Diplomjodler ( @Diplomjodler@feddit.de ) 97•7 months agoIt’s not enough to not understand economics, you also need to lack empathy and self-reflection.
jhulten ( @jhulten@infosec.pub ) 32•7 months agoI thought that was well covered by “incel”.
lolcatnip ( @lolcatnip@reddthat.com ) English51•7 months agoAnarchy (as a political philosophy) is about an absence of coercion.
Capitalism is about the supremacy of property rights over all other rights, backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn’t play along.
How anyone can think those two concepts are compatible is beyond me.
Rodeo ( @Rodeo@lemmy.ca ) 17•7 months agobacked up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn’t play along.
Every political ideology includes that. What good are rules without enforcement? Just because the enforcers are supposed to be random individuals in some ideologies doesn’t mean the threat of violence for not playing along is gone.
lolcatnip ( @lolcatnip@reddthat.com ) English12•7 months agoAnarchism claims to be different. But yeah, that’s a big part of why I see anarchism as a thought experiment and not a serious ideology.
meteorswarm ( @meteorswarm@beehaw.org ) 19•7 months agoI’m an anarchist, and my take is that anarchism isn’t pacifism, and “no coercion” is a bad summary. It’s more about the absence of hierarchical coercion and instead distribution of power to all people and communities.
If you’re going around burning down houses, your anarchist neighbors are going to use force to take away your matches and gasoline if you don’t stop.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 6•7 months agoYup, that is my understanding as well. Likewise, if you’re going around stealing, and someone happens to think that’s bad, they can use force to stop you because there’s no state telling them otherwise.
The idea that if there’s no state we’d automatically be living in communist utopia where everything is shared and nobody owns anything is flawed on its face. It’s certainly possible that there would be groups or tribes of people that choose to live that way, but other tribes would form around the idea that property rights should be protected and build a community around that.
DragonTypeWyvern ( @DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ) 8•7 months agoYou’re very much misrepresenting how anarchism is supposed to work with that “automatically” statement. No one thinks if will happen by itself, there’s a whole library on thought on how to go about making it the societal norm, with quite a lot of good points that humanity already largely acted like this for most of its two to three hundred thousand years of existence.
Supposedly, anyways. I suppose paleolithic man might well have been selling mammoth futures and executing debtors in the street.
But I also don’t really buy it in a urban society unless that society is largely run by the Culture’s Minds.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 3•7 months agoI only put that there because the thread starter seems to be an anarcho-communist who thinks that in absence of a state enforcing property rights, property rights simply won’t be enforced. That is not the case. They may or may not be enforced, either by the property owner themselves or their tribe/community.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 8•7 months agoCapitalism is primarily an economic system, not a political philosophy. And while it requires property rights in order to function, it is primarily concerned with solving problems in the absence of coercion, so it is absolutely compatible with anarchy.
You’re making a fundamental error when you think that property rights would not or do not exist in anarchy. What doesn’t exist in anarchy is the enforcement of such rights by a STATE. A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
So yes, capitalism and anarchy are absolutely compatible.
Franzia ( @Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 9•7 months agoAnarchy requires the absence of a state… And private property… Anarchy is to the left of “workers siezing the means of production”.
But anarcho-capitalists are, as you’ve said, only focusing on the economic system of their politics. If you ask them about the politics and government of their fantasy? Well, they all reveal a desire for a deeply coercive state. Anarchy, and also Libertarian, are words being co-opted.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 4•7 months agoNope, anarchy is only the absence of a state. Like I said, it is still possible to enforce property rights in such a scenario… as long as you do it yourself.
This likely WOULD lead to less hoarding and more wealth distribution, because you cannot keep what you cannot defend. But it’s definitely wrong to assume all property would automatically become public and “free use” and everyone would share freely as in a communist utopia, because that requires agreement between people. And in the absence of a state, there is no authority that could enforce such an agreement.
zorton ( @zorton@lemmy.thecolddark.com ) English3•7 months agoI’ve always wanted someone to explain how you eliminate capitalism or the symbolic exchange of value to achieve a socialist/ anarchist state without violence.
The nice part about anarchism is both systems are free to coexist in the absense of the state. That cannot be said under communism and socialism.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 2•7 months agoIf you think about it, such communities probably already exist: most families, even in capitalism, are communist internally: the parents contribute far more to the household than the children do, who tend to consume far more than they produce. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.
OurToothbrush ( @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml ) 3•7 months agoCommunism is a classless stateless society, parents within our society literally own their children as property.
This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.
Remind me again, what is the political ideology of the new world superpower? The one with 1.4 billion people? You know, now that the capitalist US empire is in obvious terminal decline.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 1•7 months agoAre you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy. There are banks, there is a stock market, and there is private ownership of the means of production, although all of these are tightly regulated by the state and can be rescinded at any time or for any reason (such as not paying enough bribes).
