How do you prevent Capitalists from making a profit in an anarcho-Communist society?

Gee, I fucking wonder…

what makes you think that everything would be free in an anarchy?

Most anarchists don't actually talk about it much, but yeah, it's possible.

Nothing about anarchist theory actually says an anarchist society couldn't also be authoritarian.

Are we talking about Star Trek land where you can make food out of air?

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.

Why wouldn't it be?

How would a capitalist exist without a state, money, or markets? No one would want to work for a wage anyway since it would no longer be needed.

define "free"

I really hope you ain't talking money, pal.

...

free as in the same sense as the person I was replying to used it: not having to work for products because you can get them for free

I'll just go collect my free car from the Free Car Lot then drive to the Free Gas Station and fuel up with free gas and then drive around for a while. Also, remember, nobody organized any of this. The people that built the car and maintained the lot and refined the fuel and transported it to the gas station and everything that goes into that all apparently did it without personal incentives (i.e., a paycheck)

being obligated to people and social is not the same as being forced into obligation by a crowdfunded military.

*people and society

who said that?
anarchy just means you don't work for money.

There really isn't. So long as the authoritarian rules are brought up democratically, nothing about anarchist theory actually disagrees with the idea. It's just you kind of hope that doesn't need to come about.

this guy:

marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1926/05/neither.htm
The fact that Malatesta isn't read here is a damn shame.

that's not what that word means

Wouldn't that just be communism then? Anarchism is stateless socialism, there can still be exchanges based on labour and contributing to the commune until we get far along enough to reach post-scarcity enough to enact some sort of gift economy. In essence, perhaps things won't be completely free, because they will require some amount of labour, but at least you won't be working 5 years of your life to pay off a car, the costs will be reduced drastically when the profit motive is eliminated.

how do you make a profit off of that you fucking idiot

lol you got im

he obviously meant the opposite, but nice catch

What do you think Anarchism is?

Interesting as that is, it's also self-contradictory and in a fairly short space of text.

pretty sure it's a joke.

what does that matter? the original anarchist theorists from the 19th century don't give a fuck what "the word means".

Excuse me, this kind sir would like to have a word with you…

How do you get people to go to work in a moneyless society?

Why do you even use that flag?

Considering that people worked without money for the vast majority of human existence i'd say it could still happen.

How did people work in primitive communism, slavery and feudalism?

It would fail like socialism today. The reason why socialist countries become shit is because most of the resources are under the control of the capitalist system. Any country that doesn't abide by it will quickly be at a great disadvantage. If communism was the dominant system, and most of the resources are communally own, the expansion of capitalism will be very limited. It would end up failing due to the lack of goods.

You're a faggot, that's how.

Because I find whenever I find an ideology I like I start changing my opinions to fit in with other people who rep that ideology then later come to decide I was right the first time so have a hard time sticking with any ideology. While since NazBol has like no real definition or theory I can just project whatever ideas I want onto that flag.

I see.
So what I should be asking instead is how do we get people who are used to only working in order to buy stuff to start working just because it needs doing? How do we deprogram people of capitalist economic sensibilities?

Absent a state workers will just seize the business and the capitalists can't call on the state to get it back.

IMO we begin with labor vouchers and co-ops.

Very carefully.

Crypto-ancap needs a state for its market.

We advocate doing it for a higher standard of living and less hours. Consider the bullshit in your job, imagine cutting that out and splitting work more efficently so that a 4 hour a day 4 days a week workweek is possible.

they weren't original anything, they were commies hijacking a word

Please do not bully our comrades.
Literally how?

"Communism" is a hijacked word.
seriously what is your point?

I get that, that's why I think that kind of economy would be better. But for someone with the attitude of
I'm not entirely sure how to answer. It makes sense to me. But my friend raised this objection the other day and I wasn't sure what answer I could give that wasn't
Or

says the guy whose whole movement was coined by an anarchist

You better not be trying to suggest the first anarchists were ancaps.

my point hasn't changed from the simple sentence that you first replied to:

ancaps have a much better guess as to what a modern society with no rulers would look like than ancoms do

but frankly, both of the words "ancap" and "ancom" are silly. Anarchy is just anarchy, and one person doesn't get to decide what flavor it's going to be

Capitalists aren't my comrades, mutualists need to be driven off along with other marksuccs and that recent stalinfag.
Markets, property, and capitalism would collapse without the state enforcing them. Mutualism runs into this with labor vouchers.

The jury duty is a decent enough answer for normies. Tell your friend you work for similar reasons and stress that reduction of work with ultimate abolition in mind is the goal.

Ancaps don't want a society without rulers.

I strongly disagree but whatever.

It does however need to be asked what exactly "no rulers" entails. Ancoms (and most anarchists) consider capitalists to be a kind of ruler. Ancaps consider democracy to be a kind of rulership to which a person is subjugated.

Of course "anarchy is just anarchy" but you need to ask what that means.

You start by decrying faith-based currency as simply an extra unnecessary step in obtaining what is needed in their lives. From there, through jolly cooperation we create a world where we all can have a home with all the necessities, sustainable production of food/access to water and always available heath care. From there people should start to understand that we should produce only the things we need and build from there.

You mean how everyone will defiantly respect the NAP while people own their own plot of land with their own serfs under them thinking the same wage slave shit of "someday, I'll be a boss!" as today?

Paper money is just a middleman for goods

You can still make a profit in a trade economy.

How are they capitalists? They don't profit from surplus labour.
The markets are founded on the community, private property is eliminated and the MoP belongs to the workers, and the labour vouchers are destroyed upon use so capital accumulation can't occur. This isn't capitalism. I still think ancom is a superior system and I still see flaws with mutualism, such as production for exchange instead of use; but calling them capitalist is dishonest.

I agree with this. But neither do ancoms. A communism requires a lot of rules to function, so obviously there would need to be some sort of authority enforcing said rules.

I'm not an ancap, so I'm not going to get wrangled into defending their philosophy further than to say that in a society with no rulers it's more likely that private security agencies would emerge to help individuals secure their safety and property than that everybody would come together to form a moneyless commune in which everything was free and there were somehow some kind of rules in place (despite there being no rulers) that prevent a person from hiring another person

The idea that individuals would voluntarily respect the NAP is a straw man. The NAP is an idea of what is moral, not how everyone will magically behave. If you try to design a government that doesn't break the NAP you quickly realize that it's not possible. But that doesn't mean that in an absence of a government that individuals would adhere to it.

a commons never required rules in all of history.

