Why can capitalism not exist without the state? If anthing, socialism can't exist without a strict state. Capitalism...

Why can capitalism not exist without the state? If anthing, socialism can't exist without a strict state. Capitalism, on the other hand, is better off without a state (read Mises, Hayek, rothbard)

read marx
e
a
d

m
a
r
x

Capitalism requires a state in both the anarchist(structure that imposes hierarchy) and marxist(organ of class suppression) use of the term in order to establish and preserve property. Without a state there would be no property and without property there would be no capitalism.

Read fucking Smith.

That+due to the volatile and chaotic nature of capitalist markets, it requires a state to guide its development, for regulations, business law enforcement and to step in during times of crisis. Even if states where to magically dissapear, and capitalism would find some way to enforce property laws, it wouldn't work very well and lead to disastrous conditions for most people.

maybe actually read any of those people you listed lmao you actual retard.

Capitalism is dependent on the state to enforce private property "rights"/absentee ownership on behalf of the ruling class
If "rights" are dependent entirely upon one's ability to pay for a service then they're not really a right, and if the ruling class holds a monopoly on force against the working class they have no particular reason to care about the rights of the working class. Why would some sociopathic billionaire care about idealistic nonsense like the NAP when they have a private army and the vast majority of the population doesn't? Even now, where there IS a state that's supposed to enforce laws equally across both classes, the ruling class is frequently allowed to get away with murder, both figuratively and literally.

socialism means worker control over the means of production, which doesn't necessarily have to mean the despotic soviet (uh oh tankies) hellscape that neoliberal school system teach.

It working in a small scalle system also too.

This is how your society works.
I actually agree with this, if by strict you mean stops Capitalists from their incessant post revolution screeching. The state won't exist after that though, at least by Marxist definitions, or it won't be a socialism.

This is a shitpost, people.

Chin hoarding kulak

I think that both ancaps and anarcho-communists can agree that ideally there would be no state. And sure, in your hypothetical utopia, why the hell not? As long as we're supposing people will behave according to your assumptions, there is no need for a state whatever your ideology. In ancapistan, let's just assume rich people won't create private warlord armies and you can't buy nukes on amazon. Under anarcho-communism let's just assume that people play nice and don't try to establish capitalist hierarchies. Whatever. All of this is meaningless because that is not the reality we live in now, which is capitalism which is interdependent with a strong state that props it up and keeps it going. That is the actual form that capitalism takes, and the hypothetical capitalism that exists in your head is irrelevant. What matters are your relations to the existing power structure, and the reality of the matter is that by confusing actually existing capitalism with fantasy Mises/Rothbard capitalism, ancaps serve to prop up the existing power structure, and yes that includes the state too.

read Adam Smith you fucking mongo

hahhahaha

Read Bordiga

Capitalism can technically exist without a state just fine. All that it needs is police (private militias are used in the third world all the time), a generalized currency scheme, and a people who for whatever reason (natural or social) find themself in dependence of the market for their existence.

People mistake modern mega capital, which is state dependent (monopolies through politics and laws such as copyright) as somehow the condition of all capital, which is not at all the truth. First world burgers have no idea what life is like in the third world and how little of a state there is in those countries to speak of already. Most of the big corporations are trans nationals that do whatever they want whether it's legal or not and get away with murdering opposition whether it's some unknown worker or aspiring politician.

Capital can do just fine for itself with nothing but absolute fear. It does not really care about "rights".

...

...

.t ancap

Yeah, and institutions to set money aside for negative externalities (natural disasters, pollution, public health, etc.), education, research, healthcare, infrastructure, a national military; unless you want corporations competing for nuclear codes. As others have said, even in a hypothetical and ignoring history, it would self-destruct or start forming a state again.

I'm afraid you need more effort to argue, user. You're thinking big bourgeois multinational capital, which only exists because of the safety and extension provided by the state, not international and local capital. No one administered currency for a long time, it was pure gold bullion, for example. Capitalism is working fine in the blood filled Congo.

even the """smart""" right wingers sound like they're stuck in middle school.

Not an argument.

Anarcho-communism existed, if briefly: Ukraine and Spain.

Anarcho-communist communes exist throughout the world.

No stateless capitalism has ever existed. No sucessful anarcho-capitalist community has ever existed.