I'm an Ancap, convert me to left anarchism

I'm an Ancap, convert me to left anarchism

capitalism cannot exist without a state.

Basically this.

An Uncap society would have lots of crime because housing density would be huge. No one would be building roads unless it was profitable. And Urban areas tend to have higher crime rates.

You have a power fantasy were you think you'll be part of the owning class.

I'm using capitalism interchangeably with free market voluntary transaction, why is a state necessary for this?

Natural monopolies.

Also this.

Monopolies can't exist without the state

capitalism requires private property and wage labor in addition to markets. You can't enforce private property without some form of state.
You can say things about private security forces, but that would devolve into a state, however small.

Neither can capitalism.

That's a lot of words for "I hope people will kindly be wage slaves from their own volition for my profit without a state or similar superstructure to uphold the private property rights that enable the entire operation to begin with".


Neither can capitalism.

please consider slitting your wrists.

Because people would steal from you without law enforcement?

Essentially. If a boss was treating his workers poorly they'd revolt.

?

There's an edgelord with your flag.

Yes they can. There's nothing to stop someone from buying all the land in an area. And companies can merge out of their own volition. We had way less monopolies when we had anti-trust laws.

n1x uses the black-and-grey, that is a plain black.

This is, of course, implying the surplus value of the worker's labor are his own without an authority with threat of violence to contest the ownership of said surplus value and the means required to produce it to begin with.

...

there are a few people other than n1x who use the anarcho-edge flag as well.

self included.

Capitalism will always lead to a state that defends the rich thanks to capital accumulation and basic human self interest

You being dumb enough to believe you're first of all an anarchist , second that there's "right anarchism" is enough to let me believe that it will be retarded arguing with you

give it a shot

i don't know about left anarchism, but you literally cannot have private property with out a state or body with the authority to settle competing disputes
also, property inherently violates NAP, defense of property is NOT self-defense

This.

State = private property. having a ceo demand rents from you is no different from having a president or monarch demanding taxes.

>in response to his own ideologues who, at the time, wanted to consider themselves anarchists while being propertarians

All a CEO can do is offer the public a product or service…..rrright?

I for one welcome our new ancap overlords!
SARCASM

Yes… Go on.. make a stateless anarchism… let it collapse and force the slaves to revolt…

*statless capitalism.

average laborers in capitalism will always be doomed to be paid just enough to live
you have little pockets of the global market where laborers have above-average productivity, which creates the illusion that capitalism can create a good society, but it's only an illusion
pro-capitalist ideology says that as technology and productivity increases, the average persons purchasing power should go up while competition drives down prices.
but this isn't true, because if the cost of living goes down, I can just pay workers less

We already love in an "anarcho-capitalist" world. Hear me out:

Originially there were no states. States formed and violated the NAP. In your perfect stateless capitalist world, nothing prevents states from forming. Ancaps handwave this criticism away by claiming that the people won't let states form, yet this didn't happen last time. Nothing prevents an entity from obtaining enough capital/private property to create and fund an army and establish a de facto state. Only in a world where the notion of private property is discarded can a state be prevented from forming.

Plus side is the Highwayman job market will explode.

JOB CREATORS

A CEO doesn't need to do crap, he just need to sit on the land that is his for some reason(divine right?) and get everything he needs.

If what the CEO does is important he will be rewarded proportionally. If I trade someone $50 of X for $60 of Y, I have $10 more. However, there was only $110 circulated, not $120. Surplus value is just being able to trade something of lesser value for something of more, or vice versa.

This is what happens with a labourer. If the CEO performs $120 worth of work in an hour, and a labourer performs $60, and the CEO receives $70 while the worker receives $10 this is what we call exploitation. Shareholders are parasites and perform nothing useful.

lmao

*CEO receives $170

...

Honestly OP do you really think that the rich owning class would rather fight each other for customers to the point that everything works better instead of colluding with each other to maximize profits?

This. Of course libertarians and ancaps will respond with glib remarks like "Well if CEO earns $15 million/year in compensation from [Corporation], he must have provided $15 million worth of value to [Corporation]". When in reality there's usually not much of a relationship between CEO performance and CEO compensation. You just need to look at Carly Fiorina's abysmal performance at Hewlett-Packard - and her compensation in the same role - to be dissuaded of the typical libertarian's worship of Our Glorious Economic Overlords

We already live in an "anarcho-capitalist" world. Hear me out:

Originally there were no states. States formed and violated the NAP. In your perfect stateless capitalist world, nothing prevents states from forming. Ancaps handwave this criticism away by claiming that the people won't let states form, yet this didn't happen last time. Nothing prevents an entity from obtaining enough capital/private property to create and fund an army and establish a de facto state. Only in a world where the notion of private property is discarded can a state be prevented from forming.

