Why is AnCapism bad? I've been led to believe it's the only sensible way to run an economy

Why is AnCapism bad? I've been led to believe it's the only sensible way to run an economy.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
discover-peru.org/inca-economy-society/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lol

They're all kiddie diddling pedos whose ideology is just an excuse to have child sex slaves.

What part of our current economy and crises around it makes you think we need more deregulation and handing out power to those who are already rich? How do you become so retarded you actually think tirckle down economics might work?

I dunno, but everyone on Holla Forums says that a command economy can't work because the government is inefficient.

Friedman, von Hayek, Sowell etc. all say the same too, and the crises in all previous command economies ought to be instructive.

I'd sincerely like to know how an economy that is government controlled can work efficiently.

It's also a brutally way to run a fiefdom, which is the AnCap endgame.

I'm sure you've heard of the Golden Rule - that is to say, the one with the Gold makes the Rules.

That's AnCap in a nutshell - the absolute rule of the rich over the poor. You may as well just call it what it inevitably becomes - Oligarchy.

Then why not just keep the current system we have? Most people are doing alright under it; far better than those living under socialism.

It can't, the economy needs to be managed by the workers and the profits a business makes need to be split between the workers. Both state and privately owned enterprise work on the same premises.

AnCapism is bad becouse it will lead to Monopolies running the world which will lead to massive wealth inequality and near impossible to escape class you are born in.
Education will become more expensive, healthcare more expensive, roads privatized and expensive.
It's sorta like it is today, even worse.

your post was good until this point
socialism is not egalitarian capitalism

Most people are not doing alright under it. The vast majority of the human population lives in miserable conditions. Case in point, if you're from the US or Western Europe, examine the life of the person who builds your electronic and plastic toys, sews your clothing and shoes, harvests your coffee beans, your fruits, your chocolate, etc.


To be fair, Western governments have spent billions of dollars (and sent a hell of a lot of weapons and training, hell sometimes they'll even send troops to help local dissident groups fuck shit up) in an effort to destabilize any emergent/existing socialist systems. It can be difficult to maintain a government when the world's premier superpowers/terror state is literally gunning for you.

But disregarding that, I would say that the quality of life that the West enjoys has more to due with its relationship to easily accessible energy resources that it is to its political/economic system. From 1850-1970 or so the US was basically energy independent, it had a relatively low population, and its industry and population didn't lose any steam during either world war, both of which were much harsher on Europe. Peak oil happened in the US in the 70s, and then you started to see foreign policy decisions that were a lot more imperialistic, especially with regard to the securing energy resources.

Quality of life doesn't really come from ideology - it comes from what resources are available to you - and capitalistic western nations have been, for many years, in the best position to exploit and control those resources.

Case in point, look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A capitalistic, democratic state, yet rife with all manor of chaos, including the worst genocide (so far) of this decade. This isn't a matter of ideology, its a matter of resources, and unfortunately for humanity capitalists have been exceptionally good at controlling and exploiting resources, regardless of the human cost.

It's literally a fictional ideology.

Socialism doesn't say anything about how surplus value have to be utilized, just that it doesn't collect in the hands of a non-productive property owner. I'm sorry i tried to simplify the process to OP who is obviously not familiar.

An cap is the fucking worst

Will improve when they develop economically. Conditions used to be miserable in Europe too.

But Venezuela is sitting upon tonnes of fuel, not to mention they have the potential to become a rich agricultural nation. It would appear only capitalist systems can properly utilise their latent wealth.

Capitalism functions on a command economy under the guise of "marketing"

In what way is capitalism efficient? In encourages producers create the lowest possible quality product and charge the highest possible price, something that is supposed to be counteracted by market competition. The problem is that competition inevitably fades, since every time a firm grows its ability to crush its competitors grows with it, creating an inevitably tendency towards oligopoly and monopoly. This is why today we have products that are literally designed to break.

Furthermore it tailors production towards the making of profits rather than the satisfaction of needs, leading to food being thrown in the trash because nobody can afford it even as people starve in the streets, or houses sitting vacant and outnumbering homeless people. A child could see the gross, nonsensical inefficiency of capitalism.

That's the thing though, they won't develop economically because it is against the capitalists interest to do so. Making it so the majority of the world has to do low paying tedious labor for the tiny minority in the west. This is called imperialism.
Venezuela is a capitalist system, as is the vast majority of the planet.

there can be no surplus value, retard

I hate to break it to you, but you've already got a problem right there. Holla Forumsacks and other rightists love to use centrally-planned socialism as a stick to beat socialism as a whole with because it's convenient for them thanks to the negative image it has in many circles, and proceed from that to construct a strawman definition of socialism, allowing them to ignore or immediately dismiss non-statist forms of socialism like market socialism or various forms of anarchist socialism. I'd really recommend that you stop listening to Holla Forums, they're really just a bunch of cultish ideologues who hide their anti-intellectualism through rhetoric, cherry-picking and cheap marketing-tier visual trickery. Instead, go out, look up these things on your own, and come to your own opinion. Even if you wind up with the same opinion you hold now, you'll have a firmer foundation for it.