So it's just objective morality reworded?

and that's why we have capitalism?

without rules to stop it, people own property and hire one another

not really.
youtu.be/lwaNZgY9PCQ

Rulers are needed to enforce property rights. That's why capitalism requires a state.

Actually we have capitalism because the government aggressively privatized the commons and moved peasants into hellish cities by force.

The idea that capitalism is a peaceful development is a total myth.

I suspect that a lot of people that adhere to the NAP -do- think that their opinion of morality is objective. I know Stefan Molyneux does.

But there are people that think that morality is objective that don't think the NAP is the final word.

So, no, objective morality and the NAP aren't really the same thing.

Not really. People would protect their homes and their possessions whether there was a state or not. You don't need a ruler, if you've got a fence and a gun.

I'm not talking about homes and possessions, i was talking about private property which requires a state.

Go ahead: try to enforce anti-capitalism laws without authority figures.

How does that shit even work in *theory*?

Here's what you're missing though. Claiming property rights is itself an act of force.

This is the thing, whoever is claiming the land within the fence with the threat of his gun IS a ruler.

it's the same thing

...

meant for

a king ruling over his peasants isn't the same thing as a family protecting their COMMON property

ok? I was just replying to the idea that a state is required to own property. It isn't. An individual can do it.

No it isn't. A home that someone lives in is not the same as a factory where workers labor for a wage while someone who doesn't work there makes profits.

you're the first person to mention kings and peasants, so I'm not sure what your point is

It's not, you're talking about personal property.

sure it is, if I build a factory it's my factory

And why can't an individual be a state?

or capitalists and proles? whatever you want dude.

it's the same thing

Workers build factories, not capitalists.

Personal property can't be used to extract surplus value.

yeah if I build a city by myself it's my city
we can bullshit these hypotheticals all day.

wouldn't a farm be an example of exactly that?

if it's rules but a capitalist, sure.

by a capitalist

only if the farm isn't common property of the workers.

anyway, I've gotta go afk

the point is, if you're going to define what a person can and can't own, whether it's because at some magical point it ceases to "personal property" and is instead "private property" or because a man locking the door to his home is in some roundabout way a tyrant, then there are rules to your society that go beyond what could be considered an anarchy

You're not really getting what he was saying. Your home and everything in it is personal property and is your right (inb4 spookbusters barge in), but having a area you hold in order to encourage having people labor for you makes you you're own ruler protecting that private property.

If you are working with other workers for each other yes, if you are working for yourself to give to your family no.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no laws" - it means "no rulers".

If you think anarchy is just lawless chaos you haven't even read the wikipedia article on anarchism.

why would anyone want to live in a society where they "can't" make an agreement to exchange things?

Shoot them lol

Why would anyone want to live in a society where their surplus value jas to be taken from them to live?

I don't know but I do know that is definitely not an inverse of what I just asked

While this is true, it shouldn't be relied on as a cop out. A society with no rulers might end up with a de facto rule of "don't steal horses" if horse thieves almost always end up getting hanged. But that doesn't mean that it's good enough for me to say "I'm an an-cupcake, because in an anarchy everybody has to give me cupcakes for freeeeee! There's no governing body that makes them, they just do it because that's the rule!" If a rule is going to come about bereft of a ruler there should be some way to posit how that rule would be formed. And this is why I say that ancaps have a more realistic vision of anarchy than ancoms do. The rules that ancaps posit match the values that we observe people to have in a democracy: people own what is theirs, that they have earned, and what other people around them recognize to be fairly theirs. Whereas in ancom theory you get this hand-wavey bullshit about some property being allowed and some not, based on how the owner has come to own it, or what they choose to do with it. Going back to the example of a farm, someone in this thread said it would not be okay to have a surplus and use that surplus to better yourself or your family. Well that's an interesting idea, but there is no reason to believe that any society would support it any more than they would support showering me with free cupcakes. It's not a value we observe in democracy, so why would anybody assume that a stateless society would come together and have rules about how much a farm is allowed to produce?

Because they're born in it. One doesn't get to pick.

Like in USSR there was no money right?

sometime I wonder if people that advocate a society without money or private property are just retarded or in a full shilling spree

Gulags

You need to read a bit of history my friend.

They were forced to work by the tribe or they would not eat.

They were forced to work by the slave owners.

They were forced by the lords.

???

With what capital are you going to start "a business"? How are you gonna sell your services for money without a centralized state issuing money and forcing people to use it?
Are you one of those retards who believe capitalists build offices and factories from scratch and by themselves?

you cant be really that stupid, user

it is a proved fact in the countries that tried basic income that people are more proclive to find jobs, innovate and even start their very own business
why?

it helps not being depressed cause if you fail sick to your shitty replaceable job for one week you will not eat that month
it helps knowing that you will receive money despite looking for a job or trying to get into a shitty job that will kill your unemployment money

cmon guise

With any surplus that results from your activities. Even if you assume that we're talking about a small society of subsistence farmers, some will be better at it than others.

By bartering with goods. Or maybe even trading precious metals. It's not like it's beyond humans to figure something this simple out without a government printing paper with pictures of people's faces on it.

Nobody believes this.

OP posed a simple enough question. I'm not sure why nobody in this thread is able to respond to it directly instead of lobbing in childish questions.

A communism requires a lot of rules to function. Rules about what you can and can't do, and rules about what you can and can't own. In an anarchy there are no rulers. So how do the rules necessary to make the communism come about, and how are they enforced?

Say what you will about ancaps they're charmingly misguided but at least they explain how they believe the institutions that will enforce their vision of property rights would be formed.

with what money?

what is having needs

my power

There are regions in Africa that still use cows as currency. And some people still manage to be much wealthier than others. A governing body issuing currency is NOT a necessity for either wealth or capital. It just makes trading a lot more convenient.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that poster is talking about an actual modern society with a complex chain of supply for goods. "Having needs" is a great motivator for a hungry person to grow food, but it falls short of motivating and organizing the thousands of people that it takes to design and manufacture automobiles, computers, etc

Care to expand on this?

If they suffer enough pain under capitalist dicatorship they will deprogram themselves just to avoid the terror of wageslavery

what could go wrong?

To do that, you'll need to have instituted private property, which is abolished under communism. That's exactly what was needed to form class societies when we first experienced agriculture.

agriculture was common property before the enclosure movement

nothing, 80% of current jobs are unneeded.

...

