How will anarcho-capitalism lead back to a state?

That's basically feudalism
That's mutualism, a completely different set of ideas.
Who enforces common law if not the state?

Well, first off capitalism can't exist without a state.

Oh wait there is no second point because anarcho-capitalism cannot ever be a thing, it is an ideology that exists to excuse the ever increasing power of multinationals.

but according to ancaps monopolies and large firms exist because of the state, not the other way around. There are plenty of economists saying that, how would Holla Forums respond?

the people in a community on agreed contracts e.g. Rapetown

A law does not exist in practice if its not enforced uniformly.

Are there any non-"facts don't matter because Humans Act" 'economists' saying that, I certainly don't know of any

Capitalism relies in workers while communism doesn't rely on capitalists. In anarcho-capitalism, you get rid of the bureaucracy but you still have the workers. The workers and the capitalists have different interests. You can argue they have the same but both cannot happen at the same time. The worker wants to thrive but can't if his wages are dictated by capitalists and is also exploited. The capitalist wants to thrive and profit but can't if his wages are dictated by a bureaucracy or the worker. It the worker cannot be exploited and exploited at the same time. One has to rule over the other. Under anarcho capitalism, you cannot have robots do all of the unskilled work because then the workers won't have money to buy goods. It can unless the state has a universal income aka Social Democracy. The other option is to kill off the workers but that would cause a revolution. Capitalism would have to resort to suppression of the worker in order to maintain power. It needs the state as a way to cause division and weaken the worker. In an ancapistan, the rules would serve the highest bidder in order to keep the worker in line.

Anarcho capitalists ignore the class problems in capitalism and by having a full free market, it will highlight and make these class problems more openly seen. It has to resort back to a state in order to save capitalism. This is why so many ancaps support Pinochet. They realize that in order for their world to work is to get rid of their opposition.

No they were not. The state is a highly centralised hierarchical power structure that is a phenomenon of the past 300 years.

In ancient Greece the municipalities had great autonomy over their own cities, compared to today where cities are required to govern in the confines set by their province and federal government.

Similarly in feudalism, feudal lords also had great autonomy over their land. People rarely interacted with the monarchy (I suppose you would consider this to be the federal government, but it is clear they are nothing alike), and feudal lords often had wars with one another despite being under the same monarch.

The state emerged after capitalist revolutions to defend private property using bureaucracy.

1. Because the state is absolutely mandatory to the security and prosperity of any territory and anarchism is retarded. Markets don't actually exist without the state.

2. Robert Nozick -the one and only brilliant right-wing intellectual- even made an argument against Ancap despite being an extreme libertarian. He says that one dominant defence/justice agency would buy up or beat off the competition and become the monopoly provider of defence/justice. In a sense, they would be the state because everybody would be paying insurance to them the way we pay tax to the state today.

btw newfriend, Bookchin doesn't hold that the state per se is a new phenomenon that only came into existence in the last 300 years. That's the *nation-state*. According to Bookchin, the state emerged when power was consolidated between warrior societies and shamanism.

thanks for the explanation anons

I'm not new, I've been on this board for about a year, but I am new to Bookchin.

I simply say 'state' because that is what people are referring to 99% of the time, but interesting distinction.

not bad for a socialist

Been meaning to give this a roll over. Would you say 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' holds up to its reputation?

Why in god's name would the workers agree to give bosses the products of their own labor? In a society where they, by virtue of their greater numbers, make the laws, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from ignoring property claims as is their material interest.

Nozick was a fucking moron in nearly every conceivable way

Because the mere self-defense of proletarian interests under a system of capital accumulation inevitably brings the proletariat in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie and with capitalist relations of production, at which point the function of the state arises as mediator of these interests (if it wasn't already defacto there via all the baggage capitalism has and needs to provide for and enforce to keep capitalism healthy). Crisis is a symptom of this conflict with the bourgeoisie and bourgeois relations; it is immanent and no variation in the capitalist production can thus ever truly suppress these class-based conflicts and the tendency towards crisis it naturally produces.

Ask them specifically which dis-economies of scale they mean, and it won't matter because they will all be bullshit OR they will be a recognised effect but one that pales in comparison to the effect of economies of scale.

I had one tell me once that the bigger the company the more likely it will be that two people were accidentally working on the same project and actually thinking that was an argument.

we should be clear that what most ancaps define as statelessness would probably look a lot like what marxists would define as having a state. They would probably attempt to protect property using some scheme involving private rights protection agencies. I've heard them suggest that these rights protection agencies will tend to negotiate with each other because that's cheaper than war. If ancaps took over, then for all of our sake, I would hope they'd be right about that but in some circumstances I wouldn't be surprised if it basically devolved into privately-funded gang warfare. I have other problems with this set up, including the fact that you have to "buy" your rights essentially, but I unironically more or less agree with Nozick (minarchist right libertarian) here that such a "stateless society" would naturally lead to a more centralized, traditional state. Though I think he is a bit to concerned with making sure his state follows the rules of voluntary exchange and I won't bother with that autism here.

