JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I will take a look at those links and this school of thought, but I do not see how such a system deals with the class contradictions in society.
Stateless Society
- Thread starter Poitier
- Start date
I will take a look at those links and this school of thought, but I do not see how such a system deals with the class contradictions in society.
Dude stays on that Bitcoin grind.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Fair enough.
Your suggesting stateless socialism no?
Yes. Can you shed some light on the questions in my previous post?
Im sure its working well for Somalia 
Im sure its working well for Somalia
Chez Lopez
Neo-Abolitionist
I was looking forward to the answer to jahs questions too, lol
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
#firstworldproblems
It all depends on what version of capitalism you are talking about. Plus what do you do with legacy capital earned outside of free market economics?
(1) free markets
(2) corporatism
(3) wage-labor economics
(4) consumerism.
These are all different, though not necessarily mutually exclusive (save for the first two), concepts and different people depending on self-interest, politics, and so forth may think of capitalism in one or more of these terms.
That said, I must asked the question that really matters: Compared to what alternative?
As far as your "stateless socialism" goes, I believe it would morph into capitalism (anarcho or otherwise) within 5-20 years because contrary to socialist doctrine, capitalism actually benefits people--including and especially the workers--and so there would be incentives to reintroduce those processes and practices.
...and if there were mechanisms in place to stop that from happening, all of a sudden you are no longer talking about a free society. There would have to be tyranny to keep the system together, because by definition it is going to be against the wishes of the people.
...if hierarchy wasn't good, people wouldn't continually arrange themselves hierarchically. Not everyone is a leader, and it doesn't matter if that's "not fair/exploitative" because it's just human nature.
...and if there were mechanisms in place to stop that from happening, all of a sudden you are no longer talking about a free society. There would have to be tyranny to keep the system together, because by definition it is going to be against the wishes of the people.
...if hierarchy wasn't good, people wouldn't continually arrange themselves hierarchically. Not everyone is a leader, and it doesn't matter if that's "not fair/exploitative" because it's just human nature.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Well, I'm asking you to walk us through how anarcho-capitalism (however you envision it) would deal with the issues I raised previously, since there is no state to regulate the market, enforce contracts, protect business interests, etc. You can choose to address whatever elements you'd like, with whatever type of capitalism you'd like, as long as your assumptions are being made clear.
How does capitalism benefit workers? The system moves from crisis to crisis and puts workers under constant stress and insecurity, with artificial scarcity and exploitation. Workers are perfectly capable of electing management - that does not need to be dictated by private power. If people are freed from the rule of capital, it would take force to reimpose the rule of capital. For example, today, Europeans don't live under feudalism. Although feudal relations still exist in some parts of the world, it is a mostly outdated mode of production. Someone who fancies himself a modern-day feudal lord can't just go and line up serfs, even if they'd like to be serfs. A person can't legally enslave another person today, even if people would like to be enslaved. There are norms and rules meant to stop those types of things. If there are mechanisms in place to stop an individual or a small group of people from re-establishing private control -- forcefully enclosing the means of production from the community -- that would require force. If anything, that would be tyranny - not the community's efforts to stop that from happening.
There can be hierarchy. Managers should be elected and be recallable at any time, from the shop to the federation level. The difference is between tyrannical relations and democratic relations. I'm not saying everyone can simultaneously act as a president, although the internet and technology opens up some possibilities for widespread grassroots democracy, in all areas of life.
Socialism is economic democracy. And this gets reactionaries (at least, those who give lip service to democracy, individual rights, liberty, etc.) in a tizzy because they have to resort to the types of arguments that monarchists, slaveholders, etc. had to employ to defend their systems to argue for capitalism, as you did above, basically trying to legitimize hierarchy... but the state is a hierarchical entity. I thought you were supporting anarcho-capitalism? How do you reconcile that?
If workers -- the vast majority of humanity -- are unable to manage enterprises... why do we then say that monarchy is bad? What use is democracy? Why not have a despot, enlightened or otherwise? How are "the people" qualified to run the political sphere?
To be clear I'm not supporting or advocating anarcho capitalism.
Democracy is sh*tty. Its simply tyranny of the majority.
I'm waiting for you to prove your assertion.
Democracy is sh*tty. Its simply tyranny of the majority.Without going into too much detail, our democratic republic was an attempt at finding a middle ground, and IMO the most sound system thus far.
I think we have to move past the rhetoric and rationale, (of which socialism clearly wins) and look at results 
Of course this leads inevitably to No true Scotsman.
But the results remain conclusive enough that capitalism, not only generates the most wealth and power but is most in tune with the human condition.
Of course this leads inevitably to No true Scotsman.
But the results remain conclusive enough that capitalism, not only generates the most wealth and power but is most in tune with the human condition.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
To be clear I'm not supporting or advocating anarcho capitalism.
I'm waiting for you to prove your assertion.
Without going into too much detail, our democratic republic was an attempt at finding a middle ground, and IMO the most sound system thus far.
Okay, so you're backing away from anarcho-capitalism and anti-state rhetoric right now.
That's fine, but I think it shows your positions on these questions are tenuously grounded. A few posts ago, you were talking about coercion, tyranny, and hierarchy, and now you're justifying the rule of a small minority of people, an elite with private power. I think you pointing to the founding of the U.S. is an illustrative point. Have you read the Federalist Papers? Guys like Madison were talking about filtering mechanisms to suppress the masses (put a check on them to protect elite, private power) and the importance of using the state to protect private property and elites. And I think that gets to the meat of the issue here with the ideological gymnastics going on here. You aren't the only one who does this... your position necessitates such gymnastics, because it is logically and ethically untenable, and is only taken up to protect the powerful.
That meme you posted could go many other ways, too. Obviously gang rape is not democracy. Democracy is not mob rule. Jim Crow was racist and anti-democratic, but your line of thinking would suggest it was perfectly democratic, since people of color constituted a minority population. Was slavery okay too?
As for why capitalism requires a state, I presented a lot of points on that already. If you're unconvinced, fair enough.
But without that coercive apparatus, there's nothing to stop the people from accomplishing a more equitable distribution of wealth and power and society. No state = nothing to back up contracts, protect and enforce private property, etc.