Меню

Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)

(A)

(A)

Actually you can ...

Actually you can just destroy the state. People will then start providing the useful services that the state provides. After the state collapsed in Somalia people arranged their own security and protection services pretty quickly. They weren't prefect but given they were created in the aftermath of a vicious civil war and communist/tribalist dictatorship they were pretty good. Certainly better than the state provided. While the state exists it will not allow alternatives to be developed.

What sentence do ...

What sentence do you think needs a "yet" in it? Who are these people who can't locate under AC? Massive power isn't granted to the corporations through lack of regulation because there are thousands of regulations, mostly written by the corps lobbyists. Any system that exploits economies of scale will to some extent "concentrate power" but without the state that power can ONLY be used to give people better choices or they'll stop working for/investing in/buying from the corporation (cont)

I missed a "yet" in ...

I missed a "yet" in that sentence, but regardless, I was discussing those who can't relocate. My point is that the massive power granted to corporations is due to both government subsidy and lack of regulation/oversight, but the more important fact is that they, by nature, concentrate power. This creates again a system of financial oligarchy. One cannot simply destroy the State; for it serves many functions. One must replace it instead, but that takes a great deal of time and effort.

Anarcho capitalism ...

Anarcho capitalism is a system in which private institutions (granted, not necessarily corporations) compete for different societal roles. Define it yourself if you're unhappy with that. The think you're missing is that Shareholders tend to be a highly concentrated number of wealthy oligarchs; and that furthermore your chain of "consensuality" assumes at each turn the person has an alternative, but I question whether they do.

I never said they ...

I never said they didn't.

@newperveAlso, it's ...

@newperveAlso, it's bizarre to deny that capitalism which exists for the main purpose the accumulation of wealth, might lead to the accumulation of wealth. Or that accumulation and hierarchy could institutionalize coercive power. What's worse is having a preference for hierarchical institutions and calling oneself an an-archist

@newperveThe ...

@newperveThe ownership of land titles isn't a matter of efficiency. By paying workers who don't own any means of production to simply "mix" their labor with land, so that the capitalist  becomes the owner of the land titles, the capitalist can prevent future competition and make sure the workers remain dependent on wage labor.

For a start ...

For a start capitalism isn't "based on the sellling of one's labor to a boss" it's based on free trade. Some of those trades are selling labor to a boss, others not. What would stop the accumulation of land in a few hands is exactly what stopped it every other time, the arrangement isn't particularly efficient without government help, as I suspect you already know. How can the nonworking rich pay workers enough money to justify selling their land and still make a profit? (cont.)

(cont.) Unless you ...

(cont.) Unless you believe that large corporations are more efficient than your cooperatives and worker owned firms as well as small partnerships, individual family firms etc. then you must believe that capitalists (in the sense of non-working investors) would have a lower rate of return on land ownership. So why would they end up with all the land?

Sure it would. If a ...

Sure it would. If a society is based on the selling of ones labor to a boss and land ownership is based on lockean principles, whats to stop those who have already acquired enough capital to stop working and begin buying others labor and claiming ownership to vast tracts of land through the mixing of others labor (which the worker sells to the capitalist) with unowned land. ur not opposed to few hands controlling most land, u just think its ok if it results from a specific arrangement

How is it betrayal ...

How is it betrayal to be killed by the people you censored, oppressed, robbed, tortured, murdered etc?

don't see how that ...

don't see how that conflicts with any of what Gim said.

Yeah that's why ...

Yeah that's why only about 99% of what you use got to you by quid pro quo trades. Seriously do you not know that people get paid for doing GNU/Linux work?

No a society of ...

No a society of capitalist property rights would not probably have most of the land in the fewest hands. We know because only government interference creates that situation, and I'll bet you already know that. Homesteading creates the opposite effect. If there is no state how can the accumulation of capital influence it? Historically the state has influenced the accumulation of capital, not the other way around.

The master-workmen ...

The master-workmen relation and its hierarchy created from absolute property rights creates coercive power. Sure it doesn't create that power right away. But the accumulation of wealth eventually leads to the accumulation and institutionalization of coercive power. Sure you'd leave his land, but a society of capitalist property rights allows for, and would probably have most of the land in the fewest hands. To think that accumulation of capital doesn't influence the state, that's just silly.

Yeah anyone stupid ...

Yeah anyone stupid enough to think that an employer is a state is either lying to themselves or, no they're just lying to themselves. The idea that owning a farm gives you the same power to say, mandate a religion, ban drugs, ban homosexuality, or just search people in an annoying fashion is absurd. You'd leave someone's property if they tried that. Try to leave a state and it's not that easy.

Where in the hell ...

Where in the hell do you get the idea that AC would deny the ability to relocate? Yes corporations hold vast power, but it's a gift of monopoly government, it's not inherent in the corporate form, their size or the profit motive. They can crush smaller organisations because people like you would rather deal with the symptoms (corps) than the disease (government)

So you don't know ...

So you don't know what "anarcho-capitalism" is but you're prepared to criticise it. Why not actually google it. What power is "automatically granted" to the CEO? The shareholders grant him power to spend their investment, but that's granted consensually, not "automatically". Ditto the workers granting power over their worktime, the customers granting power over their spending etc. Soviet Russia with open borders? I see tumbleweeds rolling across a deserted city, nothing to do with AC.

They've got to do ...

They've got to do with State-Capitalism certainly, and what meaning the word "capitalism" holds outside of their establishment I'd like to see argued. A system in which power is automatically granted to a CEO or the like is by nature autocratic. Imagine soviet russia with open borders; an Autocracy which provides for people enslaves them by their inability to relocate would still be an Autocracy. Corporations already hold overwhelming power, and are even still crushing smaller organizations.

Paid army, monopoly ...

Paid army, monopoly courts, taxes, conscription what more do you need?

Firstly what have ...

Firstly what have corporations got to do with anarcho-capitalism? It's not even given that corporations will EXIST in AC. Secondly how is a corp, by nature autocratic? Neither it's customers, not it's employees nor it's shareholders have to join it or continue to deal with it. Thirdly corporations aren't the only form of organisation in the CURRENT state/crony capitalist system, there are patnerships, cooperatives, etc. why would these disappear when there are LESS restrictions?

Anarcho-Capitalism! ...

Anarcho-Capitalism!! 

I am just a human ...

I am just a human being and I want to be free....

Right, and that's ...

Right, and that's why anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea. I think if you take a closer look at the structure of the corporation from the mindset of an Anarchist, you ought to recognize that it is by nature Autocratic, seceding power to the authority of a very few. Thus, to construct a society where the ONLY form of organization is a totalitarian one, is to miss entirely the purpose of Anarchism in the first place: freedom from coercion and arbitrary delineation of power.