Agriculture was the main contributing factor that made civilization possible, and with it, instituted laws and class society.

"no"

Abolished by whom? Some kind of… ruler?

...

How do you come to that conclusion?

comrades we have acheived glory of communism!

...

Because that's usually who abolishes things. If there is nobody to abolish it, then it hasn't really been abolished. People can keep doing it.

I'm interested in how you'd make us not profit off your high time preference for wealth.
Give us a few years, and we'll make Jews seem powerless and non-nepotistic in comparison.

so it migh take a day or two, dont be a statist

Please stop being absurd.

It is people that build roads, but they have to be organized in some way. Whether through government or a business. If there is no government, and people aren't allowed to own "private property" then the society isn't going to have any oil refineries. They don't just sprout up on their own.

...

Isn't the entire point of anarchy to organise in non-hierarchical manner?

somalia in
3
2
1

That isn't absurd, it's the topic of the thread and it has yet to be answered.

What is the mechanism through which things are abolished in an anarcho-communist society?

isnt the entire point of magic to do things that arent possible?

private property ceases to exist without a state, how is this hard to understand?

this is what ancoms actually believe, top kek

no, they work as little as possible and only because it's absolutely necessary, whether it's some boss-figure barking orders in military, economical poverty forcing into wage slavery or appeasing a spontaneous desire. i mean how do you even function self-consciously if you think everything people do is the result of some order?

Because nobody has yet to say why they believe that to be true.

When I say agriculture, I obviously mean farming, which allowed for a surplus of population to remain in a group without the need of splitting off because of scarcity. This ment that the groups would begin to employ a diversity of activities, which would lay the foundations for a civilization.

Tell me if I'm wrong here, because the cradle of civilization happened around fertile areas, alongside large rivers.

territory and assets require military protection if they're in a hand of one person

How will anarcho society work: the thread
tl:dr;

When people during a crisis start to produce for need. This kills the capitalism.

no, you just get Mad Max and OCP from robocop

why are you even here if you don't believe in magic

Not really. Unless hiring security guards counts as a military. But even if it does, that doesn't mean that people couldn't do it in an anarchy.

Let's not drift too far away from what we're talking about here. If no authority has abolished the right of a person to own as much as they please, individuals will find ways to own as much as they like and find ways to secure it, with or without a state.

Moreover, how do you presume to carry out functions such as courts and protection from capitalist imperialism?
Even if by some divine intervention you managed to force us out of society (good fucking luck lmao), you can't effectively prevent us from taking power in an anarchistic society.

People will have all the resources they need so they won’t need to buy stuff. Also people won’t be lazy so they won’t need other people to do labor for them.

1) if everyone will only do the minimum youll have a problem
2) you wont be allowed to tell them to work
3) people today work because theres no saftey net if they dont, and if there is, its alot less preferable to just working

put your ancap flag on

what authority? did you even read stirner? it's not a matter of some legal abolishment, might makes right, porky has to be expected and gulag'd, every society has its criminals. enterpreneurs are the thieves of socialism

so you expect people to self-organise without forming a market-based society

So people will not be lazy if they are given goods for free?
Are you assuming that your average basement NEET will get up and work if only you pump a bit more of the workers' money into him?

I don't wear the ancap flag because I'm not an ancap, but in a discussion about anarcho-communism the elephant in the room is the question posed by OP, to which nobody has given an adequate response.

Ok, so we've established what the mechanism ISN'T.

But what IS the way that private property is abolished?

...

If you're hungry do you go make yourself something to eat or do you pay someone to forcefeed you after 8 hours of work forcefeeding people who pay you to do it

What reason do you have to think that people would no longer be interested in selling their labor? That's not something observed in any other society of free individuals.

they only do it to further their own interests

it's an ancap post alright

with courts?
I get the feeling you don't understand what that means to some
So you just want to seize power for yourself? Truly """""an""""""""cap

You are making the assumption that there would be any capitalists left alive to make a profit.

I'm replying to myself, because I want to expand on this:

So far, from what I see, the conversation can be summed up like this:

Right, that's why people sell their labor in this society, and that's why people would sell their labor in an anarchist society.

What eliminates the profit motive? What will make people stop wanting to have more things than other people?

If there's a gift economy, there must be private property by the way.

selling is just a mode of profiting, if a more efficient solution is present it will be picked instead

The right question to ask is why people (supposedly) want more things than other people? The answer is social hierarchy, it's abolishment will remove the need for status trinkets

How do you abolish social hierarchy?

There are people you like talking to and people you don't, people you do favors for and people you don't, people you like fucking and people you don't. Is that all because of capitalism?

when a baseless impossible claim is presented the discussion ends, what's so confusing? I have yet to see one fucking valid way ancap would be able to do that without a state at their back

it's not hierarchy, social hierarchy emerges when people you like get more power than you

My good man, where can I find proof of this? Not for myself of course but rather for libertardians who believe capitalism is a peaceful endeavor

history.com/topics/industrial-revolution

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

...

Friendly repub back telling you to consider slitting your throat you edgy fuck. Maybe you should all accept that anarcho communism is not only an ideology for those that have no idea how economy even works but isn't even real anarchy.

Clever B8 friend
But you'll have to get up earlier in the morning if you want to ruse me ;^)

More popular people do get more power than you.

Well liked people can ask for favors, influence opinions more easily, demand more without causing resentment, and procure from others the social goods of human existence. In a communal society based on group decision making, where you negotiate for everything you receive and where student government types assign shitty jobs to people they hate, being liked is everything. In such a society there is only social differentiation.

With all due honesty I do think stateless communism is bullshit as well, at least when it's phrased that way. Literally "don't call it a state" kinda thing which leaves it all to idle semantics.

Intended for

Fuck off big government shill.

Sit down and be honest with yourself. Do you REALLY believe this shit? The idea of the ideology makes absolutely no sense even if you put it on paper. It contradicts the very meaning of itself.

Can someone please help me understand this topic.

I understand that private property is required for profit, as private property is used in order to employ wage labour.

1. Why is the state required to protect private property? Why can this not be done via private security forces?
2. Isn't there some ambiguity as to what counts as private and personal property? What of the farm one owns not only to feed himself but his extended family, too? However of course he does not employ wage labour on it. Is this personal or private?

3. What's this business about law in anarchist society? From this thread, I understand anarchist society to be run by democratic councils of workers. But isn't that also a form of government, the rule of the democracy? What do the classical anarchists have to say about this matter?

