• MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Capitalism 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anarchy 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@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope, 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.

        • Bene7rddso@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’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

        • zorton@lemmy.thecolddark.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’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@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If 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@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Communism 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@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are 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.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Are 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.

                  You’re kind of incredibly ignorant on China. They’re a mostly publicly controlled economy.

                  Source: https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/chinas-state-vs-private-company-tracker-which-sector-dominates

                  The reasoning for a private sector is to prevent economic and technological siege.

                  Also marxist economic theory is literally just a structured critique of capitalism. It doesn’t have anything to say about socialism or communism, that is marx’s other works.

                  De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.

                  I would really suggest reading “Economy and class structure of german fascism” and comparing it to the political and economic situation of China. (And actually understand those situations, not just passively absorb ideas from anglophone media) This isn’t meant to be a dig, but this level of political illiteracy is embarrassing.

                  than anything Marx ever came up with.

                  Have you literally read any book that Marx wrote? (The manifesto is a manifesto, it doesn’t count, but I’d also be interested in knowing if you’ve read that)

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Private 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@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If 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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If 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@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I 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.

              • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I 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.

                • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Anarcho-Capitalism cannot exist, it would cease to exist the very second it did.

                  Anarcho-Communism is a lofty goal, but is fully capable of existing.

                  That’s the fundamental difference, what you consider to be Private Property simply wouldn’t be, it would either be personal property or you wouldn’t have it. It is only through threat of violence that one can own the products of tools despite not doing the labor.

                  • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Okay, as frustrating as it is to have you simply repeat your initial statements despite any arguments made to the contrary, it seems as though your point hinges on the distinction between personal and private property.

                    However, I don’t see how private property couldn’t be maintained as long as you have the ability to defend it. Hiring guards for instance does not constitute a monopoly on violence, since others can do so as well. In an anarcho-communist scenario, for instance, if the workers want to maintain control of the means of production after ousting the owner, they would potentially have to post guards as well, or the property owner could hire a bunch of mercenaries to take the property back.

                    The long and short if this is, I don’t see how anarchy would favor either the creation of capitalist or communist structures of organization. Most likely, there would be both, and survival would be a matter of who is better at organizing.

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, absolutely. How would one win over with individual ownership? One dude with a couple guns vs an entire community?

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then we gradually dismantle corps by eliminating regulatory capture, IP and limited liability over time and we all win.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dont know, let’s ask Chinese feudal lords how their ability to enforce private property went after the CPC stopped enforcing their private property rights for them like the old government did.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      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@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        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@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          But 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”

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is this meant to be a gotcha? What I prefer has nothing to do with understanding how states function and why they coalesce.

              • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not really a gotcha. I just forget I’m pretty alone in my (particular) distaste for violence.

                Edit: didn’t really mean for that to sound so negative.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I guess I dont base my understanding of politics around morality, morality enters the field when determining what to do within that understanding

                  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m certainly overly reductive of politics. When we’re talking ideology, though, yeah I’m going back to my ethics. A government can’t act on our behalf with more rights than us - we just end up creating our master. Pragmatic actions, in the real world, are different from ideological conversations, though.

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That 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.