De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.
Franzia ( @Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 2•7 months agoOkay, fair enough.
Bene7rddso ( @Bene7rddso@feddit.de ) 2•7 months agoI’m not convinced about the second paragraph. How do you think we ended up where we are? In the stone age there was no government either, and yet some people became royalty and he and his friends became wealthy
OurToothbrush ( @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml ) 4•7 months agoA property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
Okay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
This is one of the reasons why anarcho capitalism is an incoherent ideology. People who believe in it think that the right of private property is just something everyone agrees should be held sacred, when it only exists because of state violence.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 1•7 months agoOkay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
Nobody. But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?
Before you say “but there’s more workers than property owners”, keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.
It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.
You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”
OurToothbrush ( @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml ) 3•7 months agoBut conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?
That would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.
keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.
Sorta like a police force of some kind?
It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.
You know what is really fucking organized? A state. It is almost like at the beginning of the country all the large landowners and capitalists got together and made one of those to protect their interests.
You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”
Lol. I am literally asking how your hypothetical system would handle class antagonisms, the primary concern of politics. I am very directly asking “but can you make it work”
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 2•7 months agoThat would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.
In the same way that a collective of workers getting together to control the means of production would be a communist state in every meaningful sense.
OurToothbrush ( @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml ) 1•7 months agoYes. The difference is I’m not claiming a proletarian democracy isn’t a state.
Cowbee ( @Cowbee@lemm.ee ) 3•7 months agoPrivate Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.
Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.
Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 2•7 months agoIf the collective has to enforce collective ownership, isn’t that just a monopoly on violence again?
Private ownership doesn’t require a collective, or a monopoly on violence. You only get to keep what you can defend.
Cowbee ( @Cowbee@lemm.ee ) 4•7 months agoIf everyone has equal ownership, there is no "mono"poly.
Private ownership requires a monopoly on violence to exist, if you can’t defend it there are no rights.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 1•7 months agoI have a gun. Try taking it from me.
There are no laws saying I can’t have one, and there are no laws saying I can’t shoot you if you try to take it.
Cowbee ( @Cowbee@lemm.ee ) 3•7 months agoYou cannot seriously believe in a might makes right society, can you?
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 1•7 months agoI mean, first of all, have you taken a look at our current society, and second of all, this is just a thought experiment to prove that anarcho-communism is pure fantasy, or at the very least not inevitable.
lolcatnip ( @lolcatnip@reddthat.com ) English2•7 months agoLOL.
I Cast Fist ( @ICastFist@programming.dev ) English3•7 months agoAnarchism can only exist when there’s a single individual not interacting with any other person, period. Every human interaction immediately breaks any sort of anarchism, there will always be some agreed upon behavior, whether implicit or explicit, violently enforced or not.
I suppose most ancaps are actually minarchists, or “minimal state” proponents, because capitalism fails terribly without laws and some way to enforce them. Without a state (even as small as a group’s leadership), “ownership” doesn’t exist, whoever’s stronger owns the thing. You blink, you lose. You die, it’s first dibs. Fell for a scam? Too bad, you should’ve been smarter. Got captured and sold into slave labor? Too bad, you should’ve seen that coming. Someone stole your stuff? Too bad, you should’ve secured it better.
jeremyparker ( @jeremyparker@programming.dev ) 2•7 months agoOk I should preface by saying I think ancap is dumb and having a slight disagreement with what you’ve said does not mean I’m not defending them. They’re asshats.
But: imo, anarchist thought escapes definition. There’s no such thing as anarchism (in the sense of an agreed-upon political philosophy), only anarchists.
Readers of Rene Girard might describe coersion (insofar as it’s a natural result of hegemony), as a sort of force of nature, like violence, that, if society doesn’t find a healthy way to express, will come out sideways, in ways that are anti-social.
Snot Flickerman ( @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English48•7 months agoEvery Man is an Island motherfuckers realizing that No Man is an Island.
Humans specifically only were successful because of pack hunting. We died quickly in nature as individuals. Anarcho-capitalism rejects this need for each other replaced with the unsound idea that each individual can handle everything on their own.
Works great until you break your fucking ankle and realize nobody decided being a doctor was important or the only person with medical skills has decided they don’t want to do business with you.
lugal ( @lugal@sopuli.xyz ) 6•7 months agoKropotkin identified mutual aid as a key factor in evolution, not only but especially in humans
NutWrench ( @NutWrench@lemmy.ml ) 34•7 months agoI prefer to call them “19th century robber barons” who yearn for the days of company towns, where they would own you from cradle to grave.
DragonTypeWyvern ( @DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ) 19•7 months agoThey aren’t robber barons.
They’re the simpering toady to the robber baron.
