What arguments do you use whenever an ancrap/lolbertarian says that "it was corporatism, not capitalism"?

Well no, i was an ancap before…

Explain to them how what they call corporatism is just how capitalism naturally plays out and how their idea of a perfectly free market is completely ahistorical.

If someone is in a position of (economical) power of course they are going to try and influence government legislation to make sure they can keep that power.

Laugh in their face.

Glad to have you. I actually like most lolberts.

thanks senpai :3

How are you people leftists?

They are against capital accumulation and want the workers to gain the fruits of their production and want to abolish all property among everything unused. Mutualists are best comrades in my opinion.

They aren't. Read Marx.

Mutualists essentially wish to go back to a time of artisanal production. They are reactionaries in the literal sense.

Or this, pre left anarchy now comrades.
All Mutualists should realize that associating with any Marxist is suicidal and that your only comrades are your fellow Anarchists. (Especially Individualists)

You aren't a leftist either.

Point out that corporatism is a inevitable result of capitalism.

Edgy.

Doesn't fucking seem like it.

Like =/= agree with.

Egoistic jerks can still be likable. See: cats.

There is none, we simply pointed out that your critique of free market capitalism had government intervention and is therefore not free market capitalism.

I point out that corporatism has no meaning except "things that capitalism does that I don't like"

Corporatism is the end result of Capitalism. Unless you change something about Capitalism, Corporatism will be inevitable.

how is it possible for ancraps to be this stupid?

This person isn't half as bad as the fascist I was arguing with that was saying that communism is a tool of the bourgeoisie.

Haha le ebin you have no life maymay xDDD

ancraps everyone lmao

Why am I not surprised

They would do the same with the le not true socialism meme

This.

these aren't opinions, just the ramblings of petulant children, like you.

In what way is

a " rambling" and not an opinion

a free market country can't compete with a corporatist or socdem country because all your capital will flow to the countries with higher profit rate. Capitalists would rather invest in derivatives of derivatives of debt owed on derivatives for that sweet sweet profit-rate
and your population won't have access to education, and will only have average labor power, meaning poverty will be widespread.
and when a bubble causes a recession, the recession will turn into a depression without the Gov as a buyer of last resort
hell, it's inherently impossible for profit to exist without debt or a speculation bubble to pump up demand
holy fuck I wish ancaps would actually study ECONOMICS (which is totally non-scientific anyway)

To be fair, anfem gets just about as much shit from leftypol regulars as ancraps do. And I myself admit to throwing some of it.

What would a market without government intervention even look like? More importantly how would you pull that off?

Again, go on and have your stateless capitalism!
Tell me again why this will not create the most poluted country on earth and how will the system survive when there is noone to bail out the banks?

In essence, how many years till technobarmarism and Mad Max?

...

I don't

What's wrong with rape? Legislated morality is reactionary af

...

6/10, needs a Star Trek box set

Point out that:
(a) their definition of capitalism only started becoming widespread in the 60s
(b) it was 19th century radicals who popularized the term, and we gave it a specific meaning, so
(c) they don't get to make the rules on what is/is not capitalism

Why the fuck would ancaps like FULL COMMUNISM IN SPACE a.k.a Star Trek?

Capitalism as you define it can't exist as a stable system; it inevitably deteriorates into corporatism. You can not allow inequality of wealth in a society and expect that the wealth won't be used to buy power.

huffingtonpost.com/ellen-ladowsky/pedophilia-and-star-trek_b_5857.html

Stop debating over terms and attack the ideas. What's being said is, "your definition of capitalism is not my definition of capitalism, we are using homonyms."

Well, yeah, that too: when we talk about capitalism we're talking about production, whereas anscaps take it to me mean "people buying shit"

Tell 'em that if we're "actually living under corporatism", then how comes they celebrate perceived economic achievements as feats of capitalism?

What arguments do you use when marxists say "it was state capitalism, not communism."?

KEK

The party failed to establish the DOTP therefore it was not socialist, and it was objectively state capitalist before 1928 and Kruschev forward.

Also Marx wanted this to be done in a nation that was already industrialized.

Corporatism is a completely different ideology than what we have now and Ayncraps who say we live in corporatism have no idea wha they're talking about.

Also, the manifesto is about how to socialism. Not what "Gommunism" is or "how to socialism in a non industrulized nation in 1900".

This is the worst propaganda ever.

fuggin kill me

When ancaps use the term corporatism they have a specific definition in mind. It's not the same definition anyone *else* uses, or even a particularly intelligent one, but I generally find arguing with them over semantics to be a waste of time.