Because these companies will tend to have more leverage and ability to protect in a given area based on their forces, and because no matter how many people in that area they protect, a given rights enforcement agency (A) with four times as much resources to spend on arms and resources than another one (B) in a given area will always have much more leverage and ability to protect in that given area. As such, people will tend to sign up with A rather than B. As A becomes more dominant in a given area, it is in their interests as a company to ensure that they always enforce their particular rights scheme even when dealing with infringements from those who buy security from company B, as such, A becomes the defacto state in the area with a monopoly on the use of legitimate force (it determines what force is OK to use in this given territory). Since it is in power in this given area and those within this defacto state wish to maintain their power over it, they will tend to produce policy which either secures their dominance over the area they have jurisdiction over (including policy which maintains the present class structure and stability against revolt) or policy which promotes security against the surrounding regions (though these motives may often conflict). Here we have the familiar centralized state which violates private property and voluntary exchange when convenient, but on the whole maintains the capitalist mode of production.

shit, I made a bunch of grammatical errors there. Apologies if this makes no sense.

oh someone already brough up Nozick. I've only read parts. He's one of the more autistic political writers I've ever read but in a way that's pretty interesting. I'd say read Rawls too while you're at it.

"Read Steve Keen"
It's based on the absolutely retarded idea that production costs somehow magically increase as you produce more. (And also that marginal supply will equal marginal demand, even though this would require irrational overproduction on the part of some parties - if you assume they act rationally, a "perfectly competitive market" is functionally identical to a monopoly.)

Most economists are neoclassicals who couldn't theorise their way out of a paper bag without first making sure it preserves equilibrium. #PostKeynesianGang.

The answer is Standard Oil. The comic bitching about monopolies is from 1889. The Sherman Act was passed 1890.

One ancap told me that governments were still the cause of monopolies because they were the ones to sell mineral rights and the like. So I asked who should be the one to sell land rights, and was told the first one to settle it. I asked what stopped it from being bought out and formed a monopoly anyway and got no response.

Yea it's a good read if you want the Libertarian perspective. He's the only Libertarian worth reading in my opinion. I would read it along with Rawls as this user mentioned.

Can you explain what you mean?

Who guarantees private property?

Anarcho-capitalists say they would prevent a state treading on their snake with gunz. If this is so, then we already have anarcho-capitalism, it's just that ancaps refuse to use their gunz.

👍 Noted, thank you.

You need a state to define and enforce private property. Any ancap not directly addressing this issue is a god damn con artist.

Rewording things without oversimplifying isn't my strong point.
divulgacionmarxista.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/debunking-economics-steve-keen.pdf If you start at page 91 you can basically run through it, although I apologise in advance for just throwing the thing down. It's a great book in general since a lot of ancap mythology comes from the idea that markets would be stable but for that big mean state (and by tangent, that economics is just as mature a science as physics in it's present state.), as opposed to recognizing them as dynamic and unstable systems. (Quite early on, as you'll see, neoclassical economists can't even into calculus.)

Page 110 introduces the parts on scale, which are also an interesting point on how monopolies will arise. (And also makes another very good point: Even if we assume "in the long run, industries will tend towards competitiveness and monopolies will collapse", that can be a very long run indeed. By the time a serious competitor to Boeing or Airbus comes along in the market for intercontinental jet aircraft for example, we'll probably have invented teleporters. (Or more realistically, have run out of cheap high-density energy and returned to a feudal society.)

In ancapistan people would just claim whole forests and you end up back in feudalism. And as always, capital and land ends up concentrating and nation-states are formed again.

see: East India companies.

I murder a man's son, I run back to my house guarded by my private police force. If the man whose son I killed doesn't have enough money to hire his own private police to go after me, he and anyone else who can't defend themselves are at my mercy. On the other hand, if he sends his own private police force over to my house, he's violated the NAP by walking into my property barriers, and both me and my private police don't recognize the authority of his private police, and a shootout happens. Is this really a preferable idea to you?

Ancaps would have loved Stalin's USSR if he had taken off the red and called it his property. That tells you everything you need to know about them.

If the man can convince others that you are a murderer:

A: People have a sense of justice and stop doing business with you. Also, why help a known murderer thrive when you might be his next victim?

B: people are shortsighted and selfish, don't care about justice. They dgaf about someone's murdered son. Eventually the murderer kills all his enemies and becomes super rich. The people deserve this outcome because they knowingly did business with a criminal. Hopefully murderer takes them as slaves.

B is more likely to happen tbh, but if people are really like that maybe its best we just go extinct and let another species have a turn

t. Adam Smith

Production costs do increase because amortization of capital (machines degrade over time as it produces more) and scarcity of resources.

With the profit motive still in tact? Doubtful. People in first world still buy from companies that routinely treat 3rd worlders like slaves and support a government that bombs the fuck out of innocents.

sweat shops?

