"Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work because nobody would respect the NAP anyway"

Not if your time is as worthless as mine comrade, I probably will be the one cleaning the toilets once we've reached full communism

That won't work at all, my friend, because due to the illegal immigrant's innate human nature, he would just sit around having siestas and saying 'ay ay ay quiero comer un taco!' all day, like those people tend to do. With the force of hunger at his back, however, he's pushed into productive enterprise by nature itself and ends up performing work that society needs without using more resources than he needs to survive.

That's why communism can't work unless you have an authoritarian government that tells everyone what job to do.

You also need a state to ban private property. Any and all moral systems require a state to back them up.

an authoritarian government, I can't even Imagine the horror… I guess you win, how could I have been so blind to those immigrants' human nature.

All moral systems need men with guns to back them up. When these men are workers, there is no need for the state.

Glad to have helped enlighten your simple communist mind, my friend. Perhaps now you will support a system where people are allowed to choose what to do with their lives and who will make decisions on their behalf. Remember to vote in November!

What definition of state are you going by? I define state as "the entity granted a local monopoly on the use of coercive force." Under this definition, a system as you describe would be considered a state.

Granted by whom? By your definition, I'm a state all to myself, as far as I'm concerned.

This is not a good answer comrade.

Toilet cleaning robots? Or at least people to do maintenance on smart toilets? Idk maybe that could work. What about hard labor like installing/replacing equipment, building things in general, all sorts of service jobs that would be difficult to automate.

Also I feel like automated production is dangerous because it allows for a centralization of power like never before possible. If the entire bulk of proletarians are replaced with automated labor that can be tended by a relatively small group of engineers, that would deprive the proletariat of the only leverage they have, which is threatening to stop production. Full automation could easily translate to a world of only bourgeoisie and lumpenproles with a small middle class of engineers.

I should also note that if we apply this definition, then any use of coercive force at all would either be statist or illegitimate. Are you against the state or are you against coercion?

Humanity has never scientifically approached the topic of engineering jobs to be non-onerous
50 years of socialism and onerous labor can be automated
Also, ancapism would be fucking horrible even if the NAP was 100% respected, which is often argued but ancaps just ignore those arguments and focus on criticisms of the stateless enforcement NAP

This statement is false. Read an anthropology book.

Then do it you fucking worthless pussy. You also assume I'm a right-winger, I never even hinted at being one. I also never claimed to be a trump supporter, fascist, or anything of the like that I have been accused of in this thread. Just more garbage from the gentically inferior small-skulled autists on /poserpol/.

You just identified yourself with a right winger :^)

Tbh statelessness is a total meme. Aristotle had the state pegged before Hobbes or Marx or any of those scrubs. The state is simply the highest level and greatest scale of human social organization. Humans gathered into large groups have to be organized to form a functioning society, and the decisions of that organizing body have to be enforced. There is no difference between a state and a tribe besides scale.

This is why I'm a socialist and not a communist.

first day here?

A) I'm a libsoc not an ancom.

B) What is a state apart from an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force?

wut? leftpol calls people autistic and habeebs in HBD all the time.

socialists are communists. that's the fucking point of socialism.

You can be a socialist but not think that communism is feasible. I'd probably be in this category.

You can call yourself an anarchist and think capitalism is just peachy, too. It doesn't make you less of a moron.

then what the fucks the point?

Socialism is better than capitalism. Just because we can't get to full communism doesn't mean that we can't build increasingly egalitarian and democratic socialism.

Explain to me exactly what you actually think socialism is and why communism is unachievable.

And if you say human nature just beat yourself in the head with a hammer til you speak Portuguese. .

Socialism is the democratic control of the MoP and the economy.

Communism in its purest form is stateless, classless, moneyless. The latter two are conditions that are achievable, but statelessness doesn't make any sense. Any social order requires enforcement, enforcement requires an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, dedicated organizations of administration and coercion, etc. Basically any large scale social organization of humans requires a state to function.