Not only that, but taking it entirely out of context, which goes to show how illiterate these dumbasses really are.

These 10 points were formulated as an initial set of measures to advance toward the democratization of society, before actually beginning the socialist phase which considers worker control of the means of production. That is, far before actual communism (which is a transformation for the very far future).

Thus it is not to be regarded as a "IS UR CONTRY GOMMUSINT???" quiz as cuckservatives and ancraps would like it to be (as their brains can't process anything beyond simple checklists and slogans, it seems). Of course the USSR was going to comply with these points, they were among the first measures taken after the whole NEP/"war communism" period, and they were necessary to industrialize society before the socialist transformations.

I kick them for being Wolffist revisionist scum. And they are Marxians, not Marxists.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Will you go and actually read something?

It is correct. Except it used out of context and by a moron.

*twitch*

>These 10 points were formulated as an initial set of measures to advance toward the democratization of society, before actually beginning the socialist phase
There is no "Socialist phase". Socialism is movement towards Communism. It's a process, not a state.

my god

double my gott

Are you really from r/FULLCOMMUNISM?

Don't you have some Ukrainians to starve?

In the context of Marxism yes. Does socialism exist as a concept itself outside Marxism? Yes.

Yesterday when I pointed out the fact that bureaucrats could exercise power in such a way that benefitted them thus there wasn't a true DOTP, you replied with "Yes but only a little bit". I think that sums up the tankie mentality eloquently.

Nah. They've got Capitalism. They are starving themselves now.

It makes no sense to use out-of-Marxist concepts in the Marxist discourse. Which is applicable to any context.

Why should I even mention such an obvious thing? Oh, wait. You never mastered thinking. Reading about Solzhenitsyn is so much easier.

Link, please. And don't tell me I deleted the post, please.

I will say I was paraphrasing it in that post.
Anyway, my point was the "it was extremely narrow". I'm fine with you saying "they procured more benefit from that power than was lost", but I can't see how a society where bureaucrats can use some sort of power to further their own goals has established a DOTP.

Because there is no perfection, you damn anarkiddie. Stop using formal logic where it does not apply. Go learn DiaMat.

I've already pointed out that Lenin thought that there were 5 (five) different economic systems within Russia in 1918 (and repeated it in 1921) - and said it to the fucking LeftCom (in fact, he has been talking about since early 1917). And I have to fucking repeat it in every thread now. There is no "pure" anything; there are degrees and elements.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

If you think that Lenin was a tankie - Engels thought the same, and so did Marx. Granted, they did not have USSR to talk about, so they talked about Paris Commune.

Unless you have your own definition of DotP - which you should provide before discussing anything else - you have to stick to Marxism. And Marxism does not deal with imaginary friends. This includes "Perfect Democracy".

Engels (postscript to Civil War in France, 1891):
> Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Didn't the Paris Commune have systems of participatory democracy?

I never said there was "perfection", I said that it wasn't a DOTP.

DOTP means the proletariat has the monopoly on power. To me that means worker councils with representatives that can be voted in(and voted out), who will congregate to make decisions regarding the whole of the state, while being in charge of their own respective sectors and of course working with feedback from the workers. I wouldn't expect this to happen immediately and I think War Communism was completely justified.

The moment any politician become sacrosanct and is unable to be removed from office if he engages in childish behaviour*cough* Lysenko *cough* they have failed to establish a DOTP.

...

Read. Don't guess.

There is no perfect all-encompassing monopoly.

Check.
Check.
Check.
Check.

There wasn't a single such politician (except Gorbachev, of course). Even Stalin got removed from the office.

If worker councils make a mistake - that's not real DotP? That's retarded.

How is that revisionist?

Engels says that MarkSoc doesn't work and Khrushchev reforms were anti-Socialist.

Okay kiddo.

Keep the trip up, it's easier to find your shit posts and save them before you delete them out of embarrassment.

I'm still waiting for something more than a twelve-year old level of discussion.

Listen kiddo, I've discussed many times with literal Stalinists, not internet pseudo activists, in real social organizations - in real political life - where things really matter.

If you think I'm going to bother writing an essay about anything, for you, then you should try harder, my dear.

Till then I'll be *twitch*

Why, when and how?

Read what Engels wrote here:

AKA State ownership does not mean it is socialist .

So … let me get this straight. You are literally hounding me through all those threads, collecting (dozens at this point, I assume) my posts, label each and every one - but find it too bothersome to enunciate any objections to my position.

