/lit/ - Literature

bump for anarchists and communists and etc

Education, thought.

>>3265638
right, access to education should be a prioritized goal for sure

infrastructure, community organization, etc

>>3265628

We evolve a state fast so we can lay the conditions for a stateless paradise.

>>3265654
>We evolve a state fast so we can lay the conditions for a stateless paradise.
lel

>>3265655

>subcomandante

I'm erotically attracted to this man

>>3265656
>I'm erotically attracted to this man
same here

>>3265657
>>3265656
>>3265655
have you guys read his /lit/? cool stuff except for the poetry of course

callin niggas out left and right

>>3265655

Seriously though.

What's that army forming at the horizon? Foreign cohorts that would make the law in our homes.

Who are these groups forming in our ranks. The kings of the mine and the rail scheming once more to steal our work.

I consider myself an orthodox Marxist, which means I hold the communist, ergo stateless, ideal very highly.

But I realize it's utopian. It's a guideline, not something you could realize by simple violence. The enemy will rise at the borders and from within.

>>3265666
>I consider myself an orthodox Marxist, which means I hold the communist, ergo stateless, ideal very highly.
>But I realize it's utopian. It's a guideline, not something you could realize by simple violence. The enemy will rise at the borders and from within.

tl;dr you have to change society slowly:

>Some people mean that anarchy must be absolute, 100%, or it is not anarchy at all. This absolutistic approach goes very much against the classical anarchists that write about mixed economical-political systems, and degrees of anarchy/anarchism. This approach is called the absolutist trap, because it exludes anarchies of low degree, holding that the term anarchy should only be used for the anarchist ideal with no coercion and no authoritarian tendencies at all. In fact the classical anarchists mean 100% ideal anarchy/anarchism is quite unrealistic, and thus absolutists are utopian, unrealistic dreamers, and not anarchists. Anarchism is above all a realistic concept. Realistically seen the anarchist ideal, 100% degree of anarchy, can only be seen as a very long term aim, that can be reached only asymptotically as times go by, not today or in the short run.

>>3265671

So what you're saying is that the dictionary should say:

anarchism: see Marxism

>>3265679

Also, as far as I know, there are also Impossibilistes in anarchist ranks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism

>>3265679
>anarchism: see Marxism
not quite

marx was in favor of vanguardism and as such authoritarian in my eyes, like lenin and stalin

anarchism and "pure communism" are the same though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

>>3265689
"Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free market anarchism,[1] market anarchism,[2], private-property anarchism[3] and capitalizm) is a libertarian political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[4][5] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics."

>>3265692
anarcho-capitalism is retarded

once the state was abolised society would just seize the means of production from the capitalists and we would be at anarcho-communism

capitalism inerently needs a state

anyone have some /lit/ about society after the state is abolished?

>>3265699
Private police and private courts would prevent that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>3265699
>once the state was abolised society would just seize the means of production from the capitalists

How has that worked in the past?

>>3265708

I just puked in my mouth a little.

You are trolling right?

>>3265712
>How has that worked in the past?
well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism#Example_societies_through_history

also look at Chiapas (EZLN/Zapatistas) for it in action

>>3265715
>arguments detected: 0

>>3265719
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism

I can play this game as well.

>>3265719
>Chiapas
>Despite being rich in resources, Chiapas, along with Oaxaca and Guerrero, lags behind the rest of the country in almost all socioeconomic indicators.[61] As of 2005, there were 889,420 residential units, with 71% having running water, 77.3% having sewerage, and 93.6% having electricity.[91] Construction of these units is varied from modern construction of block and concrete to those constructed of wood and laminate.[112] Because of it high economic marginalization, more people migrate from Chiapas than migrate to it. Most of its socioeconomic indicators are the lowest in the country including income, education, health and housing. It has a significantly higher percentage of illiteracy then the rest of the country although that situation has improved since the 1970s when over 45% were illiterate and in the 1980s when about 32% were.

Meanwhile capitalist countries with almost no natural resources like Japan flourish.

