It's not enough to not understand economics, you also need to lack empathy and self-reflection.
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
27 points (82.9% liked)
Memes
52409 readers
445 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I misread it as arachnid capitalism, and I was trying to figure out which spiders were apparently pro-capitalism lmao
Anarchy (as a political philosophy) is about an absence of coercion.
Capitalism is about the supremacy of property rights over all other rights, backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.
How anyone can think those two concepts are compatible is beyond me.
Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a political philosophy. And while it requires property rights in order to function, it is primarily concerned with solving problems in the absence of coercion, so it is absolutely compatible with anarchy.
You're making a fundamental error when you think that property rights would not or do not exist in anarchy. What doesn't exist in anarchy is the enforcement of such rights by a STATE. A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
So yes, capitalism and anarchy are absolutely compatible.
Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.
Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.
Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.
Do you believe that collective forms of ownership would win on an even playing field?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
Anarchy requires the absence of a state... And private property... Anarchy is to the left of "workers siezing the means of production".
But anarcho-capitalists are, as you've said, only focusing on the economic system of their politics. If you ask them about the politics and government of their fantasy? Well, they all reveal a desire for a deeply coercive state. Anarchy, and also Libertarian, are words being co-opted.
Nope, anarchy is only the absence of a state. Like I said, it is still possible to enforce property rights in such a scenario... as long as you do it yourself.
This likely WOULD lead to less hoarding and more wealth distribution, because you cannot keep what you cannot defend. But it's definitely wrong to assume all property would automatically become public and "free use" and everyone would share freely as in a communist utopia, because that requires agreement between people. And in the absence of a state, there is no authority that could enforce such an agreement.
I've always wanted someone to explain how you eliminate capitalism or the symbolic exchange of value to achieve a socialist/ anarchist state without violence.
The nice part about anarchism is both systems are free to coexist in the absense of the state. That cannot be said under communism and socialism.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn't play along.
Every political ideology includes that. What good are rules without enforcement? Just because the enforcers are supposed to be random individuals in some ideologies doesn't mean the threat of violence for not playing along is gone.
Anarchism claims to be different. But yeah, that's a big part of why I see anarchism as a thought experiment and not a serious ideology.
I'm an anarchist, and my take is that anarchism isn't pacifism, and "no coercion" is a bad summary. It's more about the absence of hierarchical coercion and instead distribution of power to all people and communities.
If you're going around burning down houses, your anarchist neighbors are going to use force to take away your matches and gasoline if you don't stop.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I prefer to call them "19th century robber barons" who yearn for the days of company towns, where they would own you from cradle to grave.
Every Man is an Island motherfuckers realizing that No Man is an Island.
Humans specifically only were successful because of pack hunting. We died quickly in nature as individuals. Anarcho-capitalism rejects this need for each other replaced with the unsound idea that each individual can handle everything on their own.
Works great until you break your fucking ankle and realize nobody decided being a doctor was important or the only person with medical skills has decided they don't want to do business with you.
Ah yes, I have insulted my opponent in the genital area, therefore his arguments are invalid.
Nah their arguments are invalid because they aren't based in logic or economic theory.
Please enlighten me as to how that is the case.
Because I dont want the most vulnerable folks in our society to just fuxking die. People have chronic conditions that require daily medical care that would not be available for the vast majority of folks in an anarcho capitalist society, if they were available at all. I used to love fantasizing about zombie apocalypses and the fall of society myself, untll i realized my partner who is a Type 1 Diabetic probably wouldnt live long in that future. Wanting an anarcho capitalist future is the highest indicator that you live a life of extreme privilege and dont care about fellow human beings.
Okay, fair enough, and I am by no means intending to criticize you for your kindheartedness here, but that’s literally the opposite of economic theory, which concerns itself primarily with achieving the maximum output possible given a certain input.
Also, consider that this does not mean that it is therefore by nature entirely inhuman and incompatible with caring about people, but rather that the ability to achieve a high productivity is required in order to have an excess of resources than can be used to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
If you think about it, this is in fact essential to maintain human life. Children for instance always require more resources than they can produce, so parents have to be able to produce more than they need for themselves if they want their children to survive. Same goes for society as a whole — the productive members have to be able to produce an excess or the unproductive (weak, sick, or old) will starve.
So you are saying we will produce in excess and give all of the excess to people who can't produce (children, weak, sick, old...) So from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs?
Is there anything worse than anarchocapitalism?
Hmmm. What about anarchocapitalists that leave capitalist out of their descriptors and larp like they're contemporary versions of the DK-listening, doc martens wearing, spiky hair having kids from the 1980s. And ancaps might be slightly better than the rich people at the top that use every advantage they've been given as a lever to suppress the success of everyone else. At least ancaps still have the potential to change.
Donkey Kong listening?
Donkey Kong wishes! No, Dead Kennedys
view more: next ›