Assad's regime? Most people are against it hence the civil war.

child labour, diamond mines, etc. you name it
I was talkin bout 'Merica

Private property needs a state to take it away. Without a state, private property is naturally enforced

Neither of which really give a competitive advantage to smaller firms in the general case.

But that's the opposite of the truth.

blood diamonds, those are technically banned but some of them end up circulating in the black market
How is this slavery? Even I worked as a cild in a 1st world country.
Not many people support it either. That is why regimes keep shifting. However, two-party winner-take-all system prevents people from electing the members that they want (e.g. ballot rulers) - most people do not even bother voting.

Some are forced to with a gun held to their backs, if they're lucky they'll get a meager wage (wage slavery)

what exactly in an object's nature confers ownership to a person?

1. labor applied to it, or
2. transfer from previous owner, but most importantly:
2. recognition by society of ownership

Which companies are responsible? Why haven't watchdog groups notified the public?

(1) cannot be true since it would justify slavery and other absurdities. Furthermore, things that have existed prior to any claims of ownership can only be acquired temporarily.

you can't apply labor to a person who is enslaved especially since a persons skills are self-owned.
If I take ore and apply labor to it and it becomes a tool, I can only own it temporary?

Ha! If you have enough wealth to field and equip a private army security force, it is because you have a tremendously profitable business–the kind that people cannot just opt out of doing business with. You own other people's debt; you control critical resources; you own the land people live on; the livlihoods of hundreds of people are at the mercy of your whims. All you have to do is declare that you are innocent or that the murdered man violated some social taboo. Who is going to say otherwise?

Monopolies and mega corporations form into a type of dictatorship.

As long as you use it.

what if I want to sell it or rent it out?

Then you are no longer using it.

It's not necessarily companies, it's private operations that sell their resources to companies. Certain components in computers manufactured by mac and windows purchase these to use in their technology, for example. Although they can't determine where they came from, and that's a bad sign. I wouldn't risk it if it were me and my company, but then again, I wouldn't be a capitalist in the first place.

Not diamonds i mean, I mean raw materials collected by kids

It's not that ancapism will lead back to the state, it's the fact that ancaps are not against the state in the first place. They rather advocate a form of absolute dictatorship based on land ownership. Ancapism is really more a combination of the fusion of the state and the capitalist firm found in Stalinism and the divine right (or "natural right" as they'd call it) to rule based on land ownership from feudalism. It is a peculiar beast no doubt, but not anti-state.

It is more correct to call it propertarian absolutism than anything else.

By magic I presume.

How well did that work out with Leopold II?

What about "neo-feudalism"?

n1x's Anarchism FAQ is really good too. He essentially proves hoppean monarchism to naturally follow from Rothbard.

I don't think it will necessarily lead to the development of a state; I don't see any reason the police force couldn't be privatized.

It's more that the state in the real world is a tool of real world capitalists. Capitalists have no incentive to work towards the complete abolition the state because the precise function of the state is to impose private ownership over the means of production.

Why would capitalists want to pay the full price of protecting private property (ie private police) when instead they can just pay marginal taxes and outsource most of the cost of protecting their property onto the taxpayers.

The only circumstances I could see it arising under would be if some sort of decentralized currency became the standard, and the state fell for some sort of unrelated reason. Then perhaps the police and military would be bought out directly by capitalists and anarcho-capitalism would arise. It would be anarcho capitalism without the NAP though, because the NAP is juvenile and there would be no way to enforce it in a decentralized economy. So I guess just kind of like Mad Max.

Expensive for capitalists. Dead for the proletariat. Just a bad day for everyone all around.

Feels good mang.

link?

He was effectively the state and took away private property.

Excuse you, that was completely within his rights of the NAP since the land he owned, and therefore everything and everyone in it, was his private property. Respect muh property rights!

Hello, Holla Forums

Im an "anarcho-capitalist" in the sense that i believe we will live in a world without a state, and i will personally choose to engage in capitalism. I also believe others will choose to live in communes and I'm sure a lot of towns and cities will choose to run themselves just like anarcho-communists predict,( with various levels of success) I believe communes can work on a town or city level, the problem comes when you try to coordinate all these communes on a county or state level ( not to mention country wide, or a global scale, that's impossible.) . All these various communes will have their own interests, own problems , and own population to appease. Without a central system that has the power to coordinate resources and labor, every commune will look out for ITS interests , NOT the interests of the collective.

The moment a system can force a member commune to do something against their will, it becomes a state.(which obviously anarchists don't want) If all communes are allowed to keep their sovereignty and are able to negotiate freely, then these communes will no longer be what anarcho-communists envision. they would act more like corporations that negotiate with other entities, set up trade deals, and potentially engage in Markets.

The future is going to be a lot stranger than you think. in my world, communes will hire private companies to pave their roads.

But surely the efficient successful (capitalist) towns would invade the unproductive poor (communist) places?

that could happen. or the opposite can happen. i don't claim its going to be some utopia with no war or conflict, hell, there might even be authoritarian city states.