>>3265737
the whole state of chiapas isnt anarcho-communist, just the zapatista areas

and you are not likely to get decent statistics from there since the government of mexico stays out

>>3265628
You need magicks and pixie dust.

Don't try to employ rational though, it's too late for you.

>>3265743
>and you are not likely to get decent statistics from there since the government of mexico stays out
>the facts are lying to you mannn!! it's really a paradise with a booming communist economy. watch michael moores movie dude, in cuba they like, have healthcare and stuff.. and it's totally free man.

>>3265745

I'm not him, but you're making yourself look like an ass and you avoided his point

>>3265745
>the facts are lying to you mannn
no they arent lying because there are no facts

its a fact that the mexican authorities in the region do not collect statistics there, nor do they perform governmental duties there as the local municipalities have formed their own organizations

>>3265737
Another gem -

>The average number of years of schooling is 6.7, which is the beginning of middle school, compared to the Mexico average of 8.6. 16.5% have no schooling at all, 59.6% have only primary school/secondary school, 13.7% finish high school or technical school and 9.8 go to university. Eighteen out of every 100 people cannot read or write, compared to 8/10 nationally.[140] Most of Chiapas’ illiterate population are indigenous women, who are often prevented from going to school. School absenteeism and dropout rates are highest among indigenous girls.

Marxism, not even once. It's funny because if this was a capitalist economy, marxists would point to it and say "SEE?!? CAPITALISM IS EVIL!!!"

>>3265757
You know your country is shit when fucking MEXICO makes it look bad.

>>3265757

Chiapas =/= zapatistas

You can't read?

>>3265757
>Since December 1994, the Zapatistas had been gradually forming several autonomous municipalities within the state of Chiapas, more or less independent of the Mexican government.
>the EZLN rejected watered-down agreements and created 32 "autonomous municipalities" in Chiapas
>not the whole state of chiapas

can you fucking read? stop being asinine

>>3265761
see>>3265768
>>3265762
>>3265756
>>3265747
>>3265743
holy fuck i didnt realize capitalists were this retarded

its worse than i thought

>>3265708
So what's to stop the private police from just using their monopoly on violence to take what they want and not have to work at all?

>>3265770
That is literally at the very start of the video, around 2:00.

>>3265770
in the wild west (which was linked earlier ITT by an ancap) they would do that

>>3265774
Except it doesn't, it completely sidesteps the issue.
I can understand that two private security companies wouldn't fight each other, however there is absolutely no reason why a private firm couldn't simply use their guns to take what they want. If someone has no economic power to higher private security then anyone can simply rob, rape, and murder them without any fear of backlash.

If there was no fear of government and punishment stopping me, I can think of quite a few places I'd rob, people I'd kill, and women I'd rape. If one of them was too poor to afford a private security firm why wouldn't I? Why would private security firms even bother securing people's goods when they can just march in and take the goods at gunpoint and keep them for themselves?

>>3265784
which is why capitalism is rotten at the core

this is essentially what happens IRL in the world (where capitalism has influence) although of course on a much bigger scale

>>3265784
>there is absolutely no reason why a private firm couldn't simply use their guns to take what they want.

You mean like the government does?

>If there was no fear of government and punishment stopping me, I can think of quite a few places I'd rob, people I'd kill, and women I'd rape.

Each community would establish its own set of laws, and if you disobeyed you would be apprehended by an enforcement agency and brought before a private court. If convicted, you would be dealt with according to the local laws. The difference between this and what we have now, is that the laws are produced on the free market.

>Why would private security firms even bother securing people's goods when they can just march in and take the goods at gunpoint and keep them for themselves?

Because then nobody would seek their service because they are tyrants. Are you saying what if they just went on a killing spree? A company vs an entire society doesn't sound like very good odds.

