Most anarcho-socialists I’ve spoken to seem to think that by decentralising the state, introducing aspects of direct democracy and renaming it something euphemistic like “union” or “council” is the equivalent of abolishing it.

John – Have you heard of anarcho-capitalist thinkers such as Murray Rothbard (from the Austrian school) or David Friedman (from the Chicago school)? They’re probably more relevant to this discussion than early neo-classical economists like Smith or Ricardo.

You mention “illegitimate forms of authority”, can you elaborate on what represents illegitimate authority? You also mention under Liberty, that you oppose domination, and work to subvert such structures, but in Solidarity you state you “…believe that human survival and social development can best be secured through co‐operation among individuals and groups to their mutual benefit.”

I’m curious at how this works in practice. As someone whom supports personal freedoms and is opposed to oppression, I make it a point to understand the rules and restrictions I am enforcing in my position as a security guard. But I find at times people who rebel towards the authority I represent as a matter of political opinion are often unaccepting of working towards mutually beneficial arrangements. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on your group, I’m just asking as to clarify what you would consider the best representation of your aims and principles in a scenario where I as an authority and was preventing your members from accessing an area as deemed by my employers, considering the MAC’s views on authority and solidarity with the working class.

Anarcho-capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron as it still works within an oppressive corporate/market structure to attain “freedom,” whereas libertarian socialism (anarchism) is about transcending such peripheries in order to get a stronger form of liberty. What sort of anarcho-capitalism are you referring to, the likes of Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, David Ricardo etc or? Obviously they see the market system far differently to contemporary “capitalists” (who are not really capitalists obviously).

1. Captain Cook did not discover Australia. People had been living on the continent for quite a few years before that English gentleman spied its east coast. Perhaps you mean he was the first Englishman to step ashore in these parts? If so, you’re wrong on that score too: William Dampier stuck his nose in around 1688.
2. January 26 actually commemorates the day Arthur Phillip came ashore at Sydney Cove.
3. Yes. The desire of British authorities to be rid of what it considered to be a criminal class is partly what prompted it to authorise the establishment of a penal colony; inter-imperialist rivalry (especially for control of the Pacific) was another important factor.
4. Those responsible for redecorating James Cook’s family’s cottage that he may (or may not) have lived in and that was imported into Australia in the 1930s are not known at this stage.
5. You can read our response to Channel 9′s silly reportage here.

Solidarity from a statist.

As our Aims & Principles suggest, we oppose capitalism and instead advocate a libertarian (anti-statist) socialism.

I walk’d onbye yon baybee wee,
And meet an golde man uniformed,
Who say to me, “bow down bow down
Littleman to my crown, lest
Ubermensch doth hast thy neck.”

Thus stumbled I to factory floore,
Slaughterhouse of meek and poor,
Awash with blood, did find in rags
Old labourer lamenting, “Oh to feel the way
Of yore, before they worked me to my grayve,
Rest here awhile lad, share mine bread.”

Three ages of mAn, two sages, one heart
Yet rages fromme inside the cages -
Have courage, the way of the bayb
Will prevail o’er the jackbooted slavers,
Play for the worker dear, bruteforce bent
O’er desk and plough, head held high
This blackest of night, redsky dawning…