What would successful capitalist towns gain by doing that? why not just trade them for stuff and sip lemonade on your porch?

OR

It seems unlikely the opposite would happen.
The strong has always dominated the weak throughout history.
They might get really lazy like modern western society and destroy themselves with complacency but this takes a few generations.

They would get the land which the communist town is on which they can work much more efficiently themselves.
You cant buy food off people who struggle to feed themselves. You cant sell goods to people who are living hand to mouth.

This sounds pretty decent way to organize human relations. However, judging by how actually existing capitalism corporations work I find this scenario highly unlikely.

this assumes all communes will be unsuccessful or unproductive,i just dont think thats the case.

violent commune expansion could very well happen. lets say there's a 500 person anarcho communist town, and right next to it there's a small farmer who refuses to collectivise his farm. If enough people agreed, they could head right over to the poor bastards farm, kill him and his family, and take the farm. how about a 50,000 person anarcho communist city? they could definitely start expanding if they wanted to.

You cant buy food off people who struggle to feed themselves. You cant sell goods to people who are living hand to mouth.

i just don't see how you would convince enough individuals to go invade some shitty town, when your own town is already successful. not to mention people in your town would probably disown you if you did something like that.

OF COURSE this all depends on the people of whatever society you live in. if you live in a society that can justify violent expansion and taking peoples shit, then being capitalist or communist wont matter, they'll find an excuse to expand

Im just going off history.
The only true communes relied on being within a capitalist society for security and border defense.

Of course this time it might be different this time. But I remain skeptical.

I am presuming that the capitalist town employs a government and an army where the commune would not.

You can't personally "choose" to engage in capitalism on your own. Capitalism depends upon social interrelations on a larger scale. As a mode of production is fundamentally defined by the generalization of wage labour and therefore cannot function where the majority people are not separated from the means of production.

Here's a pertinent example from section 8 of Capital:

"First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative – the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.4 Mr. Peel, he moans, took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, “Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.”5 Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River!"

I still have a soft spot in my heart for Rawls despite now thinking he was quite wrong about about how a just society should be organised. To be honest, I still think there's a lot of good we can take from his work, despite being entirely anchored in the liberal tradition/kantian tradition.

Because capitalism needs to grow. It immediately begins to collapse when it stops growing, and growth takes the form of material things. If there are available resources in an accessible location, capitalism will attempt to expand and take them. It is an imperative built into the system.

Top lel. More likey they will throw you a triumph.

i've been an anarcho-capitalists/libertarian for about 6 years now, and i've never heard of someone "employing" a government or army. lol.I've always just envisioned it as individuals just sorting things out themselves. like militias for defense.

i would think communes would have a much more organised form of cooperation (small scale "consensus" sudo governments) and probably organised defense as well.

call it what you will. markets, mutualism, etc. i don't care about getting into definition battles.

although i CAN see how someone would CHOOSE to be exploited. lets say you live in a commune. you have a house, food, you dont pay rent, you work when you want, etc etc.you are not being exploited in any way. your town is not poor, or starving, however it doesn't have the commodities or "excitement" that other larger towns have. Now, lets say a capitalist company contacts you and says they want to employ you in exchange for X amount of currency, and with that currency, you can move to a capitalist city, and buy a large house with 5 rooms, 3 car garage, a pool, a cool sportscar, a motorcycle etc etc. Basically, a higher living standard than what your commune can provide.

would you stay in your commune or would you choose to be exploited? obviously the answer is not the same for everyone. but people will definitely choose to be exploited.

if the town next to you became communist, would your (capitalist) town immediately start planning to kill them?

don't be so dogmatic user.

If you did it like that then you would be just as weak as the commune.

When you rely on people to do something out of the goodness of their heart without any reward then people are going to let you down all the time. Its a self fueling problem. First a couple of people will decide its cold and they want to stay in bed. Then people will notice that and do the same.

being as weak as the commune would be fine if everyone is peaceful. having a standing army is just a waste of resources until a threat is identified.

Unless you have a third group that isnt weak which comes in and takes over both of the weak groups.

then we could negotiate a mutual defense treaty to beat the third group,

obviously there are tons of scenarios. some with good endings, some with bad, but i honestly think that's where we're heading.

...

If you combine two unreliable defense forces they dont make a reliable one. In fact you may end up with more people 'staying in bed' because they can just blame the other country.

Yeah that is why im Im trying to keep things general. I think its correct to say that in general a strong, motivated, well equipped and trained force will win over a weak, unmotivated amateur one. If the battlefield and numbers are relatively equal.

lets define this third group. obviously a large hostile group isn't going to appear overnight.

are they bandits? maybe some sort of authoritarian nazi types? maybe islamists?

i think there would be solutions to all of these, the first would be joint militias with several communities pitching in with resources and manpower. your assumptions that militias would be poorly trained isn't necessarily true. These communities could very well establish National guard like systems. in which people undergo basic military, and then meet up once a month to train and conduct exercises and maybe even built fortifications, outposts, etc. aswell setup some sort of reconnaissance and early warning system.

