Hey yall, dunno if this is the right community for this kind of talk. I was just wondering if anyone has read up on Michael Malice' and his work. I've been watching some of his interviews and debates, and one thing that I've noticed is he seems very staunchly anti-communist. I found it's quite common for fellow leftists to be critical of the Soviet Union etc, but he makes the point of communism being the failure of the Soviet Union and China, not authoritarianism. And on more often occasion, he never really talks about collectivization. I noticed he always kind of talks from this sort of individualist point, that anarchy requires "everyone fend for themselves." He never really makes a case for anti-capitalism.

This guys an anarcho-capitalist, no? Is it common for anarcho-capitalists to nab socialist anti-state talking points but then justify them by doing capitalism the libertarian way? If yes, it seems like a very disingenuous way of presenting anarchism. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of libertarians in the tech-bro sphere, who naturally turned to monarchism, because (surprise, surprise) anarchy for them just meant "I get to do business MY way, with no rules.

I feel like it's a very important discussion to be had. There's anarchy being presented the wrong way. And it should be called out. Because right-wing libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two very different pairs of shoes. It'd be interesting to read what your peeps' thoughts are.