>>3265794
>You mean like the government does?
yes, which is why capitalism is retarded! just as retarded as a state

>>3265794
>Each community would establish its own set of laws, and if you disobeyed you would be apprehended by an enforcement agency and brought before a private court. If convicted, you would be dealt with according to the local laws. The difference between this and what we have now, is that the laws are produced on the free market.
But that isn't being produced on the free market, it's being created by small communities. THe only difference is that the government is smaller.

>Because then nobody would seek their service because they are tyrants. Are you saying what if they just went on a killing spree? A company vs an entire society doesn't sound like very good odds.
Because slavery and worker crackdowns have never happened ever, right?

>>3265803
What's stopping the majority of people in an anarcho communist society from killing everyone else?

>>3265804
>But that isn't being produced on the free market, it's being created by small communities. THe only difference is that the government is smaller.

The government has a monopoly on force. In a free society, the rules would be determined by the community and enforced by the company that did the best job of providing the sought after service.

>>3265804
>>3265803
did you read my response to the first bit and then respond only to the second and third bits after? because my response was sufficient or something?

brofist man, are you anarchist?

>>3265811
>What's stopping the majority of people in an anarcho communist society from killing everyone else?
see
>In a free society, the rules would be determined by the community

the only difference between ancaps and ancoms is that ancaps dont realize that once the state is gone capitalism will be banished since it requires a state

source: das kapital

>>3265814
>marxists being this desperate for the approval never given to them by their fathers

>>3265811
>The government has a monopoly on force. In a free society, the rules would be determined by the community and enforced by the company that did the best job of providing the sought after service.
No, the rules would be determined by the group with the most power, they would use this power to strip power away from others. It's what happens in government, it's what happens in free market society.

>What's stopping the majority of people in an anarcho communist society from killing everyone else?
An anarcho communist society would be working on constant distribution of power to all the population, thus lessening the possibility of one person or group taking control. I'm not even a leftist, but this is simple stuff.

>>3265817
>once the state is gone capitalism will be banished since it requires a state

No it doesn't, it only requires property rights which can be enforced by private companies and doesn't require a government.

>>3265818
you can stop being asinine now

feel free to leave the thread if not

>>3265821
and private property will be seized by the proletariat, either peaceably, gradually, or through violent revolution

also note private property signifies the means of production, which is different than personal property

>>3265829
>and private property will be seized by the proletariat, either peaceably, gradually, or through violent revolution
once there is no state***

forgot to add that

>>3265821
>property rights which can be enforced by private companies and doesn't require a government.

You realize that ownership of property is pretty much what makes a government a government, right? Just because your ideal version of a government would make people pay upfront doesn't mean that it's any less of a government.

What happens when land is no longer easy to access? Where do people go?

>>3265829
>private property will be seized by the proletariat, either peaceably, gradually, or through violent revolution
>if I keep on repeating it maybe it will be true

>>3265838
huh? whenever the state has been overthrownthat is what happens

your anarcho-capitalism is just government by a different name

>>3265834
>You realize that ownership of property is pretty much what makes a government a government, right?

No it's not. Government is an entity which has a monopoly on the use of force. There's no competition, so if it does a shitty job there isn't an alternative that can offer a better. Enforcement companies that were shitty would go out of business because nobody would buy their service.

>>3265845
what is stopping two private security companies from joining up? and so on and so forth until they have a monopoly and thence having the monopoly on force?

and wouldnt having the monopoly on force in a small community mean its a government? it would be in the best interests of the company to remove competitors

>>3265845
>Enforcement companies that were shitty would go out of business because nobody would buy their service.
You're missing the point. THEY DON'T NEED PEOPLE TO BUY THEIR SERVICES, THEY CAN SIMPLY TAKE GOODS FROM PEOPLE WITHOUT THE SAME POWER AS THEM.

>>3265859
>he didn't watch the video

>>3265862
One company vs every other company.

>>3265868
>One company vs every other company.
Except they have no reason to fight. The video fucking stated this from the very start you retard. Fighting amongst people with equal power ends up with everyone losing, however if a firm overpowerd someone without enough money to higher another firm, or two firms joined up, they could just enslave and rob whenever they wanted to.