The second would be mercenaries. Now, i know, i know, whoever has the most money will just get mercenaries to fight for them and invade weak towns etc etc etc. i fully accept that there will be bad mercenaries. However, i also believe there will be good mercenaries. mercenaries with reputations, a good sense of whats right and wrong, and a customer base who will not deal with them if they are involved in any sort of malicious activity. Most mercenaries will fall on the good side (inshallah). These mercenaries will be used to support or train local militias , or be paid to eliminate bandit groups.

The third will be volunteers. Just like in Rojava, in the future, people will fight their own wars. they will fight for what they think is right, for what they believe in, and against what they believe is wrong. if a peaceful city is attacked by some crazy islamists or nazis, i would expect the news to spread instantly. In which case volunteers from all over the continent and world would flock to fight these bad actors. As Well as "crowdfunding" supplies and manpower from individuals, corporations, and other cities/ communities.

.

nazis were pretty libertarian economically

I was defining the third group as an equal town to the first two but with a basic capitalist system and a minimal amount of taxes to fund a professional army.

What I would say to the rest of your post is that every country in history who invaded another believed they had a good reason for doing it. Some people looked at it one way some looked at it another but ultimately the strong took over the weak every single time throughout history.

Corporations will become de facto governments. If you've worked in any store, office, etc. they have a form of a governing system and the most powerful corporation will inevitably find ways to create a state through its own system. This sounds dystopian like straight out of He, She, and It, but it has already happened when mining companies used to have their own settlements with their own laws and currency.

what if communes become de facto governments?

Why are there so many libertarians? It's moronic? They can't even see you kicked their ass in this very thread.
8ch.net/liberty/res/55538.html#55625

N…N-no, user…like this:

>>>/liberty/55625

Because all workforce's have access to this

not low skilled workers. but skilled workers such as mechanics, welders, electricians, HVAC technicians probably would.

These jobs would probably be even more highly paid if they had to compete with comunes.

because all of the work force is this

well if you're not, you can just stay on the commune. its ok m8.

Of course. They are driving up the cost of labor in our own town just by existing, and their trading system does not integrate with our own. On top of that, they do not recognize the little bits of paper that make our bosses the sole owners of nearby resources. They have to die before our own workers start to realize that our property deeds are just a justification for excluding them from the natural bounty of the land.

my sides

bookchin is pro zionism

he's a cancer

I'm a boss. I do not want to pay a lot for technicians. In fact, I want to pay as little as possible. How can I accomolish this? I know! I'll talk to the other bosses that employ the same kinds of technicians, if there are any. If all of us cut their wages at around the same time, then they will either have to accept it or starve.

But what if some of the other bosses decide they don't like money that much and refuse? Well, I'll show them! Me and the bosses who do want to cut wages for technicians will collude to take control of the resource extraction process that supplies our industry. Then, members of our group will get our resources at a lower rate which will decrease the profit margin of the moralist bosses. Then they will have to cut wages or lose market share.

Come to think of it, do I really need those technicians at all? For all the trouble that they are worth, I would be better off compartmentalizing their jobs and turning their functions into one that can be handled by cheap low-skilled workers and machines. It will cost a bit to implement, but the long-term profits will be worth it.

2dogmatic4me. pls go

lol, man commies suck at fighting.

I'm currently an HVAC technician, and i make north of 50k a year m8. thats impossible in today's world, and it will most certainly be unthinkable in a more decentralized world.

especially ones were communes exists and you can go work for them.

your "boss conspiracy" is a fucking spook.

Wow 50k aint shit moron.

You have absolutely no idea what "spook" means.

Are you under the impression that that is not what goes on right now? Are you really that completely blind to the world around you?

Right? That's less then starting wages in my career field. My wife already makes more than that, and she does not even have a bachelor's degree.

i just started last year and i live pretty comfy. what fucking lives do you fags live that you cant live off 50k a year? HVAC tops out at around 80, maybe 90 for some chief technicians at large commercial companies.

its called market value, there no large bosses getting together and colluding to drive down wages for a particular trade. its a spook because it doesn't exists, its a figment of your imagination.

im sure all the bosses got together and said "were gonna give burger flippers 7 dollars an hour". yeah. thats why i cant afford to buy a new gahming computer. fucking capitalists!

What fantasy world do you live in?

proofs?

also 50k is a lot of money. i thought commies were suppose to be working class. are you all actually secretly bourg? really makes you think

Plenty of people said it already but yeah, completely unchecked accumulation of private property leads to feudalism, possibly to kingdoms and empires.

jesus christ man even i know how class works.

That's not how it works, but that's what they effectivly do.

Since one of them does it and nobody protests, they all do it.

Also, you know they do have organisations that promote their internests and so on, right?

