Once again,
stuff like this is a gross simplification of human behavior.
instead of attacking capitalism, please explain how a stateless, classless society would work that takes into account human behavior and support our population size.
Stateless Society
- Thread starter Poitier
- Start date
Once again,
stuff like this is a gross simplification of human behavior.
instead of attacking capitalism, please explain how a stateless, classless society would work that takes into account human behavior and support our population size.
Ya'll stay making these false equivalencies to redirect the argument instead of staying on topic though.
We could be talking about any other country and you all would come in here talking about "well what about the USA"
Thats NOT the fukking topic
You still haven't said anything substantive, anywhere, in several threads. You're a late contender for Worst Poster of 2014 but you're building a strong case
Goodbye
Amazing, it's like you don't read your own posts. Let's see
1. Let's assume a group of 100 people with "no government" to start. There are 5 factories. Somehow (I'll let you fill in how this happens since you don't want to consider primitive accumulation through slavery, genocide, etc.), 5 people of those 100 come to "own" those factories. 85 people are employed in those factories and 10 people are unemployed.
2. For simplicity's sake, let's say there's a 12-hour workday (no 8 hour workday without labor struggles and the resultant legislation
Where you begin under false pretenses by assuming factories, theories of ownership, exchange in money terms, workdays, and "production for the sake of production" with no evidence of any grasp of organization of capital to make a half-assed case for why the state is necessary to protect disgruntled imaginary factory owners. No wonder Dead7 stopped responding to you when you make up hypotheticals like a 7 yr old. Perhaps if you actually bothered to learn economics I wouldn't have to "intellectually masturbate" on your face.
Poitier is right to point out that the entire quoted bit is extremely childish. It's quite amazing, really, to offer such vitrolic attacks on the notion of "theoretical capitalism" while ascribing to a philosophy that prides itself on arguing about what isn't "real socialism" or "real anarchism" in lieu of the elevated ideal. Of course, the Marxists experiences don't count because of the kronstadt rebellion and anarchist getting intellectual crushed, and who cares if the Spanish anarchists allied with the state and held no power other than to placate their followers from burning shyt, or that war communism and the abolition of money was a spectacular failure, wasn't real anarchism, doesn't count. If only everyone could see the light society would be awesome.
Last edited:
Brown_Pride
All Star
They don't. Particularly taking into account human behavior. The moment you gather more than a handful of people together and attempt some type of living coexisting living environment you create a "state". Ever live with roommates? Even at a very base levels "rules" are created and the moment that happens you've created a state.
The only way to create a place where there is not state is to have a place where there is no society and every man be his own castle. Othewise....
Chez Lopez
Neo-Abolitionist
that would be socialism, or communism, where the state is god.
excellent
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
How is a thought experiment intellectual masturbation?
In the context of the thread I posted it in, breh asked me to demonstrate how capitalism requires a state. Since there are no stateless capitalist societies for us to reference, we have to use hypothetical scenarios. So I presented a thought experiment starting from an initial scenario of "anarcho-capitalism." Obviously a thought experiment requires assumptions, which can be challenged. My thought experiment isn't beyond reproach and I invite challenges to it.It's a discussion. I took at shot at demonstrating something. If someone disagrees, they can criticize it and present an alternative. Why not demonstrate how "anarcho-capitalism" can function? See what y'all can do with that.
What is "capitalism" then, if not the economic system we observe around the world? When or where has "true" capitalism existed? If it doesn't exist, what would it entail and what results do you project it would produce? Walk us through that thought experiment.
I think there's a big difference between what I did (present an actual thought experiment and address points with counterpoints and evidence) and what you do (throw some words together and talk about "philosophy" and "logic" without presenting anything substantive).
The future in question regarding a "stateless" society has always held my interest.
I don't trust the majority of people to be "good" beings once they have no fear of the law they know now.
Especially 7 billion people.
Chez Lopez
Neo-Abolitionist
great post
I agree with what others have stated, that a stateless society would be impossible, as there are no historical examples of a large stateless society. ambition and accumulation would drive behavior towards monarchy, plus equality is not naturally occurring, even in nature. any inequality would produce a collapse in the system based on human behavior
I agree with what others have stated, that a stateless society would be impossible, as there are no historical examples of a large stateless society. ambition and accumulation would drive behavior towards monarchy, plus equality is not naturally occurring, even in nature. any inequality would produce a collapse in the system based on human behavior
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Of course you do.
