capitalist. In any other setting, this would tend to be the case. But the fact that our demographic fits within the 90th percentile almost even-handedly gives you a greater reason to think that there is a correlation here rather than a false causal relationship. So, for the benefit of this particular question, we're going to be dealing with totals of self-identified Anarcho-Capitalists rather than total respondents. What we find isn't too surprising.

78% of self-identified Anarcho-Capitalists say they have considered themselves as such for less than five years. All the numbers skew heavily to the six-month to two years range anyway, but overall the numbers skew heavily downward, with few to none reporting in the categories above two years. Again, due to the age-ranges we're dealing with, this shouldn't be too surprising. But when you look at the age-range of all respondents and compare it to the length of time Anarcho-Capitalists have considered themselves such, you see a disturbingly high turnover rate. This is not an ideology with staying power, or else you should see it skew a little closer to the 5-10 year range, given that most appear to have been exposed to this ideology in high school. So, obviously, education is partly involved in one's acceptance of Anarcho-Capitalism, but it looks like continued education and/or real-world applicability provides education enough to show that Anarcho-Capitalism has deeply inherent flaws and make people jettison this ideology fairly early on, which doesn't give a lot of time for Anarcho-Capitalists to really develop their theories the way Marxists have been able to develop theoretical approaches and applications over the course of a lifetime.

The sixth question involves religion. I'll let you infer what you will based on the (largely confirmed) stereotype what 71% of respondents gave as a single answer to "Do you consider yourself religious?"

In summation, what we are dealing with when we encounter the Anarcho-Capitalist is a young, privileged male, principally between the ages of 15-26, who lives in the First World, has had some education, and has a predilection for private-sector or self-employment. This is the epitome of the "I am special" spoiled suburban demographic. The fact that the overwhelming majority of self-identified Anarcho-Capitalists have been such for less than five years, with a large majority of those only having considered themselves Anarcho-Capitalists for less than two years, means that there is something happening to the Anarcho-Capitalist the longer they try and defend the ideology and underlying philosophies or else apply them. Some transformative element is causing them to jettison the ideology at around the time they should be developing a mature understanding of it. By contrast, I have been a self-identified Marxist since I was 14. Twelve years later, I am writing a blog about a United Left. In the time I have been studying Marxism, I could have earned a bachelor's degree and four post-graduate degrees. Most Anarcho-Capitalists have not been studying their ideology long enough to even be close to finishing a bachelor's degree.

The final line is that when we on the Left accuse Anarcho-Capitalists of being petulant children, we aren't exactly being unfair. And to add insult to injury, consider the fact that they represent everything we seek to overthrow and you realize they are ultimately the enemy. In a hypothetical revolutionary situation (violent, of course) their guns will be aimed at us. So when we call them petulant children, we get to do so with our tongues sticking out because we have demographic proof that what we say isn't name calling; it's an observable fact.