But you certainly can do so, if you decide to, because you "discussed many times with literal Stalinists".

Cute, but no dime. But cute. Now go away.

.>Why, when and how?
Uncertain, when he was sick in 1953, via the vote of Politburo (in his absence) - all according to standard procedure.

Proper arguments, please.

Stop strawmanning. You are not Wolff to do so and get away with it.

I never said it was state ownership that made anything Socialist.

Oh how cute! You're just a disonest shitposter. Every time you're proven wrong, you deflect other's anons arguements with either "What is your definition of X", "That is not a real argument!", "You are a revisionist". And so on and so on. Oh look, just like you did with the lefcom poster!

You know what, call him a "anarkiddie" again. That'll show him.

Where I'm from (and it's not only here), the Stalinist party is but a pawn for the bourgeoisie. Although they do pride themselves in proclaiming that homosexuality is bourgeois decadence.

Good thing they don't have any popular support. So much for being a vanguard.

Are you scared?

Yes this is what I was expecting.

When I said "worker councils" I didn't mean worker councils who were themselves part of a hierarchy of government. I meant worker councils where the representatives of the councils would have equal standing, or have leverage in congregation based on how integral their industry is to the country functioning(that is to say, energy would have more leverage in decisions than say, video game production). The worker councils would be able vote Stalin out if they chose to.

The Nomenlaktura were influential roles that could be appointed by the communist party(not elected by worker councils. Stalin could go "you get to be potato manager" and he would become the potato manager).

The executive branch of the Soviet union had the right to interpret laws however they wanted, and there were no open elections regarding this executive branch.

This is not what you call the DOTP. It's state bureaucracy with elements of proletarian democracy mixed in there.

Where you from?

What did you expect? Confirmation bias? Because "muh ebil dictator" myth wouldn't have survived until now, if Stalin got deposed in 1934.

Khrushchev got deposed, for example. And he had more power than Stalin did.

It was government that was part of worker council hierarchy.

How do you even expect government and worker councils to be independent and worker councils have a say in anything? Are you schizophrenic?

They did.

> or have leverage in congregation based on how integral their industry is to the country functioning(that is to say, energy would have more leverage in decisions than say, video game production).
Wait a goddamn second. You want fascism? And you call it "true socialism"?

Oh, wait. Solzhenitsyn fan. Why am I even surprised? I'll get quoted Goebbels at me soon, I take it.

They were.

A thread inviting leftists to refute the idea that corporatism isn't capitalism derails into a libertarian vs. non-libertarian feud.

I'm not surprised.

I think it was Brazil.

He claims that the dictator they had was Stalinist and this makes every right-wing party Stalinist party. And whoever disagrees with his definitions of Stalinism - well:

Shows how relevant AnCap are to anything. Also shows that AnCap are inherently tied to Anarchism. Modern version at least, but I wouldn't take a bet on the last bit.

You're fucking retarded. Read a fucking book. I don't even know how a leftist can be so fucking ignorant on leftist history.

He was disposed of because of sickness or some other reason not related to policy.

Fascism doesn't have democracy in any form, but I'll rescind that remark because it was stupid. I meant is as a very situational thing following the revolution but I didn't make that clear.

Anyway, it's nice that you picked out some parts that were easy to refute and not integral to my core argument which was that the Nomenklatura and Executing branch of government were not in anyway examples of the DOTP.

State evolved out of capitalism, not capitalism out of the state. No reason to think this is not the natural cycle of things considering classical liberalism was responsible for a string of financial disasters and worker abusers leading up the Great Depression.

*executive
not that the first one wasn't more correct

How cute, the Stalinist doesn't know any type of history outside of what his Big Other did and say.

Here come the lies, typical from a tripfaggot. Never claimed that. And Vargas was a nationalist who persecuted every single communist in the country, while being a dictator. He imprisoned Prestes, one of the leaders of the commie party, and signed the order to hand his wife, who was jewish, to the Nazis.

You see: right after Vargas was ousted of his dictatorial position, and replaced with an General "democratically" elected in '46, the Communists of the time, ie. the followers of the 3rd International, decided to support him (although briefly) in the elections of '51 - because he (Vargas) would make possible a "bourgeois revolution" - which was "needed" because muh stages of history and muh train of history.

You're a fraud.

What?

Are you replying to the correct person. I was just mentioning how it's always the same thing with leftist infights between libertarians (you) and non-libertarians (the stalin-flag guy)

I'm sorry, but is there some alternative to state-level intervention into economy?