I'd say its more likely that those positions will be further automated, making a great deal of the human labor unnecessary, though I would be curious to learn what you believe 'develop economically' means in this context.


VZ could here be compared somewhat to a mom-and-pop shop trying to compete against Walmart and Amazon in this regard. Drilling an exploratory well can cost well over 500 million dollars, then you have to transport it, refine it, transport it again, and so on - but what happens when you go to sell it? Can you sell for less than the UAE? If not, then why would people buy it from you? They won't, and that's why VZ's reserves have yet to be plundered.

-This runs into essentially the same problem as your comment about impoverished nations 'developing economically'. Can they undergo this transformation in such a way that improves the quality of life for their people while providing something that no where else in the world can provide for less? If not their venture will fail. And keep in mind, the rest of the world's capitalists might not like the idea of some newcomer mucking up their markets. Think about what you as the head of a multi-billion dollar industry giant could do to maintain control of your markets. If you want an interesting case study on this, look at an event known as 'The Banana Wars'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
-That's AnCap action at its finest IMO.

And again, this power dynamic has a lot less to do with pure-politics than it does with simple resource allocation and control. Its the Golden Rule - and you and I most certainly do not have the Gold.

Do you really need someone else to explain how letting corporations and rich people control everything is bad?

There can be no "an" with cap. A hierarchy is inhereny in capitalism. It is a meme for people who thin capitalism is completely without coercion.

Ancaps are people for whom american libertarianism is too complicated.

Look at Google and Facebook, the definite proof that shit don't work.

Oh you poor thing. You've been lied to.

How do you enforce private property and contracts without a state?

Not ancap but,
I've never understood this objection. The answer is simple: private security and defence forces.

3 problems:

-You're disenfranchising people without the ability to pay. If you can't afford private police you're at the mercy of criminals since there is not a monopoly of force, no one will help you if your house is broken into.
-If person A kills person B's son, then runs back to his house, his police will defend him from person B's police since that is what they're paid to do. You can try to make some sort of moralistic argument but the bottom line is chivalry doesn't pay the bills. They will shoot eachother.
-There's nothing stopping one rich person from undercutting all his neighbors and hiring all the police at his disposal, then he can establish a de facto state.

...

Justice is more than killing people you don't like…. or killing the people you're paid to kill

Ancap isn't real anarchy because capitalism creates hierarchies and inequalities. All ancap means is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer – and unlike with the state, the only motivation of corporations is to generate more profit, by any means necessary


How is it "literally fictional" ? It doesn't appear in a work of fiction. There are real life ancaps. I'm not a Christian, but it's wrong to call Christianity a "literally fictional ideology".

That's their point, there's no way to franchise them without taking money from someone else, and usually forcing them to give that money over.

Again, that's the point – it's not for justice, because people have different conceptions of justice, the only thing expected to be binding and enforced in ancapistan is respect for property rights.

There are doubtlessly security forces that exist for all sorts of pay grades, you can't magically acquire all of them.

discover-peru.org/inca-economy-society/

If someone is wealthy enough, they CAN have ALL the security
When your options are take the job or get shot because the wealthiest man in the world wants ALL of the security forces, sane people will take the security job
Eventually, he has enough power to go onto any property and seize it for himself

Ayn Rand, some sci-fi novels, mostly Americans. Arthur C. Clarke in particular, and unsurprisingly, he was literally a pedophile as well kek

...

kek, read some history
ancapism has been tried in south america
tl;dr it fucked up REALLY BADLY

Then just support non-planning socialist models, and yes those exist.

The current economy is a command economy. Every corporation is a command economy like the USSR. They hire people, like the USSR, they pay them with money, like the USSR, they make products for sale, like the USSR. The capitalist economy is filled with miniature ussr's who use central planning, except they dont give a fuck about their employees.

The only argument you could pose is that you need competition of planned-mini-economies because if one fills the other one can catch the fallout and stop everything from collapsing. This would be a fine argument were it not for the fact that over time monopolies become the norm unless actively dismantling them by the government. This both means that ancapism cannot work by the standards of capitalism and that capitalism is not efficient. The latter is true because the most efficient economy is one giant mega planned economy with access to all information.

I would then argue that capitalism cannot work at all, because the principles, the "rules" of capitalism dictate that monopolies make the most money and will form over time. Dismantling them goes against the interest of the richest and most powerful people and thus will be opposed by those who actually hold the power.