Anyway, I fail to see the point. "I make a lot of money, so why should I care?"
Well… Cause no matter how special you think you are, you are pretty replacable and once you are replaced, it's harder to get back up there in such a "specialized" market.

What, like taped conversations in board rooms? Or would you accept circumstantial evidence like how Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity all turned their sales departments into minimum wage jobs at the same time? Or how Boeing and Airbus both slashed machineists at the same time? Or maybe you would accept the obvious reason of why the fuck wouldn't they?

that's not "what they effectively do" you get paid 7$ an hour because anyone can do what you do

that wasn't my point. i believe there will a world where communist and capitalists cities exist together, and we were talking about a scenario where a person in a commune would willingly leave the commune to be exploited.

proofs. also just go live ina commune or at a better company.

talk about the most useless position ever. those jobs shouldn't even exists anymore.

Made more than that handling stock on a pallet back in the day.

"See's neet badge" nevermind don't you have a woman hate thread to make?

Slavery is not an absurdity at all. Immoral, sure, but a very naturally occurring phenomenon in human societies. You more or less confirmed his argument with that statement.

Yes it is. That is what they mean when they say that wages are set at "competitive rates." They base their wages off of one another.

So, fucking what? The economy stops moving when the people who do what anyone else can do stop doing it. Anyone can farm. Anyone can mine. Anyone can fix the street.

Is there any theoretical basis gor that assumption? There is a whole hell of a lot of theory that says that notion is an absurdity.

If you had done any travel shopping before that happened, then you would miss the salesmen. They knew what it was they were putting together. They knew which hotels were good and which were shitty regardless of star ratings. They knew how to find bargain packages. They could tell you when the reason that your room was so cheap was that you were going to be staying in an off-site annex. They knew what kind of aircraft you would be flying in–whether it was a nice, comfortable A320 or a turboprop puddle jumper. They understood seating configurations and how old the aircraft in a given fleet were. They knew how far apart terminals at DFW were and that the cost of flying into John Wayne instead of LAX was made up for by the cost of L.A. cab fare.

They were pros, and they got really good at what they did. After the switch, the only people you could talk to were minimum-waged guys who were in and out of the profession before they knew anything more than how to help you navigate their website. Now customers are on their own, and any vacation they put together is a crapshoot.

Ancapism in a nutshell

Any system that claims to uphold the sovereignty of the individual cannot, at the same time, allow for slavery.

It will happen, but the difference is is that corporations are set up in a way that has hierarchy whereas communes are decentralized. Most anarchists don't want absence of government, they want absence of a centralized state.

See, this is econ 100 material. Libertarians are in my experience economically and historically illiterate.

Wow, you're making less than the mean GDP per capita in America for doing a dirty and injury-prone job hardly anyone wants to do. I salute you. Capitalism has done you a real service and you're a winner! There can't possibly be a better system, you couldn't have kept more of your earnings under socialism where you would control your own means of production, so let's stop thinking and be happy. /s

Mercenaries don't work and lead to instability, violence , and bribes for phony wars. Read about how they ruined 12th century Italy.

Communes do have hierarchy (e.g. kibutzim, muzhiks, and hippy communes).

not an argument
but making higher than the median GDP per capita

No thanks.

Perhaps the proof is the fact that employers organizations exist pretty much all over the world to cooperate against the interests of labour. This isn't some big secret.

"Good mercenaries"

Technically it can, if one owns themselves then they can also sell themselves. Likewise, if someone were to accrue giant debts with unforgiving loaners and it might be that the ownership of their self has to be handed over to try and cover the loaner's losses. It sounds terrible, yes, but it is a way that slavery could be allowed for in an an-cap system. If you own yourself, you can sell or barter with yourself.

STANDING

Hierarchy itself is impossible to remove from society, but it can be reduced to the absolutely necessary. A communes hierarchy is elected and can be replaced in a moments notice, a firms hierarchy is absolute and unchangeable

What are you talking about? Did you reply to the wrong post or something?

I was talking about how you refuted him with the Boeing and Airbus example of a duopoly that skirts the anti-trust law because game theory let's them agree to not complete wothoit even talking to one another. I learned that example in my first economics course at college. Libertarians generally lack basic economic knowledge and don't know much economic history, and they shun the objective and verifiable facts and try to fit all news into reductive narratives, like that most everything is the fault of the governmemt.

Ah, got it.

Big Boss did nothing wrong.

Because anarcho communism needs private property to not exist, which needs enforcement by a state to not exist. Pretty basic stuff.

We know that.

...

This would imply that property is a natural right

You're either too stupid or you just don't care. I believe it's the former. Educate yourself on child labor before you try to minimize its impact. You're fucking disgusting.

its not utopian at all. its going to be a very scary time with warring city states and all other sorts of crazy factions and shit m8.

go outside right now and start selling lemonade. post back when a large corporation moves next to you and runs you out of business. ill wait.

"rights" are not natural. However, "property" is. Animals establish territories, even going as far as to mark them. really makes u think.