Because Proudhon's ideas of independent co-ops don't actually work well with modern interdependent industrial economy. You need central planning. World economy can't work without it. You already have it, in fact. The question is only - are you in command of it?

Anarchism attempts to abandon the responsibility for this. And this means that economy goes unregulated. And this is where AnCap nonsense begins.

What policy? There was legal mechanism to depose him. Mechanism got used. Then it got used again to depose Malenkov. And again - on Khrushchev.

You are pretending that there wasn't one.

Gut.

Because you were posting absolute nonsense. This is like arguing against that "Feudalism is bad, because dragons come flying and burn the villages and towns". Literally insane gibberish with no connection to anything real.

Nomenklatura is a meme. I've no idea what is this "executive branch of the Soviet union" that did not get elected you are talking about. Is it SNK? How the fuck was it not elected?

And your ideas about Soviet decision-making are absolute fantasy. Straight from Cold War propaganda.

What is there to argue about? Educate yourself and stop writing about necessity to sacrifice virgins to dragons and my lack of argumentation when I simply dismiss dragons as fantasy.

Read a book on anarchism and then come up with this shit. I hate you other fellow socialists say this shit, undermine anarchists and legitimize the anti-state capitalists.

replace "you" with "how"
as in "how fellow socialists…"

Okay I am now a "tankieshell"

It doesn't matter what Anarchists want, what matters is their plan.

Also, what book? I already asked how Anarchists intend to deal with industrial economy, but got no answer.

most anarchists don't know their own shit. Just read

In all seriousness I was wrong. It was incredibly democratic when Joseph Stalin ordered 40,000 people to be murdered with the stroke of his hand.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism

Remind them how the collusion of big-government institutions and private businesses is the military-industrial complex we were warned about, and exists not as a consequence of capitalism, but of interventionism. In free-market capitalism, under which the government would have limited influence over the markets, they wouldn't possess any power worth purchasing from the perspective of a shady corporation that they routinely take advantage of today.

something Marx something tankies something starving Ukrainians something the USSR was totes a free market something Noam Chomsky something all the capitalists' fault something we coined the term capitalist something nobody takes us seriously something capitalism is ebil something muh labour theory of value muh redistribution muh bourgeoisie

honestly you people make me want to not even try and learn about your ideology before outright dismissing it

but I love you anyways and you'll always be welcome in mincapistan

What do you think drives interventionism? Are you retarded?

Yeah because that worked out the first time.
Oh no wait.
It completely fucking failed and led to worker abuses where the state was eventually pressured into literally forcing the industry to do what they were asking. Then it led to a string of financial disasters accumulating with The Great Depression and had to be bailed out with Keynesianism because the system had literally collapsed and was in no way "fixing itself" like Capitalist proponents say it does.

Yeah. Got it. Capitalist USA is more Socialist than USSR.

But I still see no plan.

Well, that's why you're stupid. You don't even know what you're talking about.

How about your read something and then come back.

Yeah because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Halfway through Manifesto with a copy of Capital on the way

And to that tune, article. Ignore at your discretion.

fee.org/articles/33-the-great-depression-was-a-calamity-of-unfettered-capitalism/

Well, at least you're reading something.Don't ignore other leftist tendencies like libertarianism though.

How can I ignore it, 'libertarians' from Europe are mostly socialists.

That being said, any recommendations to add to the reading list?

They are socialists. I'm just telling you to go through the different leftist tendencies so you can understand the feuds socialists have with each other. Now when you think about it, it's strange how quarrels begun centuries ago between socialists still echo on today.

Read Proudhon's "What is property?" and then maybe some Kropotkin or Malatasta.

I just say anarchy will never work fuck this anarchist bring then into the gulag!!!
S T A L I N DID NOTHING WRONG

the goal of capitalism is corporatism

I knew there were some serious rifts between the different sects of socialism, some of them running pretty deep, but until I actively started researching socialism (as a whole, not so much a single sect) that there were so many.
I mean, capitalism is hardly a unified cause either, but at least we seem to find common ground when it matters, some of these socialists seem to go at each others' throats more viciously than they do at us capitalist folk

Proudhon, Kropotkin and Malatasta added to the reading list, thanks.

TL;DR we're all filthy leftist pedos

Yeah, socialism is extremely broad.
You see, liberalism is already established in the world, so liberals, whether they be social liberals or conservative liberals, only have the task of getting their liberal sects behind the wheel of today's establishment and moving it the way they wish. Socialists, on the other hand, are burdened as the radicals they by having the additional task of breaking through liberalism and its bourgeois forces and implanting socialism and then running it. That's why there is so much division among the Left. We have to deal with the difficult task of how to achieve socialism and also how to run it.