So if I understand enclosure correctly, it belonged to everyone before (common land) and then someone decided it belonged to them exclusively and the government just okayed it? Am I understanding correctly? Because not even the old "legitimately obtained" argument works on this

catalonia

catalonia

I do not aim for communal society though, but a complete dissolution of society and maximum reduction of all direct human interaction, to the point of eschewing all form of identity and social recognition. Everybody will be nobody equally, this is my ideal of anarchist society.

I actually believe quite the oppisite. I believe a limited government that's duty are solely to manage and fund military and national security.

What makes you want that, friend?

user please!
I understand your lack of understanding hinders your ability to form a decent critique,
but if you feel you can't criticize, just don't.
Or you end up looking the fool like in this post.

Instead of trying to frame this up as an ancap vs ancom slapfight, let's just think of it as all one thing: anarchy. It means no rulers, then we try and figure out what would happen from there.

So, without any state authority the rules of the society will come up organically. We can assume that people will want to secure their own safety and the resources necessary to their life, because that's what people do. We like to be able to eat, have a safe place to sleep, be able to raise families, etc. And in securing the necessities of life people may also choose to secure a few luxuries. Securing things will be a THING. You might do it with a fence, you might do it with a gun. But people will have an idea of what belongs to them, and what doesn't, whether there is a state present or not.

Humans aren't like dogs, we understand the abstract concept of ownership. A dog only really owns a bone if it happens to be in his mouth, but humans aren't like that. We know when something is or isn't ours, and even though someone might like to steal it, it's not complicated to take a few simple measures to prevent that. There is no magical line between personal property and private property, and even if their was the majority of people don't recognize it. An individual can take measures to secure his home, his farm, or, yes, even his business/mill/factory/refinery/etc

Could an individual be stopped from owning and securing those sorts of things? Sure, by a government, or some sort of authority. But, how, in an anarchy, would they be stopped from doing so?

Why would you want to? I have the right to the fruits of my labour.

What is there not to want, I ask you instead? There are no benefits to identity, it is a shackle, a false ego, a final oppresion to disperse. Without it people are free to follow their desires, shitpost whatever they want without consideration of their future standing in society. It is the future you too want, since you have choosen anonymous imageboard over reddit and facebook.

CATALONIA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune

Start reading for fucks sake. Thats why you're so unintelligent, retarded. Work on that brain.

and I have the right to sell my labor

you have the full right to be a cuckold porn actor also, but don't be astonished when humanity does not walk lock step with you into this endeavor.

user… do you think people would magically stop producing stuff with the abundant means of production? The one way to abolish capitalism is by abolishing commodity production, and start centering society around production for needs instead, This will secure the existence of all people living in it, meaning that no one has the need to defend themselves from orcs because they have all their needs and maybe some wants given to them at a moment's notice, since the means of production is no longer hoarded by an elite few.

1. A plot of land protected by a private military is essentially just a privately owned state
2. That's personal, the line between personal property and private property is in a word rent. If I own 3 houses and use one but rent 2, the other 2 become private property. I can't logically occupy 3 houses at once. Similar concept, if you're not exploiting the labor of others there's no problem
3. I do not know

Agreed. Can we trade for our mutual benefit?

Except hes got some cigarettes I want in return for some bread he wants. Why would anyone have any issue with this?

To add a point that addresses an unaddressed issue: hierarchies, governance and organization is not a problem because the hierarchies post-classlessness are justified

They way we do stuff does not emerge organically, it has to be invented - for better or for worse. It actually requires some forethought and trial/error if reemergence of previous pathological orders is to be avoided

No, I would kill you to prevent it.

Relationships make life worth living for almost everybody who thinks life is worth living.

The end of language and identity is the end of narrative, the impossibility of living coherently or succeeding at anything. Everything would become dissipation, and people could not express or understand any agony they have. Societies would also be far less capable of responding to problems. If you want to be nothing more than a rat pulling a cocaine lever then I feel bad for you.

or you could get your own cigarettes?
also exchange=/=capitalism

If this were how things worked, there'd be no more Communists

I wish I could make all anarkiddies respond to this.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this question. Could you provide a scenario? Like, are you asking if I think that workers would keep reporting for duty at an oil refinery if nobody paid them to?

Marx didn't think so back when people exchanged gold.

I want so fucking little and I can't have even that, yet you would drive humanity into misery over those pathetic delusions of human interaction you harbor. We're all talking to ourselves, but most of us are too insane to realise that yet.

exchange is a factor of capitalism, not it's soul identifying quality

Nigger, I operate a mill. Trading is how I get cigarettes

Define capitalism for me.

I'm not the guy that you were responding to

I just wanted to say, that I'm with you. Capitalism gets a whole lot of stuff attributed to it, but at it's heart, it's just voluntary trade.

You want something that is not substantially different from suicide. It would make most people far more miserable and it's not very practical.

You just want to believe something interesting. If you have any friends you are the most heinous poseur I've ever seen, and, if not, I still think you're misguided.

I am a very honest poseur with those few friends I have.

Is this your first day here or something? That doesn't define capitalism. People had the ability to voluntarily trade before capitalism.

Good man. I can't see anything good coming out of giving a massive government control of all production as apposed to people who built those means of production. People in government are there because they couldn't or wouldn't do it themselves, at best they'll run them inefficiently, at worst a lot of people have a bad time.

LARP in private you ridiculous faggot.

Perhaps procure yourself an ointment for that massive butthurt I seem to have just generated.

Capitalism is literally voluntary trade. Prove me wrong.

You aren't suggesting someone engage in capitalism, are you?

Anger is not the same as disgust.

Enjoy smoking weed and pontificating to your friends about how nobody should talk to other people.

no thats just called "trade". aka Anarcho-Mutualism.
Capitalism is wages, jobs, bosses, markets that develop into corporation, private property, private person, etc spooky bullshit that doesn't exist without law.

Talking exists as a tool of exchange of information and base entertainment. Quite like other fields of communication. In fact real life connections are just as illusory and make-believe as your facebook friendships, they can be broken as easily with no consequence.

Yes, yes it does.

How old are you?

Nope. Its private property and profit. By your logic a self employed trademan who fixes pipes is not engaging in capitalism.

Or you know, people like me will just abuse it and never work again. Have fun paying for my life while I live the neet dream.