I remember now.What I'm going to do is focus on the topic at hand... and point out that nothing stated thus far demonstrates how statute is required for capitalism to function.
You've simply taken a private protection agency and declared it a state after a series of assumptions.
If I may go full retard
Unlike the government, the market based entity has an incentive not to do violence, because violence is expensive, and it has other tools at its disposal. The State has only one tool, that tool is violence, and since it does not rely upon consent to obtain its revenue, there is little to no incentive to curb costs. Whether or not it has documents and procedures in place is irrelevant. The only reason we care what’s on those documents, show up in their court rooms or pay their taxes is because they threaten us with violence if we do not.The State has no competitor within the arbitrary geopolitical boundary it claims jurisdiction over. It has no interest in preventing crime, it does not reimburse you for your losses, it gets paid whether you are happy or not. It gives us all two options, obey, or die.
For you to take(in your thought experiment) a private protection agency and declare it a state is IMO silly.
Did you have any hard/empirical evidence to support our assertion that statute is required?
We are likely defining state differently.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
What I'm going to do is focus on the topic at hand... and point out that nothing stated thus far demonstrates how statute is required for capitalism to function.
You've simply taken a private protection agency and declared it a state after a series of assumptions.
If I may go full retard
Unlike the government, the market based entity has an incentive not to do violence, because violence is expensive, and it has other tools at its disposal. The State has only one tool, that tool is violence, and since it does not rely upon consent to obtain its revenue, there is little to no incentive to curb costs. Whether or not it has documents and procedures in place is irrelevant. The only reason we care what’s on those documents, show up in their court rooms or pay their taxes is because they threaten us with violence if we do not.The State has no competitor within the arbitrary geopolitical boundary it claims jurisdiction over. It has no interest in preventing crime, it does not reimburse you for your losses, it gets paid whether you are happy or not. It gives us all two options, obey, or die.For you to take(in your thought experiment) a private protection agency and declare it a state is IMO silly.
Did you have any hard/empirical evidence to support our assertion that statute is required?
We are likely defining state differently.
Perhaps we are defining the state differently. I am defining the state as follows: An instrument of class rule which relies upon violence and claims the exclusive use of legitimate violence over a geographically-defined area. States also mediate class struggle - they have, over time and to varying degrees in different places and in different time periods, developed social functions such as education and healthcare as a result of working-class agitation and ruling class concessions; additionally, they enforce contracts and establish the rules of competition (regulations) in markets.
I wasn't referring to just a single private protection agency as a state, but rather, a group of such entities coalescing at the behest of owners to establish the rules of the game, order, etc. This would be, if you will, a proto-state. Perhaps it is feasible that a state wouldn't develop
and what we'd see would be more akin to the drug lords and militias in failed states. But I think that's hardly an argument for the feasibility and legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism... I'd argue it would be either a state develops, or chaotic conflicts/wars constantly break out between owners with their private militias against other owners. What else, except force, would sustain hierarchy, not only between owners and workers/the community, but between businesses? Why not go and destroy a competitor's factory under anarcho-capitalism, if your private protection agency is stronger than your competitor's?I agree with your characterization of the state. But who do you believe the state was formed by? What would you trace its origins to? And, if we can assume an initial condition of anarcho-capitalism - what establishes the rules of the game and addresses the points I made in the previous paragraph?
"Anarcho-capitalism" has never been implemented anywhere, so I can't offer more than a thought experiment to detail how it produces a state (since there are no historical examples to point to). What would you say are the conditions necessary for anarcho-capitalism, and what factors would sustain the system (maintain hierarchy between the propertied and those without property; prevent armed conflict between businesses and their hired guns; enforce contracts; etc.)?
heisenburrr
Have Fun Staying Poor
I believe it had never been implemented because humans did not have the technologies to allow for it to exist. Now that cryptography is getting accessible and more mainstream we are slowly but surely getting closer to a Tim May style crypto-anarchy.
Relevant reading :
https://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.html
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