Anyways, "What is property" is a prominent and influential piece where he lays the ground for the important socialist critique of property the Marx borrowed. You should read that one first.

Before you start reading Capital you'd better get some basics.

I strongly recommend Dialectics (Trotsky's and Stalin's are simple and short - read both) after Manifesto. Then some simple stuff like Anti-During, Critique of Gotha Programme, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

If you read them before Capital, it should make things much easier to understand. Lenin's State and Revolution is also good, but it's on the level of Capital.

I should've made reading list in one image with comments.

Why? Capitalism didn't change.

Traitors are hated more than the enemy, no?

Let her read, "What is Property?"

It's a preliminary piece.

Kek, MJ is literally full communism. Sleep well young prince.

Proudhon bumped up on the list.

Appreciate the heads-up, and the list. Everything's been added to the ever-growing list.

Fair point.

Appreciate the reading list everyone, glad to have got some recommendations from actual socialists. I'm still a capitalist, and most certainly will be to my dying breath, but I really want to understand where you're coming from. Will get to ordering these as soon as I can.

I hope you actually read them though human

Just switch sides already.

Be a camarada

I was a kinda-socialist way back when, it was Friedman that made me reconsider. I haven't lost faith in the capitalisms yet, through everything.

I do like these more civil discussions though, the back-and-forth vitriol can get tiring

and by kinda-socialist I mean I knew the gist of what socialism was and was like "cool"

Really, Freidman? Why that neoliberal?

I don't want to recommend more books than regular people read in a month. Those lists get out of hand really easy.

And if we talk about Proudhon, I'll feel compelled to add Poverty of Philosophy, at the very least.

You aren't. It's called Liberalism.

Capitalists are guys who own things. That's ~100.000 people in US. The rest of the top 1% are petit-bourgeoisie.

We are being trolled, I take it.

What is Propety? is extremely basic though. What guy or woman getting into leftism doesn't read that?

I think the satan-user just means that she supports capitalism, but yeah.

Probably that charm he had when he spoke. I disagree with quite a few of his policies (having delved deeper into the matter when my interest was piqued), but I can't fail to give credit where credit is due; he opened the door to capitalism, and it's only been an in-door thus far. von Mises is my biggest influence today.

I'm not trolling, cross my heart. I'm the guy who didn't sell back his college textbooks "in case I needed them one day"
I have a hardcover fetish, sue me. and if it gets too pricey I'm sure there are torrents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And I actually am a capitalist by that definition, I own and run a small business and am working on expanding!

…did I do something to come across as feminine? I assure you I'm male

How is that capitalist?

Is you yearly income over 1 mil dollars? No?
Maybe at least you are hiring over a 100 workers?

IIRC there was a satan-poster who claimed to be female.

How is it not? Because nobody forced me to sell them back, and I determined of my own free will that I would be better off keeping the books that I paid for (albeit in mostly contemporary subjects; multivariable calc, phsyics, etc.).
I consider someone a capitalist if they subscribe to and participate in the general philosophy of capitalism, but I get that there's a different definition around these parts…

… the exact details of which continue to escape me. I thought Marx's definition was something to the tune of "the ones who own the means of production." I bought the property, I bought the machinery, and I pay the workers for their services in operating said machinery using the raw materials I provide, so I thought I counted.

Ah, different satan-poster. Not a regular, came here on a whim to try and offer counterpoints but walked away with a solid, socialist-approved reading list damn near as tall as I am

The notion of Capital (expensive property necessary for industrial production) was popularized by Marxists (Capital, from "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx). And Capitalists were the owners of said Capital (Capitalism is named after Feudalism - as in social position depends on control over industry, like it depended on control over land).

That's the only proper definition of the word.

To be precise, in Marxism Capitalist is an economic role. A process. Not actual human. Which is why people need to learn Dialectics (Marxist - Materialist, not Hegelian).

At some point (Stockholm syndrome, I guess) some people started associating themselves with capitalists, despite not being ones and only defending their interests. So we have "capitalists", who are actually supporters of Liberal ideology that traces its roots back to French Revolution.

"Means of Production" - is primarily hi-tech expensive stuff. Factory, for example. Computer and toolbox aren't really MoP.

Capitalist earns most of his income from the simple fact that he has Capital and people who don't have it (Proletariat) are forced to work for him to survive. Capitalist doesn't earn his income by working in any manner (organizing people, for example).