The robber baron loves the government, he buys as many politicians as he can.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 15•7 months agoAh yes, I have insulted my opponent in the genital area, therefore his arguments are invalid.
Nah their arguments are invalid because they aren’t based in logic or economic theory.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 3•7 months agoPlease enlighten me as to how that is the case.
Because I dont want the most vulnerable folks in our society to just fuxking die. People have chronic conditions that require daily medical care that would not be available for the vast majority of folks in an anarcho capitalist society, if they were available at all. I used to love fantasizing about zombie apocalypses and the fall of society myself, untll i realized my partner who is a Type 1 Diabetic probably wouldnt live long in that future. Wanting an anarcho capitalist future is the highest indicator that you live a life of extreme privilege and dont care about fellow human beings.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 2•7 months agoOkay, fair enough, and I am by no means intending to criticize you for your kindheartedness here, but that’s literally the opposite of economic theory, which concerns itself primarily with achieving the maximum output possible given a certain input.
Also, consider that this does not mean that it is therefore by nature entirely inhuman and incompatible with caring about people, but rather that the ability to achieve a high productivity is required in order to have an excess of resources than can be used to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
If you think about it, this is in fact essential to maintain human life. Children for instance always require more resources than they can produce, so parents have to be able to produce more than they need for themselves if they want their children to survive. Same goes for society as a whole — the productive members have to be able to produce an excess or the unproductive (weak, sick, or old) will starve.
No shit it doesnt require economic theory when basic logic tells us its a terrible way to organize a society.
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 1•7 months agoYeah, okay, I get it. You’re an idiot and I’m wasting my time.
Pot meet kettle
Programmer Belch ( @programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•7 months agoSo you are saying we will produce in excess and give all of the excess to people who can’t produce (children, weak, sick, old…) So from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs?
MacN'Cheezus ( @MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ) 2•7 months agoNo, I’m saying unless you want EVERYONE to starve, excess productivity is required even under communism.
Programmer Belch ( @programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•7 months agoI’m all for more productivity if the excesses are redistributed
RandomVideos ( @RandomVideos@programming.dev ) 9•7 months agoIs there anything worse than anarchocapitalism?
slurpeesoforion ( @slurpeesoforion@startrek.website ) 3•7 months agoAnachrocapitalist groomers as the image implies?
jeremyparker ( @jeremyparker@programming.dev ) 2•7 months agoHmmm. What about anarchocapitalists that leave capitalist out of their descriptors and larp like they’re contemporary versions of the DK-listening, doc martens wearing, spiky hair having kids from the 1980s. And ancaps might be slightly better than the rich people at the top that use every advantage they’ve been given as a lever to suppress the success of everyone else. At least ancaps still have the potential to change.
GiveMemes ( @GiveMemes@jlai.lu ) 1•7 months agoDonkey Kong listening?
jeremyparker ( @jeremyparker@programming.dev ) 1•7 months agoDonkey Kong wishes! No, Dead Kennedys
MudMan ( @MudMan@kbin.social ) 5•7 months agoMan, I am so glad “anarchocapitalist” is starting to stick. I can’t believe they got away with the other word for as long as they did.
oʍʇǝuoǝnu ( @nueonetwo@lemmy.ca ) 5•7 months agoWhat about the roads, who will pay for the roads?
zeekaran ( @zeekaran@sopuli.xyz ) English6•7 months agoHonestly fuck the roads.
Fuck roads! We want an advanced system of High Speed and Light Rail to make roads obsolete for traveling!
bobs_monkey ( @bobs_monkey@lemm.ee ) 5•7 months agoThat’s all well and good, but you’re gonna need roads for last mile delivery of goods, and a transit path for people that service homes and businesses.
That’s why I qualified my statement by saying obsolete for traveling.
lolcatnip ( @lolcatnip@reddthat.com ) English1•7 months agoI fail to see how debating the form of a transportation network is related to the necessity of funding one.
Nightwatch Admin ( @nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl ) 2•7 months agoThe slaves will be taxed, of course, FREEDOM B***
Great book on Modern Economics Ive been reading, cant recommend it enough!
Binthinkin ( @Binthinkin@kbin.social ) 3•7 months agoI know this lazy, dumb as shit 40yo Republikid who sounds like CNBC and Cramer who finds empathy by feeling bad for the anti-work subreddit.
“At least Im not them” he says.
Try to get into the nuts and bolts of things and the dummy shuts down spectacularly.
Also, he’s never had a gf. IDK how these folks plan on winning when they get no love.
corsicanguppy ( @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ) 1•7 months agoincels who suck
FTFY
nodiet ( @nodiet@feddit.de ) 6•7 months agoCorrect me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure I learned at school that you can use “that” for everything, “who” for people and “which” for things
Queen HawlSera ( @HawlSera@lemm.ee ) English1•7 months agoCorrect I di