25

Okay? Thanks for letting me know your particular scenario within the market

a chief characteristic would be trade and a market based economy. However the basic definitions Marxists use also focuses on the production
(source for reference)
marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

this is horribly reductionist and you know it.

voluntary
voluntary
voluntary
voluntary…

self-employment is not capitalism

How is trading a service for currency not trade?

technically if i hold a gun to your head and ask you to fellate me, you would comply voluntarily.

it's true. Why not reduce something to it's essence, instead of trying to shoehorn in a bunch of bullshit

Its the official definition of capitalism.

Nope, nice try, but that's not what voluntary means.

Of course not, make it yourself from the poppy seeds you would be able to grow legally under any brand of anarchism

No it's not.
Self-employment is an individual form of economics. It is a form of self-management that has always existed in all socioeconomic formations since the decomposition of the primitive communal system, which had small farmers, artisans, vendors and free providers of services as its clearest expressions.

Marx referred to self-employed work as “simple commodity production” because it could not be expanded beyond its own reproduction since it did not involve the exploitation of other people’s labor (it involved no salaried labor from which surplus value was appropriated).

When in their workshops “master craftsmen” had “apprentices” to whom they taught their arts, and these individuals began to produce in guilds for those grandmasters, there appeared the first historical forms of organized capitalism (though paid labor dates back to ancient times, back to slave-based Rome itself, where the terms “salary” and “proletarian” had already been used.)

The person who systematically hires wage labor becomes the exploiter of other people’s labor under private capitalism.

If these concepts are not clearly grasped, one can confuse self-employed workers with the petty bourgeoisie; or simple commodity production with expanded commodity production or with private capitalism. These other forms of production are for profit in the marketplace, not for the satisfaction of the specific needs of producers and society.

The petty bourgeoisie is a stratum of the bourgeois class, only on a smaller scale given its lesser amount of capital and the fewer number of wage-laborers they exploit.

Get your fingers out of your ears, head out of your ass and stop regurtitating propaganda you have been force fed.

You either have the capital to own a business and the lives of others or sell your time in order to not starve. The wages you are paid, the rent you pay are determined by capitalists. The profit motive is all there is, so you have to make someone else richer in order to get by and not be homeless or hungry. Voluntary my ass.

so obviously capitalism is coercion

Thats true it would be voluntary, die or suck dick. You're choice.
You don't have to work if you don't want to. Make your own farm if you really want and just live off the land. If there was no property tax that would be very easy and simple.

Why didn't you speak up in that thread about how to exist outside of capitalism in a capitalist economy?

This.

Are you self employed?

The only thing I'll concede is that in modern society you could say that it isn't voluntary because wandering into the woods and becoming a subsistence farmer or some other kind of hunter-gatherer is actually illegal. The wildlife cops would get ya. But if you had that choice open to you, everything about modern society is voluntary.

Its illegal to own the lives of other people. If you think you aren't getting paid enough quite and work somewhere you think is more worth it.
If you really think your manager at mcdonalds is literally just sitting on his ass all day while you do all the work you are full of shit. Who provides the workers with a building, a grill, a spatula, bread, patties ect ect.

Why are you guys so obsessed with voluntary actions? Nobody chose to be born.
Your entire life in involuntary.

yes.
what thread?

No, not really. Being biologically required to feed yourself to stay alive isn't really the same as being forced at gunpoint to do things against your will.

In the end the only choice we have is the color of the crank on the cocaine dispenser.

It's just a sidebar conversation because nobody can answer the question posed by the op

Self employment did not exist in feudalism. You know nothing.
I don't really give a shit what marx said. He's not god, every word out of his mouth is not right or gospel.
usually apprenticeships were the masters children.

I'm sick of being oppressed by my stomach!

They both fail because of their lack of military efficiency, what's your point?

Holy shit nigger. I get it. You just saw that documentary. Shut the fuck up you edgy fuck.

So is Elon Musk and his fellow techie transhumanists from silicon valley. They're so out of it they're one step away from building pyramids to enclose their cryogenetically preserved bodies for future reincarnation

Not the guy but what documentary?

What documentary, if it's edgy enough I'll have a laugh. I'm in fulliron for the last xx posts anyway.

Look at the picture that posted. During most of humanity's existence, people were biologically forced to eat. That doesn't mean that they were living under capitalism.

Whoops my shitposting flag

was it the mass effect 3 ending?

is this nigga serious

it did, it has existed forever (& it's not Capitalism) but some where unlucky & were born inside a Lord's land. That he brought to the Monarch.
Sounds similar to the modern Capitalist system but at least now there are state laws that protect "human rights" so the Lords have to listen to Papa State now too.

Ancoms have councils where things are voted upon, in ancapland the laws are decided by whoever has the most money, this is why they're retarded.

you can't be this retarded
you're not evern trying. 0/10 read Kropotkin

The elimination of currency
Explain?

Go back to sucking off your George Bush blow-up doll faggot.

capitalism is the mode of production, markets are the mode of distribution. If markets were exclusive to capitalism then market socialism and mutualism wouldn't exist

It's just "Mutualism", friend.

Yeah, instead of living in a capitalism they were in some kind of involuntary arrangement, like slavery or serfdom. Which actually would be comparable to being forced to do things at gunpoint.

But it's legal to own the means of production that other people need to work and so live.

The manager doesn't provide any of that. What the fuck?

So it's just democracy then? Does every member of the society get a vote? So far, your version sounds pretty similar to all the other modern democracies of today. What makes anybody think that it would be either anarchy, or communist? That isn't what people tend to vote for.

anyway Self-Employment & Private Capitalism are NOT the same. Syndicalist Worker Co-ops & Private Capitalism are NOT the same either. Discuss around these points.
Bye.
Fuck Fiefdom therfore fuck Capitalism.

He orders it. How do you think the various items needed to make that cancer get there?

Dude, the point being is that you are coerced into an antagonistic class system that is contradictory at its base, to earn a meager wage for survival.
You didn't receive wages pre-class society, nor did commodities exist

If you really want to live that there's nothing wrong with it and so there's no abuse.
Read this.

Gee no shit! It's like you haven't even read Kropotkin or something…
Uh no. The bourgeoisie "demnocracies" we have are voted upon by the ruling class and subject to corporate lobbying.
we create the conditions for anarchism to occur, once in, people organize in direct democratic councils to vote for things. as for the transition from capitalism to anarchism, there will be a revolution.
inb4 "revolution isn't democratic"
it never is, neither was the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

Renterism is a fuck. 1236227 dead Capitalists. Own yourself.