The fact someone could come here and say that and not immediately get referred to this

thread

shows this board is dying.

cohercive property rights

Ancapistan turning into literally anything other than a hellhole where the rich are, for all practical purposes, able to do literally anything they want, relies almost entirely on the concept that consumers will stop buying their product if they do things that are destructive.

It doesn't even address the thing it's supposed to be addressing. The only practical difference between a business that owns all parts of a town and a state is that taxes are now called "rent".

More importantly there is now way to enforce property rights except through immediate occupancy and defense making modern cocneptions of property impossible in practice.
Even if you somehow solved that you'd have to deal with organized labor who would probably turn ancapistan in ansyntopia.

So, a state.


Why are even non-ancaps falling for the false state/business dichotomy?
Modern states aren't democratic and caring about their people out of some sense of duty and commitment. They care about their people because at some point in time it turned out to be a winning survival strategy, and ones that didn't got… ahem… replaced.

This is retarded, is my local mall a state now because they have private security forces?

Also, if militia mean state, how the fuck can anarcho-communist exist?

Yeah we are seeing organized labor rioting everywhere man.

Where are the worker riots in Africa? South America and China?

Face it, without provocaters, labor is happy they have wages.

McDonald Private corps fighting the Burger King Royal Army only sounds good for vidya gaems tbh

When did ancapism get tried in S.America?

I must remind you there were actual ancapism cities back in the Middle age.

As opposed to the people's army that fights for the state?

When does Holla Forums say that, Holla Forums says that communism is retarded and doesn't work but Communism isn't the only command economy
1928-1945 Not Socialist Germany, you can say what you want to say but you're going to be hardpressed as fuck to prove me wrong that it was the Economic Mirace of the 20th Century
Also keeping in mind it is the only ideology of the same time period that didn't die out because of economic reasons but because of the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Jews🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 Fuck you Churchill, you killed Australians for no reason in WW1

He thinks Pinochet is an AnCap and not a Minarchist

Pinochet was a fascist.

Is Ron Paul a Fascist?

Read Cockshott

There wasn't even capitalism back then.

What the fuck? They were private properties, commodity production and wage labor back then.

Then again, capitalism is defined differently on this board.


Did Ron Paul take over the country via a military coup and installed nationalized industries?

You know that when people ask these questions they're asking about ideological bent and not action. No one would ever ask if a politician was a socialist or not by "well did they seize the means of production?" They'd ask, rightly, what they advocated for and how they proposed to achieve it.

Answer the question.

Because that's what a fascist always does, and Pinochet did that.

Now is Ron Paul a fascist?

...

nope
wrong, plenty of people have fascist beliefs and are not in power

Do elaborate.
And these people with fascist beliefs actually do believe in taking power via military coup and nationalizing the industries.

Great, so you agree with me that the standard is actually what they believe and not what they do. That's really all I was arguing for

Except it is connected, Ron Paul has never believed in taking power via military coup, while Pinochet believed so and he actually did so.

Same for Mussolini and Hitler.

Dictatorship =! Fascism

Pinochet did everything a fascist did, except maybe starting a war or two (he did use purge leftists so it kinda counts).

Pinochet was textbook fascism. It was a case where the ruling class abolished bourgeois democracy in favour of direct dictatorship to protect their position against socialism.

Fascists encouraged protectionism, Pinochet did not. fascists generally supported some welfare, Pinochet privatized the pension system, education and healthcare. Aside from actual economic practices, fascists historically used empty rhetoric to appeal to the working class, something Pinochet did away with, there is also the lack of nationalism or talk of any kind of national rebirth associated with his regime. Miguel Serrano, probably the most famous fascist from Chile, had this to say about Pinochet:

"The Junta was a disaster for Chile, as all professional military are. Hitlerism and Nazism are completely the opposite of a military dictatorship. Franco was a traitor who destroyed the Falange, Gen. Vargas destroyed fascist “Integralism” in Brazil; Antonescu destroyed the Iron Guard in Romania; the military in Chile helped to kill the young Nazis in 1938, and Pinochet helped the Jews coming into Chile as well as Friedman’s liberal super-capitalism. I was always openly against Pinochet’s regime, totally separating Hitlerism from his dictatorship."

There are more examples i could give but i really recommend you read up on fascism as it was in its heyday to get a better understanding.

yes, but rich ppl only. no proles allowed.

Ancaps are the biggest sheltered petty-bourg retards on the face of the earth.

How the fuck would the dialectic of global history ever fucking allow monopoly capitalism to swing back to what essentially is feudalism on a global fucking scale? How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe this has any remote possibility of happening? I'm not even going to go into how retarded of an idea it is, just tell me how the fuck do you think humanity will go like 700 years back on a global scale?