The single thing I regret most in my life was not saving that image that pointed out how retarded this analogy is.

There is no such thing as a landlord bear who rents access to his territory out to other bears.

now drink petrol you swine.

why does that giant plum cake look like bernie sanders?

here m7

bonus one for thread theme.

You mean like a grocery store? Convenience store franchises? Those already exist.

but really those kinds of landlord relationships do exist in nature. just not in agressive anti-social predators like bears.

Like what? Ants farming aphids?

You're just moving the goal post. property is natural, what humans do with it is always unnatural. ala, there are also no bears getting together with other bears to seize the means of blueberries and redistribute them among the bear masses.

this guy gets it.

see:wolves

geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
Reminder

i didn't read any of this. pls respond with typing. no copy paste either.

because there are no bears to define property rights as such

the wolf example is retarded because #1 you don't know anything about wolves other than pop culture memes so eat shit and #2 a dominance hierarchy is not property.

I knew you were a furry. all socialists are.

i never said anything about "property rights" m8. All i said is that the concept of property is natural. calm down.

A division of spoils is not property.

Why are humans beyon nature and how even is a symbolic concept part of an unsignifying order?

That's just "I'z da biggest, an dat makes be da boss uh you gitz!"

if i was angry that anger would be natural :^🍀🍀🍀

This idea of land being owned because someone years ago stated "keepsies" and being able to force people to pay whatever you want to use it is ridiculous. In your wolf example, "property" is used communally between the pack. You did not make the earth and no one sold it to you.

it is however, theft of labor and exploitation

also see: Lion prides. The females hunt and the alpha lion just eats most of the time.

the original argument was basically

then

in both these scenarios a force is required to decide what can or what can not be done to land. Communism is just a group of people enforcing their will on a piece of land and deciding its "communal" or "public" "property" or land ( for the lack of a better word.)

property is universal.

no one sold the land to you and your hippy friends either m8. you're no better than capitalists.

Private property is not thr only way to steal the product of human labor. It is just the most prevalent, the most efficiet, and the most commonly accepted. Hitting somebody with a stick until they do what you want works too.

That is why were trying to distribute the use of it because no one really owns it

read papi

You and your friends own the land in that scenario.

A state is required to enforce private property. A state is not necessary to obtain personal property, only human labor.

That was the original argument between other anons. i don't believe the state is necessary for either of those 2 things.

only the resources to protect it are.

you don't even have to enforce it in the long term since the desire to take control fades somewhat and it becomes a question of "yeah but what if one guy wants to be a cunt?" (and often even then "just ignore him until he does something stupid like waving a gun around")

consider how few people are credibly considered feudal lords under capitalism.

You cannot have that without a state. As soon as you have so much wealth to pay armed men to force your workers to respect your property deed you have created a feudal state with yourself as the king.

no m8. it doesn't. and you cant prove it does either. you really haven't thought this through enough. i bet you've never even wondered what would happen if a large group of people decide to split off and become their own collective. or what happens when collectives don't get along or cant organize themselves without turning into sudo-corporations when negotiating trade deals. you just havent seen it yet m8.

as soon as you have enough men to stop people from owning property you have created a communist state.

even a group of farmers getting together to protect their crops can be defined as a state. cmon m8.

ah yes, that's why there are so many self-declared kings and lords lying around, because the natural desire for feudalism simply never faded…

cmon m8

Well, the state, government, authority, and power structures in general arose from anarchy in the first place.

to me, the more difficult question seems to be, if anarchy were to be established (or rather, reestablished) what exactly would be preventing these power structures to rise again?

open question to all anarchists here.

people still ought to be trying to re-establish the previous mode of production if it would benefit them personally.

Source? I've never heard of Bookchin praising Zionism/Israel, including after he made the switch to communalism.

Quite simple really. If there's no restraint on private accumulation, over time a few will wind up with way more then everyone else. Once they do, those people will inevitably make themselves the state. Not only will they want to impose their rules on everyone else to aid in their further accumulation, they will believe they have been proven superior individuals and have earned the right to rule over everyone else due to their greater success at wealth accumulation.

All it will do is set us back hundreds of years to the time of kings, and the people will have to start all over again from square one, fighting to bring the state under some kind of democratic control.

why would they do that when becoming a police officer or politician would be so much easy?

how about becoming a communist party member!

oh oh, how about becoming syndicate representative?

what about a commune leader?

There is no need to stop anyone from claiming private property, because they simply cannot do so without a state. You may say "this is mine, and everyone who wants to use it must pay me," but without a state to enforce that claim everyone else will just respond with "fuck you" and use it without paying you anyway.

...

I am a communist, but I thjnk that I can answer that. The anarchy that will be achieved after capitalism will not utilize the same mode of production that pre-slave state anarchy did. People only abandoned anarchy when agriculture allowed societies to overcome the scarsity that limited human growth, thus raising the carrying capacity of the land. With a post-capitalist anarchist society, which would already be post-scarsity, there would be no motivation to recreate class divisions. In short, moving on from primative anarchy was a survival tool for early humans that would not be necessary for industrialized humans.