I hope you're trolling, because you have to be the dumbest person I've ever talked to. Please go out and read some political writing other than libertarian/ancap manifestos. It doesn't even matter what you read, just try to get a sense of why pretty much every political party and revolutionary philosophy thinks that ancap is a joke.

>>3265884
this

especialy:
> however if a firm overpowerd someone without enough money to higher another firm, or two firms joined up, they could just enslave and rob whenever they wanted to.

im going to sleep shit thread i guess- no one ever talks about the topic and statists always come in and spread ignorance

>>3265884
>Fighting amongst people with equal power ends up with everyone losing, however if a firm overpowerd someone without enough money to higher another firm, or two firms joined up, they could just enslave and rob whenever they wanted to.

That's like saying why doesn't every shoemaker join into a shoemaking collective and share all the profits by selling shoes. There's this things called competition where the guy on top gets there, in a free market, by providing the best service. Why would he team up with another agency and kill people when he could stop the other agency from killing and charge a fee for the service provided?

If the masses haven't educated themselves prior to any action (ie achieved class consciousness) then I believe a violent overthrow will only generate mass antagonism and zero support, and probably create the conditions for a 'vanguard' movement hijacking the 'revolution' and eventually becoming a ruling class themselves.
A gradualist approach would never even get off the ground.

I'm of the opinion that theoretically either method is valid, as long as the working and middle classes are united and have achieved significant education regarding class relations and socialist+anarchist theory, which I don't see ever happening due to capitalist ideological hegemony. A sudden, spontaneous overthrow is perhaps possible if a certain level of class antagonism is achieved and the exploited say fuck this shit. But I would probably prefer the gradualist approach, where class consciousness is attained prior to or because of the gradual, collective appropriation of the means of production and workers' control. I think that, if the materialist conception of history holds any truth (which I think it does), then as private property is abolished and replaced with collective property, then the state's intuition's of non-voluntary authority will begin to transform to reflect the changing economic system.

>>3265628
I believe in a regression. Municipal states.

>>3265708
>Private police
Those are called mercenaries, you feudal motherfucker. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are just pipedreams of the wealthy who wish wealth was all that mattered, because it's all they've got.

>>3265893
>That's like saying why doesn't every shoemaker join into a shoemaking collective and share all the profits by selling shoes. There's this things called competition where the guy on top gets there, in a free market, by providing the best service. Why would he team up with another agency and kill people when he could stop the other agency from killing and charge a fee for the service provided?
BEcause the incentive for non-violent competition only exists in a regulated system you fuck. Look at the mobs and drug cartels if you want an example of how companies would operate without regulations and laws. Hell, look at the crack downs on union members.

Here, if you want to read up on how companies work when they don't have to worry about the state using its monopoly of violence against it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_Massacre

You clearly not only have zero understanding of economics, ethics, and politics, but you have no understanding of history either. I just hope to god you're a troll and not a real person.

>Living in the lovely anarcho-capitalist utopia
>Crime is at all-time lows in my community thanks to their wonderful methods and beneficence.
>Decide I don't need to pay for protection, there's no criminals around, why bother. If they're protecting my neighbor's house, they're protecting the neighborhood, that keeps the criminals away, how are the criminals supposed to know my house isn't the one being protected?
>Neighbors find out my scheme, they stop paying.
>Police wages go down as a result.
>Get a visit from a CorpoPolice Salesman
>He lets me know it's "very dangerous" to not hire them.
>I thank him for his concern and try to send him away.
>He continues to warn me about the dangers. It's suddenly very clear what he means as two CorpoPolice vehicles pull up and the patrolmen start complaining about their wage cuts with their guns drawn
>I pay up and there's smiles all around, everybody goes about their business.
>I realize I've just been taxed as I see the "Salesman" knock on my neighbor's door.

>BEcause the incentive for non-violent competition only exists in a regulated system you fuck.

An anarcho-capitalist society would be regulated, and much more efficiently. It would be regulated by competing firms who seek to provide the best service. If anything, law enforcement would be much better than it is now because of the profit incentive that companies have to do their job well. Unlike now, where police get there 10 minutes after your entire family was murdered.