[free pottery intensifies]

How do you figure? I'm not a member of the ruling class, and I get the same amount of votes as Bill Gates, or Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump

Class society existed during that time period, you vapid shit.

How far back do you need to go then and knowing roughly how they lived do you really want to?

Apes have hierarchies.

The manager is an employee. He's just as replaceable as the fry cooks on the line. He's not using his own money for it. The franchise provides those things through their money and hire people to work there, including a manager.

Again, what the fuck?

Stop lying, you get no vote, you're no one.

The US is overwhelmingly in support of the legalization of marijuana, why isn't it legal yet? Because the "justice" system is making a profit off of jailing people for possession and sending them to for-profit prisons. If we convened and made a vote as workers to legalize it, the rulers would never go along with it, they are obstructing our democracy and so must be stopped.
Except Trump lost the popular vote but still became prez anyway. Thanks to the electoral college, your vote is meaningless. Besides they have special powers/rights that people like you don't (executive muh privilege, etc.) also cops have their own bill of rights which gives them power over civilians (drugs tests aren't admissible in a court of law for cops, for example)

not really but whatever this proves nothing. all animals are anarchists, they do prefer the alpha animals but their freedom to do things is not restricted to by any idea, they just do whatever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion

What do you not get? We Communists and Anarchists stand against unjustified hierarchies, like the ones we have today where a select few parasites unjustifiably leeching off the many. A CEO doesn't earn 2000 times more than the workers because they work 2000 times harder, but because they appropriate the wealth from the labourers themselves. This is not meritocratic at all.

You and a big group of people tell them not to and if they do you'll throw them in a prison.

Then how did they get there?
No, they have a great deal more responsibility and stress on them.

I get the same amount of votes as anybody else

If the majority of people had marijuana legalization in mind when they went into the voting booth it would get legalized much quicker. But it's just a side issue to most people. We can discuss how specific issues don't perfectly get represented in a democratic republic compared to a direct democracy, or how not all votes carry equal weight in an electoral college, but we'd be getting away from the point, and that is that in an "anarchy" as you describe it things would not look much different than they do today. And by that, I mean people would still get to vote, and they would still vote for private property to be a perfectly legitimate thing for individuals to own.

We'll just hope and believe that'll things won't happen that way this is Marx 101 don't pay attention to reality and hope things magically change.

My point was that capitalism does not equal human existence. This means that capitalism is involuntary, because I can't just choose to live under another system, and instead I am coerced into working in a class society where capitalists appropriate my labor as surplus value.

a CEO is just an employee. He can be fired by the board of directors. They get paid more because their skillset makes a larger difference to the company than any other individual employee. If his pay wasn't justified then the board of directors wouldn't offer him that much. And the hierarchy is justified because it's voluntary, and that's the only justification the participants need. They all choose to be there.

Just become self employed and you'll determine your own value and retain all of your labour.

Well, you have a point. I conceded earlier that capitalism is somewhat involuntary because it's not legal to be a subsistence farmer on land you don't own (within the capitalist system), and probably technically not legal to be any sort of hunter-gatherer in any part of the country (although you could certainly find areas where this wasn't rigorously enforced)

But let's be real, even if those options were legally open to you, would you really choose them? Capitalism seems involuntary not because it's your only option, but because it's quite obviously the best one.

"There is a 0% chance that the hottest woman in a village will end up with more power than a fat ugly woman. This system works in a vacuum though, so it works in an infinitely complex world. I have also never been in a fight, but I am going to eliminate billions of people who want nothing to do with communism, because that would be so much easier than making some concessions and working with people who in many but not all cases are just better than me at life." - You Areretarded

But you need capital to do that, most people don't have enough money to invest in a business.

...

If you fix pipes or rewire houses for a living then you are the business. You don't need much startup capital for that.

ITT: Ancap and liberal/cuckservative stupidity.

The simple answer to OP is that money no longer exists in any meaningful form, and all factories, farms, mines, etc. no longer belong to a private capitalist. The means of production then are simply there to be used, and the use of those means of production is decided by a free association of workers guided by some sort of over-arching plan that works for the good of society. This plan would cover all of the essentials like food production, housing, etc. quite easily. Then the production of luxury goods is determined by the availability of raw materials and willingness to expend so much raw material on producing said luxury goods (say plastic toys for children to play with).

A capitalist trying to enter the market where most goods are freely available and distributed rationally would find it hard to compete with planned factories, especially without a universally agreed-upon money-form to exchange.

I'd also add that the existence of black markets does not negate communism any more than slavery negates the dominance of present-day capitalism. Black markets would be discouraged and any niche a black market would fill would likely be better filled by a cooperative planned economy sector, so the only things that black markets would be trading in would be things like narcotics and slaves. There's considerable question as to whether the former would even be illegal in ancom land, and the latter is something that would obviously be stamped out wherever it happens.

The best deterrent to capitalism in a socialist mode of production is that capitalist behavior simply becomes superfluous, much like serfdom and feudal dues became superfluous with the rise of liberal capitalism. There aren't that many people lining up to become serfs these days (even as much as present-day capitalist relations resemble feudalism in how badly workers are treated).

"Free education" does not mean fucking huge salary.
Not if you work in someone else business, plumbers and electrcians are not all self-employed.

I thought the point was owning your own labour, not being a millionaire?
Then be self employed and decide beforehand on the value of your labour.

lol bourg democracy. You don't even get a real choice as to who runs in the major two parties, and ballot access laws are rigged so that third party challengers basically don't exist.
Also politicians are bribed by a corrupt system and even a good politician cannot work in the morass that is burger democracy.

Your vote in a bourg democracy might as well be pissing into the wind, unless you're voting in a really small town (and even then the leading candidates are chosen by the Republican Party more often than not). Any sufficiently large urban area is controlled by machine politics and outright thuggery, plus a fair degree of straight up election fraud.

ok, but no single person owns all the land and resources, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's really not that difficult to get a piece of land/property. I bought my first home for $7k (kind of)

Ah, I get it. CEOs have a lot of power and make important decisions. This justifies that they have a lot of power and make important decisions.
In a lot of companies CEOs make 100 times more money then the average worker there. Does this mean that they have to endure 100 times more stress? If yes, how can you explain that CEOs don't have a heart attack or stroke in the moment they step into their office?

Yes that's the point and that point, but you don't seem to understand (and I will repeat) that you need capital to have your own business and even if you had "free education" you still won't have enough money for your business capital because wages are too low.
Most people can only pay rent, food, electricity bills, etc.

