How would you prevent Capitalism from forming in a system of anarchy?

How would you prevent Capitalism from forming in a system of anarchy?

You've created a state, my dude. It's not within the system of anarchy, but socialist anarchy regressing back into bourgeois dictatorship.

And this is why we need a dictatorship of the proletariat until the last remnants of bourgeois society have been abolished, tbh.


At which point you fully expect the dictator to give up all his power, huh?

He was elected in accordance with the soviet constitution his entire time in office

So was Ahmadinejad

What does the President of Iran have to do with this?

I'm saying you would also vote for a guy who kills the first person to stop clapping for him.

You know there is no evidence that ever actually happened right?
One of the main people who talked about that supposed event was fucking Solzhenitsyn for fucks sake

Holy fuck. There's plenty of evidence Stalin had dissidents murdered. Can hardly call his elections unbiased.

I know
I was just pointing out the fact that the "The first man in the audience who stopped clapping for Stalin was sent to Muh Gulag" meme has literally no evidence

imagine being this much of a brainlet

And now I'm pointing out that you're a dumbass for suggesting Stalin was legit because he was """"elected""""

One way to go about it would be re-education or re-wireing of people, it'd be a lenghty process, possibly shortened through outbursts of internal conflict that'd bloodily reduce the number of dissidents if not through banishment. But after a couple of generations, anarchism would be to people what common sense is, making opposition as minor as we make one nowadays.. Frankly, longevity of anarchism might be majorly dependant on the dawn and coming of ubermensch per say, as if utopia isn't a place but a people, we ought to choose those carefully.

How sure are you that we can rewire the world population to the point where a handful of assholes won't establish a state?

Not at all, because first and foremost would be to make attempts on a smaller scale and after gradually stabilising said anarchist society, expand outwards through means of coersion, sabotage, propaganda, you name it.
It's not like we can expect the whole world to turn communist at the same moment either, shamefully enough.

Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean there's a single dictator, but that the proletarian class dominate the society.

The people work to counteract anyone posing a threat to them, it's simple really and I'm pro authoritarianism.


the fuck is a wannabe capitalist gonna do, claim ground by himself or try to argue in the council that they should privatize a piece of land for him?

That pic isn't capitalism.

The harsh heavy dick of the law.

If anything, it's Mutual Aid.

You know those armed men can just shoot you and take all of your cocaine production and share it among everyone instead?

what do you mean he "payed" those heavily-armed men? you do realize the main goal of socialism is the abolish exchange value right?
There is no "pay" under communism


This whole premise is undermined by the fact that socialism/communism/anarchism isn't just "capitalism but with/without X."

Assuming this is an anarchy, how did these people "trade" this land to anyone? Land isn't a discrete item, and since land ownership is one of the principle forms of bourgeois property that communism seeks to abolish, it can't be bought, sold, traded, or transferred in the traditional capitalist sense. No one owns it, so no one can sell it.

But say that somehow someone -did- "sell" this land to this rube and took his cocaine. How is he going to prove it? Land deeds aren't a thing any more because land ownership isn't a thing any more. Furthermore, how would he enforce it? There is no longer a system regulating or enforcing territorial monopoly–no courts, no cops, no registrars or deed offices. There's no outside element set to enforce this man's "property rights" for him.

That appears to be a possible solution, but without a broader system of deprivation by monopoly to facilitate this coercion, where are these "heavily-armed men" coming from, what reason do they have to work for pay, and how would these men be supplied?

Just assuming this is an ideal anarchist society, these men no longer have to find employment to secure the necessary resources of life. Their food, housing, clothing, education, entertainment, etc, all come from the commune. This wannabe landowner has no means of depriving them of these things in order to coerce them into employment. The implication then is that they are either unable to get cocaine themselves, or are so addicted to it that their appetites outstrip what could be provided communally.

But where is this cocaine coming from, exactly? Without the government enforced prohibition, there's no longer a black market, no longer a financial incentive to produce or distribute it, or the vast international network necessary to transport it. Either it is being produced domestically by their boss, or he is sitting on a finite supply of the stuff. In either case, without a support network of other wannabe aristocrats and warlords to enforce his person and property rights, there's nothing standing in the way of these heavily armed men just executing him and taking either the cocaine production or horde for themselves.

But even if all of that wasn't a problem, having and keeping these men "heavily armed" requires a complex network of supply of its own. It requires spare parts and material for the maintenance weapons, ammunition or the supplies to make it, not to mention the training to use all of these things. Where is the gunpowder coming from? Are they making it? Where are they getting the supplies and facilities and equipment for that? They're going to need chemicals and casings (and presumably medical facilities as these cocaine-addicts learn to safely and reliably produce them).

Property ownership in the bourgeois sense requires a vast array of support systems in order to incentivize and enforce it. Modern landlords couldn't have enclosed the commons without the legal, judicial, and martial systems in place to enforce it. We can see parallels in that with the internet as a sort of digital commons. Piracy of "intellectual property" was rampant two decades ago, and there was nothing the so-called IP holders could do about it. It's only after billions of dollars of lobbying and transforming bourgeois governments around the world into the brutal enforcers of these "rights" that the distribution of these IPs could be curtailed, and we're now seeing them try and throw up walls around this commons with SOPA, PIPA, and the elimination of Net Neutrality, etc, all of which are only a problem because of the threat of the governments' armed thugs coming to murder you for trading song tracks or create your own networks.