I think you just don't understand what you're talking about and think that I'm advocating no rules or laws where violence is king. Which is not the case, as it's safe to assume that there would be places where people would agree on very very strict rules. The only difference is that the best firm available would enforce them, and not the government who has an unshakable monopoly.

>>3265945
>>Living in the lovely anarcho-capitalist utopia
>Crime is at all-time lows in my community thanks to their wonderful methods and beneficence.
>Decide I don't need to pay for protection, there's no criminals around, why bother. If they're protecting my neighbor's house, they're protecting the neighborhood, that keeps the criminals away, how are the criminals supposed to know my house isn't the one being protected?
>Neighbors find out my scheme, they stop paying.
>Police wages go down as a result.
>Get a visit from a CorpoPolice Salesman
>He lets me know it's "very dangerous" to not hire them.
>I thank him for his concern and try to send him away.
>He continues to warn me about the dangers. It's suddenly very clear what he means as two CorpoPolice vehicles pull up and the patrolmen start complaining about their wage cuts with their guns drawn
>I pay them and then call up a different protection corporation and report the theft
>They quickly and efficiently retrieve my stolen goods and I start a new voluntary contract with them on account of their excellent service
>I get in my new flying car that was invented due to the decrease in government regulation and fly off to work

Fixed.

>>3265976
Apparently you don't understand the point, the other one wouldn't even be in the area. You've never read about how the Mafia worked, did you? They had turf agreements for the exact same reason that was mentioned above, there's no reason to fight over it.

>>3265821
And how would those private companies enforce property rights? Through the treat of force or punishment? Since part of a government's function and raison d'etre is to enforce property rights through its legitimate monopoly of violence, It looks to me that these private companies simply become the new government.

I want to hear a genuine response because I'm very interested in how property rights would theoretically be enforced without an entity holding a monopoly of violence.

>>3265958
>competing firms who seek to provide the best service
There are more ways to compete than providing the best service, many of which are much easier for companies, but don't happen because of REGULATIONS.

Lets have an imaginary scenario though
>You have something I want
>I have a gun
Assuming I'm working only for my rational self interest, do I...
A: Try to provide some service for you, which will require a huge amount of time and effort on my part, in order to get a fraction of what you have
B: Shoot you and take everything, with very little labor on my part

>>3265999
(6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market
Another popular argument, also used often by the Randians, is that market exchanges
presuppose a background of property law. You and I can’t be making exchanges of
goods for services, or money for services, or whatever, unless there’s already a stable
background of property law that ensures us the property titles that we have. And
because the market, in order to function, presupposes existing background property law,
therefore, that property law cannot itself be the product of the market. The property law
must emerge – they must really think it must emerge out of an infallible robot or
something – but I don’t know exactly what it emerges from, but somehow it can’t
emerge from the market.
But their thinking this is sort of like: first, there’s this property law, and it’s all put in
place, and no market transactions are happening – everyone is just waiting for the whole
legal structure to be put in place. And then it’s in place – and now we can finally start
trading back and forth. It certainly is true that you can’t have functioning markets
without a functioning legal system; that’s true. But it’s not as though first the legal
system is in place, and then on the last day they finally finish putting the legal system
together – then people begin their trading. These things arise together. Legal institutions
and economic trade arise together in one and the same place, at one and the same time.
The legal system is not something independent of the activity it constrains. After all, a
legal system again is not a robot or a god or something separate from us. The existence
of a legal system consists in people obeying it. If everyone ignored the legal system, it
would have no power at all. So it’s only because people generally go along with it that it
survives. The legal system, too, depends on voluntary support.

