Libertarian anarchists have been right to claim "anarchism" as their own, since that actually is what they preach.
A great many people are genuinely confused about the history of anarchism for the same reason that people would be confused by me if I took a fervently pro-gun stance that I called "pacivism," and I think genuine confusion is also what motivates the re-purposing of the word. Libertarian anarchists genuinely don't understand that "anarchism" is like my "pacivism" example.
I didn't even understand that until recently, and I am pretty well-educated. I was genuinely confused. "How does Noam Chomsky's position ultimately equate to not having government or power?", I kept asking myself. I couldn't follow his logic. Then I realized, oh, he's not making that argument, and none of them are. Some of them pretend or actually think they are (due to their own confusion), which adds to the confusion.
Someday we will probably have the same problem with "progressivism."
I'm fairly tired of this being the case from the right, not just in america but in my country as well where the most right-wing party recently branded themselves "The new workers party".
"Right wing anarchists" seem to want to take the trappings of capitalism, from which they have benefited immensely, and keep as much as they can to themselves. For the good of themselves.
True anarchists reject capital and properly rights, and want precisely the opposite. For the good of everyone.
The anarchy subreddit is actually pretty good and not filled with as much junk as a lot of the subreddits are.
F A
| |
| |
| |
E B
\ /
\ /
D------C
A = Wealthy people who just want to maximize their own revenue without particular regard for ethics. Some do not support libertarianism at all, some support some aspects of it but turn around as soon as they can benefit from pollution, eminent domain or copyrights/patent privileges.B = Wealthy people who are actually libertarian to a high extent, caring about some notion of property rights, but have basically no concern for equality, corporate power, etc.
C = Libertarians who also care about reducing corporate power and promoting decentralization. These people love markets and voluntary exchange, but also dislike monopolies. They tend to heavily promote 3D printing, Bitcoin, seasteading, etc.
D = Left-libertarians who are fine with property rights, but seek a less market-oriented basis for society. They might like 3D printing, organic farming, urban agriculture, and perhaps also Bitcoin, though to a smaller extent since it is still money even if it does bypass the banks.
E = Anti-propertarian anarchists. Buy into leftist morality (eg. "exploitation" where you benefit much more than the counterparties from an economic agreement is immoral), and are happy to expropriate capitalists. However, they are also anti-state.
F = State socialists and social democrats.
This experiment seems to be something like B with maybe a touch of C. A proper C-libertarian experiment would also try to provide ways for people to live with very little money (eg. by living in a small closet that would normally be illegal under occupancy limit regulations), and D-libertarian would be a commune.
However, there is a difference between concepts that are well defined in ordinary language (like democracy) and concepts whose definition is highly contested, like anarchism. Libertarianism is clearly a term with right wing connotations for most people. When you argue against using it this way, you are going against ordinary usage, and therefore against clear communication.
And this is consistent with my earlier post, because you imply that the person who uses libertarian in the usual sense, is ignorant because they don't define it according to the literature that you consider to be relevant or important.
On the "New workers party", that is clearly an attempt by this party to subvert left wing rhetoric (of being pro-worker), a kind of culture jamming if you will. It is clearly not an attempt to trick people into voting for them or redefine the term "worker's party", which I assume has long tradition in your country and is unmistakeably identifiable with the left.
"Now, now even if your teacher wasn't your intended interlocutrix when you called Josh 'Mr. Poopy Pants' she still was right to tell you to not be mean to him."