You may say "this is no ones! and everyone who wants to claim it is not allowed!" but without a state to enforce that threat everyone else will just respond with "fuck you" and claim stuff as their property anyway.

im so sorry

when did i say that? communism will fail because it doesn't work on a global scale.(not that it will ever get that far)

only after the threat of force against private property is gone, will capitalism return.

*it's technically accurate in that the profit would basically be null because capitalism would be outmoded and it would be as profitable as re-establishing feudalism now - but that's clearly not what you're saying.

first, you have to prove your system works. The soviets failed, and look at them now.

The USSR was state captialism

Most of the arguments you seem to be making also seem to contradict anarcho-capitalism as anyone in an ancap society can also just say "Hey, this is mine now, if you disagree take it up with a private court that no one has to listen to and with law enforcement I can fight off with my own"

How about you prove ancap works?

It's in the interests of corporations to have a strong and reliable state to enforce standardized, clear and reliable property rights and rules. Corporations are basically mini-states that don't give a shit about actually ruling anything not relevant to the bottom line. That's outsourced to the state

God, Rothbard looks like such a fucking dweeb.

Marx looks like some Darwin wannabee.

you sure showed him

I generally agree that is usually the case, but for the sake of rigor I would point out that there are privately held corporations that can care about things other than profit and efficiency at all costs. Those corporations are rare and still often selfish, while serving the desires of the owners who are not usually in alignment with the other classes. Corporations do sometimes do some philanthropy if it suits the desires of the owners, or PR, or they might donate money to fight Prop 8/gay rights. Even though it does not help them financially, because the owners are religious bigots.

Already done by Cospaia and Moresnet

Hierarchies did form naturally under communes

Lions are provided food from lionesses. All the lion provides is prevention of rival males entering the territory and killing cubs that are not his to speed up ovulation in his harem.

That was the point of my post. Hierarchy will always exist in some form or another, but it must be made legitimate. I have no qualms against voting for somebody I think has the chops to be overseer of x service. Society needs a certain structuring, why not make it responsive to what humanity desires?

also
this is what Marx warned us about.
But if we must compare anecdotal evidence of individual hippie experiments, here
abcnews.go.com/Business/oldest-hippie-commune-alive/story?id=17836147
there are others as well, but you know
anecdote and all

Capitalism needs a state to defend property.

communism needs a state to make sure no one can claim property.

Wrong.

Even the idea of NAP is ridiculously absurd because there's no clear line at which violence starts, I mean the NAP basically means "don't start shit with others", everyone knows this without even giving it a name, but I found it weird that they had to make it into an actual principle , until I realized it's sole purpose is to give a pass to private property as well.

True. Then again, that's not the relevant point. What I was pointing out was that corporations usually have no sense of territoriality: they have no inclination to actually rule anything anything.

Of course, this is more complicated than it first seems. Corporations are mini-states unto themselves, in that they make their own laws, have their own security forces, have their own founding myths and rulers, within a given space of movement allowed to them by the state.

I would say this is also why anarcho-capitalism is so shit: the current state actually keeps corporations back in how exploitative and controlling they can be to their employees. So, even if I was wrong about corporations liking a state better than ruling themselves, you would just see an oligopoly of mini-states arising which would be infinitely more shit than the state we have now (in the West). It would probably be a bit like that game Syndicate, in all seriousness, where oligopolies consolidate their own territory and private armies.

>small states prove that "anarcho"-capitalism works
…and none of them exist now. Try to elaborate your argument.

"Claiming" property does not do shit unless you have guys with clubs and guns who make it yours. Property requires force. The lack of property does not.

Neither of them were states and they lasted for centuries.

Except people do not view them with the sane level of legitimacy.

How so? Decentralization worked great for Switzerland. Small states like Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, San Marino, Andorra, Hong Kong, and Macau have high standards of living.

Three things. First, bullshit they don't. Corporations control territory, field men at arms, claim property, and are recognized legally both by other corporations and by states.

Secondly, they way people view things has no bearing on how things actually are. A corporation fits the definition of a state. It doesn't matter if people think that it is a purple banana.

Thirdly, legitimacy does not mean shit apart from the plain fact that people reify an imaginary concept.

You look at lines on a map and think of those places as seperate entities detached from a common economic system when that is not the case. When we are talking about economics, it makes no sense to seperate Singapore from Malaysia or Hong Kong from China or Switzerland from the rest of Europe. States do not create solid economic borders.

But not by the populace.

How so? A corporation cannot exist without a state because it is, according to wiki, "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity".

I do not separate them. Decentralization does not mean isolation. There is just a trend where the less authoritarian a state is, the better the country is on economic factors such HDI, gini index, and PPP per capita.

Because a corporate entity with its own army, territory, laws, subjects, and no higher authority is a fucking state.