IT WAS ALL MAGIC THEY HAD NO TECH BUT THEY ALSO HAD NUKES. DURR

Ok let's start over. No fascist accusations, none of that. How do you expect people to respect private property in the absence of a state?

capitalism == if you work, you might be able to eat
socialism == if you don't work, you don't eat, but you will get your full labor value
communism == you get everything for free and you also get to do whatever you want for a job

You are not a libertarian socialist then, your just a "socialist" who want somehow seems a classless society can be achieved with a enforcing class.

Wanna see how a large scale society can work without a state apparatus, look into some anthropology. Their are plenty of organized stateless societies all around the world.

why the anarchist flag anyway, your not an anarchist?

Isn't a state just the enforcement of one class's property rights over another through the threat or act of physical force?

A libertarian socialist is strictly speaking, any socialist that wants socialism to be implements without direct state control. Also a state doesn't imply a ruling class, it can be totally democratic.

Lacking a dedicated state apparatus doesn't necessarily make a society stateless. Even a tribal society enforces its rules through coercion, and has its own internal structures of authority (often through elders, tribal councils, etc) The difference between a state proper and tribalism is simply one of scale and semantics, since a state and a tribe basically do the same thing. When populations reach a certain size it simply becomes more effective to have dedicated organs of enforcement and administration that are distinct from the general population.

Also I use the Ancom flag because I'm a syndicalist and there's no flag for that besides the Ansyn flag.

A state is any organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion.

...

...

theyre a liberal with an ancom flag

Were a state completely democratic, the ruling class would be the working class. The state is an expression of the values of the dominant class. There are more of the working class than of the bourgeoise. Though they could be duped for some time, if the state were fully democratic there would be no possibility for suppression, and the accretion of class consciousness would result in a worker's state.

Thank you, my suine friend!!!

OP here, I don't, I'm not ancap. I just think it's funny how commies call people out for claiming that it wouldn't work due to the way people naturally act, but then turn around and say the same thing about the NAP.

Alright, how does human nature undermine the communist system? step by step

Well the first thing that comes to mind is the inevitability of hierarchy. Because I've notices ancaps and ancoms define anarchy differently. Ancaps say that all force is the same, and any breaking of the NAP is equally bad. Ancoms tend to focus on authority. They say communism will be a society free of authority, I just believe it's inevitable that there would be a group of people who go around and try to prevent certain things from happening within a community.

I think police weren't needed in neanderthal communism because the most powerful weapon you could own was a sharp rock. I just don't see a group of people going long in modern times without some form of law-enforcement.

Wew

Aristotle's analysis of the state > Marx's

But after you achieve socialism (assuming you do so successfully) isn't everybody by definition working class?

well I mean crime if it would even make sense to call it that would be significantly reduced in a communist society and I know of several ancom articles on the issue of violent behavior. Bob black has a short piece on crime which is pretty good.

Also there's a vital difference between voluntary hierarchy/delegating power and enforced hierarchy which you seem to ignore. In order for a small group to arise which would force its will on the general public, they would have to be in a position in which they could overcome the general public. This would be rather difficult in a society in which everyone is armed and understands the danger of subjugation and repression that comes with enforced hierarchy.

Essentially I don't see how some people could take power over society by just calling themselves police. Explain pls.

Also I would say that this is somewhat inaccurate. Ancoms tend to have a broader definition of violence. They say that holding control of resources by force and leveraging this control for social power is violent because the public must either listen to this person who holds their means of subsistence as ransom, attempt to forcefully disobey his/her assertion of ownership, or face the consequences that come with deficiency of this resource.

This is the central argument against the NAP. There is a sort of forceful coercion inherent in the idea of private property (distinct from personal property) which ancaps want to maintain without this small group exercising a monopoly on the use of force.

Anarcho-capitalists are inherently retarded and don't understand that their fantasy land of muh NAP will never happen.

The same could be said for a true communist state, but that's not the point. The point is that all ancaps deserve the gulags.

what that, lad?