Sorry for posting this twice. I got an error the first time and assumed it didn't go through. Also the first post had some typos.

you should be how dare ye

It can. The nascent French bourgeoisie grew in natural opposition to the ancien regime, only supplanting the state with their own after claiming victories. To suggest capitalism grows out of the state would be incorrect and ahistorical.

1. Although it indeed presupposes a state in the other sense - that capitalism inherently creates the state as an instrument of bourgeois class rule, collaboration and refined competition.
See, the quotidian reality of capitalism is a death march away from perfect competition and free markets. Towards an accumulation of market power and ability to interfere in product, labor, resource and capital markets. Towards suppressing competitors, promoting ever more monopsynistic labor relations, undercutting resource suppliers and the like. The capitalist's democracy is the most efficient way of doing this, but far from the only. Indeed, the drug cartel presents a perfect example of a business going to great pains to create a state to defend and advance its interests, all because the "legitimate" government would not itself defend the business' property rights or advance its interests at home and abroad.

2. A general smell test for shitty theory is the reduction of any program to reliance on a Kantian categorical imperative. An appeal to goodwill, virtue and rightness is fragile in itself. A program of reform must have teeth - material incentives for the individual to support it - it must strive to be in the individuals best interest more than it must assuage his cosncience. This may mean giving the reform teeth - coercion, per Robespierre - or removing the teeth of an existing social order, enabling a more fundamental material interest. Our program is the latter.
It is trivial to construct examples where the NAP is such an imperative and would require individuals to habitually violate their material interest. The key to social liberation must be changing the material conditions themselves, changing the nature of the incentives that shape social behavior.

3. The NAP treats property as a fundamental, a priori phenomenon. This is a major theoretical weakness. By what right does one acquire property in a "voluntary" transaction? It is by the other party's previous ownership. How did they come to own it? Something which is now property must have either come into being as property or been made property at some definite point. In the latter case this involves the explicit denial of the object's use to others, backed by force, barring one's own arbitrary exemptions and transactions. Intuitively this is an aggressive action, though this manner of aggression is beyond the scope of the NAP as it does not deal with property. In the former case we are discussing manufactured goods and in general property which is in some sense the product of labor. The point about created property applies to the raw materials and capital. Capital is itself a manufactured good to which this argument then applies. Raw materials depend on land rights, which are created at definite points in time, necessarily represent "state" force in the technical (geographical) sense and to which the first point applies.
The NAP thus through creative definition specifically exempts from being called coercive all the coercion which the capitalist system rests upon, and all that stands against the worker's emancipation.

How about you fuck off

No man you are cancer , you know when people say "the cancer that's killing imageboards" they are talking about you user, you are the cancer of imageboards , this can't be allowed anymore , you can't just try to correct the shit you made , i'm sad user , look at yourself , aren't you ashamed ?

The French Bourgeoisie weren't in opposition to the ancien regime. The ancien regime gave them property rights through royal charters and such and enforced them with their soldiers and courts. Unfortunately for the other two estates they ended up getting too powerful and knocked them down a few pegs. Capitalism very clearly grew out of Mercantilism which was very clearly supported by the aristocrats, first in small republics like Venice and Genoa but later spreading to the big monarchies like Spain, England and France after Columbus got back. Look at the West and East India Companies for fucks sake.

Private property is a violation of the nap, for 'property rights' to mean anything at all they require a state, or the right simply becomes who has the largest army or whoever is the sneakiest.

Private property has always throughout history concentrated power in the hands of the few, this few inevitably form a state to protect their own interests (there interests are always the accumulation of private property)

Further more, given the rapidly expanding population on earth it simply idealistic to suppose that everyone can have their own piece and that these pieces will be left in disuse while not used by their private owner.

I suggest you read Proudhon: what is property

Capitalism doesn't grow out of the state the state grows out of capitalism

The state is able to grow out of literally any economic society

That's not true at all, user. Capitalism didn't exist until the 15th century at the very earliest.

The first states were developed in Mesopotamia about 5,000 years ago.

You must be a hit with Mutualists.

/thread