>>3265976
>They quickly and efficiently retrieve my stolen goods
... and how, exactly, would they go about doing that? That's a very big thing you just assumed would happen.
>Hi, CorpoPolice? This is Jim over at SecurityCorps.
>Hey Jim, how's it going?
>Oh, well, not so great, Ted. See, we've got some reports of your guys going around taxing people.
>What? Absolutely not. Completely against CorpoPolice regulations.
>Well, we've got their badge numbers, their names, everything. We've even gotten a report that one of them retaliated against one of your customers. She called up PatrolTeam and they had her apartment bugged, and, well... it's not good. She doesn't have money for the hospital bill because they allegedly robbed her, so she's just out front in the charity line, but the rape and the beating, she might not make it.
>Well, I'm telling you, Jim, that we don't do that sort of thing here. She's mistaken. So are your other reports. Clearly, there are some impostors running around, we'll take care of them, thanks for letting us know.

Explain to me how this would resolved without the use of force customary of a state.

>>3266006
(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over
One objection is that under anarchy organized crime will take over. Well, it might. But
is it likely? Organized crime gets its power because it specializes in things that are
illegal – things like drugs and prostitution and so forth. During the years when alcohol
was prohibited, organized crime specialized in the alcohol trade. Nowadays, they’re not
so big in the alcohol trade. So the power of organized crime to a large extent depends on
the power of government. It’s sort of a parasite on government’s activities. Governments
by banning things create black markets. Black markets are dangerous things to be in
because you have to worry both about the government and about other dodgy people
who are going into the black market field. Organized crime specializes in that. So,
organized crime I think would be weaker, not stronger, in a libertarian system.

>>3266011
Private courts.

>>3266006
It would be in your self interest to shoot me and take everything, but I would have the protection of a Security corporation that would prevent you from doing so.

>>3266010
So how does that answer my query? Forgive me but I'm a bit confused.

>>3266017
>Black markets are dangerous things to be in
>because you have to worry both about the government and about other dodgy people
>who are going into the black market field.
The reason they are so dodgy is because there aren't any regulations ensuring fair non-violent transactions. The way organized crime works is exactly how most companies would work in an ancap society.

>Private courts
And why does this big company care what some court says about them?

>>3266024
The point is that this is from the point of view of the security corporation you dumb mother fucker.

>>3266017
Organized crime doesn't function solely through underground markets. They also engage in protection rackets. They use force or the threat of force to simply steal wealth or goods from businesses. How is this combated? Wouldn't there be rampart stealing of wealth and goods by all sorts of groups through intimidation as a 'guarantee' of protection?

>>3266017
>Private courts
... and exactly where are the private courts supposed to get their authority from? What's to stop private police from doing the same thing to the private judges what they're doing to citizens? On top of this, how are private courts supposed to even spring into existence? Your populace would have to get together and pay for the private courts, then pay enough to ensure that the private courts have their own private police, then pay enough to ensure the private courts and private police don't do exactly what has already been stated and simply rule in favor of themselves because what kind of idiot/madman would rule against him/herself to lower his/her own wages?

Anarcho-capitalism just theorizes and completely removes personal context from the realities of politics.

>>3266034
That was directed at someone else.

Enforcement companies would use force on those that disobeyed the established laws, after they have been tried in the private courts.

>>3266039
>The reason they are so dodgy is because there aren't any regulations ensuring fair non-violent transactions.

The reason crime is dodgy is because there aren't enough laws regulating crime? Are you serious?

>And why does this big company care what some court says about them?

Why would I purchase the service of a company that doesn't follow the laws of our land as enforced by the court? A company that did not obey the judges rulings would not get any customers and thus no money. It would be in the companies interest apply the prescribed punishment to the criminal in order to please their consumer base.

>>3266042
Is this hard for you to understand? A competing firm would protect me from an enemy, even if that enemy is another corporation.

>>3266024
That security coorporation is the one that will be threatening to take everything form you, since they have the means of violence.

I was hoping no one would fall for this idiotic post but they did, they did.

>>3266068
And I would seek the protection of a competing firm which would be happy to serve me and prove to the local populace that unlike their competition they are looking out for the customer.