You have no actual problem with the principle of that though?

this is more like a list of petty grievances with minor laws about the voting system, some of which I may agree with, but it's getting away from the point that ancom, as described by a poster earlier in this conversation, would be pretty much the same as what we have now: people voting for voluntary trade to be legal.

It's a fringe minority of people that believe there should be a distinction made between private property and personal property, and when they hang out in their own echo chamber they come to believe that a democracy would vote according to the way they see things, apparently oblivious to the fact that we already have a democratic process, and that's not what people vote for.

What justifies their pay is that if they make the wrong decision they get sued by the board of directors and never employed again.
Compared to the very low level of stress involved in cleaning or being a clerk I've done both of these jobs I'd say yes. There is no stress involved in mopping a floor, delivering mail or typing on a keyboard.
I assume a role which entails a lot of stress would attract those who are more resistant to stress than others.

Its very easy to earn a days minimum wage in a hour as a plumber.
You register as self employed then pay taxes based on income. Thats it unless you want to hire people, which I assume you wouldn't want to do because that would be capitalism.

It's a minor contention. I do think that the government should open up federal land to homesteaders for free, as a matter of principle. But it's a moot point, because given the choice most people would rather be homeless in a city and eat out of dumpsters because it's literally a more comfortable life to feed off the scraps of capitalism than it is to try and live off the land.

Which is why CEOs regularly fuck up and weave golden parachutes for themselves, with no accountability whatsoever.

CEOs get paid lots of money because of Porky's nepotism and because boards of directors are easily sold the value of a CEO by hucksterism; and ultimately, the CEO is naturally aligned with Porky, not a class enemy.

But go on, please keep pretending that capitalism is a meritocracy.

But not every kind of job would work like that. You can't be self-employed if you're an industrial worker as example, self-employment would not be possible with most of jobs because they need big infrastructures and so a lot of capital.

Have you never heard of cooperatives?

If it was easy then everyone would do it.

Then don't, be a plumber, bricklayer, wielder or electrician.

You were asking in regards to startup capital, I'm not aware of the costs involved in starting a co-op. Seems to me it would be easier to be 5 tradesman who agree to certain prices to not screw each other over rather than being 5 plumbers working together. I personally went into it because I don't like having a boss and I don't play well with others. Though I'm sure you could organise it to your personal tastes.

Capitalism does not mean voluntary trade though, nor does communism negate the possibility of trade within a society. Communism abolishes the commodity-form and the money-form, and renders obsolete capitalist social relations where a factory owner extracts surplus-value from wageslaves. in a communist society, you can still trade things with your neighbors, and the social police are not going out of their way to police those exchanges; the communist society just wouldn't go out of their way to create a money-form to facilitate exchange and make it the central pillar of their society, of how goods are distributed and how production is planned.

Like I said before, the point of socialism, if it's done right, is to render the capitalist mode of production obsolete, not to forcibly impose a system on people and micromanage the plan at the personal level. In that context, where you have a planned economy that produces all of goods most consumers want and can produce new goods virtually at will for little to no labor cost, the idea that people would vote for a return to capitalism on a large scale and the right of a business owner to extract profit for doing nothing, doesn't even make sense. Most people today do not like the capitalist class leeching profit - they may be brainwashed into thinking that the capitalist's role is necessary or they might think that capitalism is something other than what it is, but when you frame capitalism as what it actually is, most people (even without socialist ideas pumped into them) don't like it and wish there were a better way.

Is Stalinism okay according to ancap logic because Stalin was responsible for the whole USSR and he took a lot of risk with every decision made by him?

Not an ancap, I just want to own the fruits of my labour, but I assume he wasn't living in a hovel and eating the bare minimum required to live.

You forgot the part about "nepotism". The class of CEOs and corporate climber types and the class of capitalists are mutually co-dependent, and there are only so many slots available for CEOs. The qualities that distinguish these corporate climbers have little to do with any actual meritorious ability or what the CEO actually does, and in the neoliberal era you get a lot of professional CEOs who literally know nothing about the companies they ostensibly manage, and their skillset is basically human resources and grabbing as much money as they can get out of the gig.

Maybe in some small companies the CEO actually does shit, but these CEOs also aren't being paid multi-millions and probably do more actual managerial work. Even then, small-time CEOs are petit-bourg or petit-bourg allies at best.

This is an oxymoron.

What do you think a CEO does, I'm genuinely curious?

I used to work in an oil refinery. It was a pretty dirty job, and somewhat unsafe (I worked for a good company, but people still sometimes die there. Nature of the biz). Longer hours than most people work, too. Twelve-hour shifts. It's considered a good job though, because it pays well.

If neither money-form nor commodity-form were used for exchange in a society, what incentive would a worker have to show up for work at an oil refinery? What incentives would workers have to build one in the first place? And are we still talking about anarchy, I ask because you mentioned a planned economy. These seem mutually exclusive, if there are no rulers then who is planning the economy?

That's a market exchange, not capitalism. It'd be capitalism if it was "I'll pay you the equivalent of two sheep in currency, if you will send someone else to fix my roof, who will be paid a very small percentage of what I'm paying you."

There's no capitalism if there's no labor exploitation.

your example of capitalism is just a series of market exchanges

Who decides whats 'for the good of society', where does society begin and end?Borders?

Personally I'm not an ancom so I can't speak for them. I'm just clearing up misconceptions about the socialist mode of production.

The problem of incentives is a tricky one because, despite the wishes of utopians, people still have to do shit in order for the machine to function. I will say that communism doesn't mean that everyone gets the exact same thing, and there could be greater compensation for people who work harder jobs for longer periods. The important thing is that everyone has enough to enjoy a decent standard of living, and that every man and woman has the same rights as another.
So you may ask, if everyone gets the bare minimum, what is the incentive to get off your ass instead of being a NEET? Well, people who do shit would probably enjoy greater compensation, though it wouldn't be in the form of money. Second, the allocation of workers would probably mean the end of 12-hour shifts and something more rational. Third, it's highly likely that oil refining will not be as necessary, and there will be more focus on greener energy sources. It's really up to society to decide how it generates its energy and whether the costs of oil (pollution, oil's scarcity, etc.) is worth it.