Well, as I said - it's a process. If we are talking about specific people, Capitalist would be the one whose role in economy is predominantly Capitalistic. I.e. getting most of his income from the fact that he owns Capital.

Simply hiring some people and working alongside them is Petit-bourgeoisie (who either advances to the top and becomes Capitalists or - much more probable outcome - fails and becomes Proletariat).

I've only seen it used here as a strawman not a thing that actually can be defined.

...

>fee.org/articles/33-the-great-depression-was-a-calamity-of-unfettered-capitalism/
This article doesn't even mention "buying on margin" which is largely thought to be the practice that caused the great depression to be as bad as it was.

What garbage.

Also
This does not justify it at all.

I'm fairly certain The Great Depression had more to do with 9000 banks failing and the irresponsible stock market behaviour. If you can show me a stock market crash on that scale prior to the depression I'd be interested to see.

I say:

"Good point. Capitalising on the state's use of force and coercion is not that same as capitalising on voluntary exchange between consenting individuals and the two terms should not be conflated.

I'll go be stupid some place else."

A state is required to enforce capitalism.

Why do you need a state first in order for two people to engage in a voluntary transaction?

I'm pretty sure that humans have been freely trading for much longer than the state has existed.

a voluntary transaction =! capitalism

To enforce private property rights.

Care to explain how capitialism isn't a series of voluntary transactions?

capitalism is private ownership of the means of production at its most basic. It is not free trade.

If you think that capitalism just means "voluntary exchange", you're really fucking lost.

Capitalism implies private property owned by a capitalist who supplies the workers with materials and a means of subsistence who sells the product they produce for a profit on a market.

I already envision AnCap explaining that the payment for the service of "not being shot" is a voluntary transaction.

As if you can't do that yourself. How do you think that property works in remote locations with little to no government infulence?
e.g. african slums.

Private ownership being owned by an indivdual or a assosiate group of individuals. If the people are free to do as they please and support whatever compainies and products they chose then I'd call that pretty much free trade dude.

Africa has war lords that fulfill the same function of a state. That being, protection of private property rights by use of violence. It stands to reason that if most things were privately owned and there was little to nothing built in the public commons there would have to be a way to protect the ownership to the individual who had rights to it.

not necessarily a component of capitalism

What do Afrian war lords initiating the use of violence have to do with the natual right to have full ownership of what you've earned throughout your lifetime?
Rights don't come into existence by infinging upon the rights of others, that's just retarded.

Rights don't fucking exist.

Natural rights do. Rights granted by the government don't.

Life. Liberty. Property.

You should read John Locke.

I'm not arguing with you about "le natural rights", because as far as I'm concerned I believe property is directly what you can take control of without relying on the labour of others to control it. I'm simply pointing that the State initiates violence in order to protect private property rights which is exactly what African Warlords do to protect private property. They fill the role of the State.

John Locke's definition of property is way closer to the Marxist definition than to the Capitalist one. Locke describes it as what a man can create using his labour. His OWN labour.

I totally agree with you here. That's why I'm against capitalism

You can have worker communes in a voluntarist society. If they are such a better alterative like you people say, then people will naturally see that and will flock to work in them.

Not if you both respect each others property rights.

So would eBay sabotaging Amazon and vice versa. Yet they don't opperate in this way because it's an immoral practise thats more trouble then it's worth.

There is no incentive for a more powerful company to respect the less powerful companies property rights.

Have you ever heard of something called the state?

well just off the top of my head, both the black market and bitcoin exchanges (before the government sanctioned them) lack state involvement.

IE people getting killed over their goods, people using force to steal and not keeping their contracts if they dont have to.

that never happened with bitcoin exchanges, there are other examples like when Zimbabwe and Germany were going through hyper inflation people often turned to other currencies that weren't sanctioned by the government.

ftfy

Didn't bitcoins got taken over by mafias?

Tell them that corporatism is literally fascism as envisioned by Mussolini "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Then give them links to read and then leave the conversation. There no point in engaging them, just give them things to read on why exactly they are wrong and some of them will actually read it and become less retarded.

no, if bitcoin was controlled by the mafia the government would make bitcoins illegal and legitimate businesses, steam for example, would stop accepting bitcoin.

bitcoins have been stolen from exchanges that have poor security though.

what are your thoughts on freicoin?

first time i have heard of it, i have been out of the loop for a while now, i will check it out later

Looks like both Holla Forums and Holla Forums can only strawman lolbertarianism to make fun of it.

...