So more often than not, whenever a brainlet asks
The answer can usually be something like

How do you ensure the nukes will remain in the hands of anarchists

To be clear, I'm operating in a realistic anarchist system. Not unicorn land where all demands are met and there's magically no scarcity.

Let's say one guy gets his hands on a lot of something that a lot of people want, like drugs. There ARE people who give more of a shit about their immediate desires than your ideal societal structure, and these are the people who will enforce for the Capitalist as long as he gives them what they want.

You need to lurk on /k/ more. This is a far less challenging hurdle than, say, arranging society into an honor system where everyone independently upholds and supports the ancom system.

Not really. feudal lords did this with some walls and enough resources to feed their soldiers.

So establish the parameters of this "realistic anarchist system." Where is all of this stuff coming from?

How, and why can't they just make their own? And also why won't the people that want these things just take them?

I don't think you really know anything about anarchism or anarchist society.

"Feudal lords" had their property rights enforced by the feudal system in which they functioned. They retained their feudal property in a system of clientage, where their monopoly on force was assured by their fellow lords and lieges. If the peasants decided to rise up and dispense with their lord, the other lords would come and put things back in order. Without the support of these other lords, how exactly are these property rights going to be enforced?

So like I said, our genie (or maybe the neighboring Pixie Laborer's Commune) will just magic your fanciful little wannabe-kingdom away.

So the material conditions for a stateless society are not met? Well then, humans would undoubtedly fall back on capitalistic production.

People don't just "get their hands on" things in Communism. Production presupposes exchange and under Communism, production will be under the control of society. This is a pretty big thing you missed when trying to form your argument.

How exactly is that "unicorn land," you unimaginative little brainlet? The internet makes providing practically unlimited entertainment a triviality. Without the system in place to force people into useless labor for profit, they have the time to actually provide these things, such as education, and with modern technology food can be made cheaply and in abundance. Absent the profit motive, the thin, fragile clothing meant to be replaced on a yearly or monthly basis is replaced with sturdier wares that last years.

You know that we still have tools and equipment people produced thousands of years ago, right? We have ceremonial bronze cooking vessels from 4th millennium BCE China that, where their use value not outweighed by their historical significance, would still be in a completely usable state. When you produce for longevity and use instead of trade and profit, you save not only yourself, but future generations, greater and greater quantities of labor.

There are factories in the US that are still running on equipment and machinery produced in Eastern Germany. Have you ever thought about how much time, money, effort, and resources that machine has saved compared to, say, one that would have to be essentially replaced every three to five years?

We are sitting on over a century of the accumulated product of industrial production. There's already more than enough to go around, but it doesn't appear so because of the artificial scarcity incentivized and produced by the profit motive.

Digital media is a good example. There are always faggots that come here to whine about "well what about muh games?" or "Who'll make the movies/music/whatever?" Production of those things wouldn't stop under communism, but even if they 'did, there exists now more hours of music, video, and games than could ever be completely experienced in a single life time, and now that the distribution and enjoyment of those things are no longer tied exclusively to physical media, they are essentially infinitely reproducible and distributable at practically no cost and minimal effort.

So, again, what exactly is preventing scarcity from being more or less eliminated, aside from the confines of your tiny mind?

Well, OP, I'm waiting. Have you rounded up enough minorkists and anarcho-capitalist dragons to defeat my order of commie wizards? Must I light the beacons of the commune of Gondor and summon aid from the People's Free State of Rohan?

And this is where Leary's psychedelic praxis comes in.

There's no "trade" in mutual aid.

True. Probably depends on how you look at the image, though. You could just see two blokes helping each other out so they don't die. On the other hand, you could see it as trading goods and services. (Probably also depends if your a Mutalist or not).

"Deal" implies trade. It also kinda implies a state/court to enforce the deal.

Good point.


The drugs? It comes from the guy who knows how to make it, like it does right now.

They don't make their own for the same reason you don't make your own right now. They don't have the knowledge, equipment, and/or interest to manufacture it themselves.

Why don't they just take all his drugs? Because he doesn't tell anyone where he keeps it all. Just like how you don't tell anyone about the wads of cash hidden in your mattress.

Yeah. And here I am asking how an anarchist society could prevent something like that from happening.

The ones with the authority are just the ones who have enough violence at their disposal to make resisting them unpalatable to everyone else. Guns are easy to maintain and bullets are even easier to manufacture in your garage. Gang activity would basically have no opposition in a decentralized society with no organized police, and that's all a"state" needs to be: a gang.


he killed all his political rivals though



trade is inherently capitalist when generalized across society


your whole argument hinges on the assumption that the reason people don't just make drugs now is because they don't know how to.
there's countless videos online of how to make these drugs, hell there's even one involving gordon ramsey.
it's not difficult to make them, it's just currently illegal and most don't think the risk of going to jail outweighs the reward of selling drugs.

the armed men in your scenario would most definitely be able to just make their own drugs.