As far as a planned economy requiring rulers, that's simply not true. The planned economy may require an administrator and managers, but that is something different from a ruler who is granted extra special authority. The function of the administrator and manager is something that we would try to minimize in any planned economy, ancom or not, and they would be recognized as civil servants rather than "rulers" with special powers.
Now of course you may ask, the function of the administrator or manager gives them power whether we want them to have it or not, and to an extent that is true. That's why the people as a whole need to be vigilant about over-bloated bureaucracies and organizational power creep. There is no easy way to make people magically good, just as there is no way to prevent a worker from striking if she or he doesn't like their conditions. I believe though that the answer is not the capitalist one, where workers are forced into compliance under pain of starvation and death.

My objection to capitalism (again, not speaking for the ancoms) is that it is an inherently unstable and stupid system that serves no real purpose, and that with the technology we have today we could easily sweep aside the ruling class of owners and their functionaries, and all of the stupid ideology that supports that system.

...

Everyone does. There are certain things that most would agree that everyone wants, like food, shelter, education, health care, and so on. Then there are things that some people want like plastic toys, video games, fancy cars, diamond rings, etc. There's not inherently going to be some grand bureaucrat that decides what everyone is going to get and they had better like it or lump it; the bureaucracy doesn't exist to rule, it exists to serve.

The fact of the matter is that we don't live in an era of great scarcity. Almost all of the needs of society are met - more than met, even - by current methods of production and the current outputs. The problem is distribution. Capitalism, by and large, has shown itself to be pretty lousy at distribution in practice, despite the belief that "it's the best system we have". All a socialist mode of production would have to do is take the productive forces that already exist, expand upon them by scientific research, and maintain/expand as needed. There is no need for an owner class to produce shit for profit, and in fact we produce and waste so much productive power in the pursuit of profit making things that are of dubious use-value, and feeding the machine of consumerism with advertising to stimulate demand.

Now there may be disputes about what ought to be produced and what ought not, and what raw materials ought to be extracted and where they ought to be distributed. Frankly, there's not an easy answer to that question, that's something people are going to have to get together to decide. But we all can (mostly) agree there is no function to the capitalist owner class deciding who gets what and producing a bunch of shit while people starve.

Any socialist system would necessarily need to cover the whole world, or at least most of the world, just like capitalism needs to impose its norms on the rest of the world and has basically succeeded in spreading itself by the end of the last century. Again, socialism isn't a state, it's a mode of production. (I'm not speaking as an ancom here so my view is different from theirs, but I imagine that for a while the old "states" of the world would persist, but gradually there would be no need for national borders as they exist today, and to a large degree capitalism is already doing away with national borders - at least for the capitalist class. National borders are just pens to hold in the lower classes of society as far as I care. An ancom probably wants to abolish the state before anything else, but imo the ancom notion is flawed and we need communism before we can finally abolish the state.)

"Meritocracy" implies that the "merited" are granted special rights and muh privileges by law and that their muh privileges are protected by a state. That's not at all what I want to see, in fact it's one of the biggest problems I see with a potential socialist revolution, that it will deteriorate into another round where there's a ruling class and a ruled class, except this time the parameters don't involve private property.

At the same time, I don't believe communism is a system where everyone literally gets the same amount of material wealth. I believe communism must put egalitarianism at the center of its project, and reject all notions of "meritocracy".

And that's something that socialists have to be worried about, the retention of the division of labor resulting in the formation of a new ruling hierarchy. That is why I am wary about relying too much on incentives to stimulate work getting done.

I'm also a believer that technology shouldn't come to dominate man, and that the focus ought to be on maximizing the leisure time people have to pursue their wants, rather than producing just to produce or to simply expand production for its own sake. There comes a point where enough is enough.

Yeah ok.

Why so cynical socdem man?
If I had my way about it, the managers in a socialist society would have to live in fear of a popular uprising if they engage in especially tyrannical measures to control the bureaucracy. Under no circumstances should the masses relinquish their means to fight, even after the revolution is won.

There is of course no surefire way to prevent tyranny, but it does help not to be submerged in the ideologies of our current ruling class and have that repeat in the next stage of economic development.

Oh I dunno, maybe because it always has.

Mixed economies that take care of basic necessities like housing food and healthcare are all that's needed.

lol "mixed" economy.

self employment is not capitalism
gn

They will be forced to work by the Soviet or they will not eat.

Surely not all wageworkers can do that, or there will be no one left to work in companies (not even the smallest ones).

I just love the difference between this thread and the Ultra-ML debate.

Yep. That's exactly what happened. It's so straight up that it even seems scandalous to know it. Capitalist narratives are so utterly destroyed by a bleeding eyesore of a fact that you wonder how anyone can take them seriously.
Liberals (by which I mean conservatives, liberals, and libertarians as known in the US) are reality deniers who don't know it yet.

Anarchists are smarter than MLs a lot of the time, even if they're still socdems by another name. They don't deny reality. Moreover, they're having to argue with ancaps and other liberals here. Big difference.
Ismael (or whoever that bunkerfag is) has autism and a lot of spare time. That doesn't mean he's smart.

but here just for u bb

I'm not an ultra, I'm a communalist.

heh
heheh
ehahahahahh

You can't, jobs needs different skills and people have different skills.
Jobs have to met a demand because there's a job market.
And a society with only self-employed services jobs like plumber, bricklayer, wielder or electrician would not work because society needs different kinds of jobs, including industrial jobs that can't be compatible with self-employment.

How the fuck is that small government? You are braindead

WOW! GUY EXPLAINED WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SMALL!

YOU ARE BRAINDEAD HAHA! NOT SMALL AT ALL! ITS STILL BIG HAHA YOU ARE SO STUPID!

Why would individuals vote to have the means of production taken away from them? You might as well be saying people will vote away their houses.

Yet the workers have even greater stress and responsibility. If a worker loses a million dollars he's in debt, can't buy a house, afford medical costs, etc.

a capitalist loses a million dollars, he still has a million to fall back on. it's NOT the same.

...

Are you retarded? peronal property =/= private property

also your pic is already discredited, capitalists are taking the worker's share of his labour, its not nature that's being oppressive, but thanks for showing us yet again about how much brainlets are you rosa-killers.

By providing the incentive to their workers of not getting their surplus value exploited

...

Anyone else not like the term "anarchy"? I think "direct democracy" is actually a much better description of what actually goes on and doesn't have any baggage

You don't understand any part of anarchism. Read Conquest of Bread and come back.

Nobody but people who jerk off to Das Kapital care about that.

but direct democracy isnt anarchy.
Gaddafi wrote a good book on democracy