• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • meteorswarm@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup, that is my understanding as well. Likewise, if you’re going around stealing, and someone happens to think that’s bad, they can use force to stop you because there’s no state telling them otherwise.

            The idea that if there’s no state we’d automatically be living in communist utopia where everything is shared and nobody owns anything is flawed on its face. It’s certainly possible that there would be groups or tribes of people that choose to live that way, but other tribes would form around the idea that property rights should be protected and build a community around that.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re very much misrepresenting how anarchism is supposed to work with that “automatically” statement. No one thinks if will happen by itself, there’s a whole library on thought on how to go about making it the societal norm, with quite a lot of good points that humanity already largely acted like this for most of its two to three hundred thousand years of existence.

              Supposedly, anyways. I suppose paleolithic man might well have been selling mammoth futures and executing debtors in the street.

              But I also don’t really buy it in a urban society unless that society is largely run by the Culture’s Minds.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dont know, let’s ask Chinese feudal lords how their ability to enforce private property went after the CPC stopped enforcing their private property rights for them like the old government did.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • zorton@lemmy.thecolddark.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you think about it, such communities probably already exist: most families, even in capitalism, are communist internally: the parents contribute far more to the household than the children do, who tend to consume far more than they produce. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.

              This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Communism is a classless stateless society, parents within our society literally own their children as property.

                This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.

                Remind me again, what is the political ideology of the new world superpower? The one with 1.4 billion people? You know, now that the capitalist US empire is in obvious terminal decline.

                • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Are you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy. There are banks, there is a stock market, and there is private ownership of the means of production, although all of these are tightly regulated by the state and can be rescinded at any time or for any reason (such as not paying enough bribes).

                  De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Are you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy.

                    You’re kind of incredibly ignorant on China. They’re a mostly publicly controlled economy.

                    Source: https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/chinas-state-vs-private-company-tracker-which-sector-dominates

                    The reasoning for a private sector is to prevent economic and technological siege.

                    Also marxist economic theory is literally just a structured critique of capitalism. It doesn’t have anything to say about socialism or communism, that is marx’s other works.

                    De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.

                    I would really suggest reading “Economy and class structure of german fascism” and comparing it to the political and economic situation of China. (And actually understand those situations, not just passively absorb ideas from anglophone media) This isn’t meant to be a dig, but this level of political illiteracy is embarrassing.

                    than anything Marx ever came up with.

                    Have you literally read any book that Marx wrote? (The manifesto is a manifesto, it doesn’t count, but I’d also be interested in knowing if you’ve read that)

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        Okay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?

        This is one of the reasons why anarcho capitalism is an incoherent ideology. People who believe in it think that the right of private property is just something everyone agrees should be held sacred, when it only exists because of state violence.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?

          Nobody. But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?

          Before you say “but there’s more workers than property owners”, keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.

          It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.

          You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?

            That would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.

            keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.

            Sorta like a police force of some kind?

            It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.

            You know what is really fucking organized? A state. It is almost like at the beginning of the country all the large landowners and capitalists got together and made one of those to protect their interests.

            You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”

            Lol. I am literally asking how your hypothetical system would handle class antagonisms, the primary concern of politics. I am very directly asking “but can you make it work”

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is this meant to be a gotcha? What I prefer has nothing to do with understanding how states function and why they coalesce.

                • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Not really a gotcha. I just forget I’m pretty alone in my (particular) distaste for violence.

                  Edit: didn’t really mean for that to sound so negative.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I guess I dont base my understanding of politics around morality, morality enters the field when determining what to do within that understanding

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              That would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.

              In the same way that a collective of workers getting together to control the means of production would be a communist state in every meaningful sense.