>>3266053
On top of this, there would be all sorts of other kinds of coercion happening. If I'm a police officer and I'm pissed off at those people firing me from their neighborhood, but I know people at the electric company, the water company, the local ISP, the mail service, etc, and I have the money, I can just pay kickbacks to fuck with their services, meanwhile letting them know why it's happening, assuming it's not such a regular thing already that they know damn well why it's happening.

>>3266078
>the people find out that the water company's employees are taking bribes
>they stop purchasing water from said company

>>3266075
And then it's cops shooting each other outside the customer's doorstep while the customer hopes that the one they like will eventually win, wow, that sure sounds like the ideal situation.
And it's also assuming that the two police forces wouldn't simply "agree to disagree" and the one you called up to replace you denies your claim.

>>3266087
How many water sources do you really think there are?

>>3266088
No, it would be cops shooting violent thugs who are trying to kill me and take my things.

>>3266092
Not many currently since the government gives certain companies that lobby the most special privileges, similar to the electric companies.

>>3266075
>And I would seek the protection of a competing firm which would be happy to serve me and prove to the local populace that unlike their competition they are looking out for the customer.

You've already been shot, raped, and had everything taken away from you. How are you going to pay this other competing firm?

>>3266098
>Cops shooting violent thugs
Who's who is decided by who wins. You're not addressing the problem.

>Not many currently since the government
>Governments create deserts!

>>3266100
>You've already been shot, raped, and had everything taken away from you. How are you going to pay this other competing firm?

When I get compensated next week from my job, I will go to the courts and have an enforcement agency retrieve my goods, retrieve my monetary compensation for the trauma I've sustained, and be richer than ever.

Also, I would tell my story to everyone in my community and that security force would never get another customer ever again.

we shouldn't overthrow the state

seeking paradise on Earth is ridiculous, seekers of paradise should follow religion

that doesn't mean that we can't improve the "quality of life" or whatever other ideal we admire at the time, but that's a question of statesmanship.

>>3266075
Like this guy said >>3266088
you now have a scenario where two or more security firms who posses legitimate violence are trying to out-do each other for your money, which will devolve into them intimidating each other to back off (which can include full blown violence), or intimidating you to hire them and only them (which can include full blown violence). Or one firm can simply excersise their means of force and rob you of your property + possessions, defeating the need for your payment. You're powerless to stop them because competing law courts may do the exact same thing to you.

>>3266112
>When I get compensated next week from my job,
No workman's comp, you've been fired.
You've never been poor before, have you? You don't seem to understand how benefits work, or how the lack of them works.

>Also, I would tell my story to everyone in my community
You have a knack for underestimating the malice of others while simultaneously grossly overestimating others' willingness to care.

>>3266117
competing law courts may do the exact same thing to you or each other*

>>3266105
>Who's who is decided by who wins.

No. The entire community would recognize that the rogue corporation is using force on me illegally and recognize them as thugs. Also, others in the community would recognize this threat and pay their enforcement agencies to take these thugs to court and get them taken care of, since it is in their interest to not have criminals using force on anyone they please.

>>3266118
>No workman's comp, you've been fired.

Why would I be fired? Me being robbed doesn't make me miss any work. I could also go to my neighbor of whom I am friendly with, and ask him to have his agency retrieve my goods and compensation in exchange for a small fee.

>>3266100
Ever heard of a loan?

>>3266118
>You have a knack for underestimating the malice of others while simultaneously grossly overestimating others' willingness to care.

If I'm in a community, would I chose to go to the company that I know murders their customers and takes their things? Even if they don't care about me, it's in their interest to not hire people who will kill them.

Anarchists are the scum of the earth.

>>3266158
I would pay my agency to not let Hegel live next door to my family because he looks like a rapist.

>>3266136
Why would they loan to you? So you can fund an expensive bounty hunt against a few gangsters? How is this going to get your money back?

>>3266124
>take these thugs to court and get them taken care of
Whats to stop the enforcement agencies from just buying their own court, taking people in on trumped up charges, and taking all their money away?

>>3266135
>Me being robbed doesn't make me miss any work
You were robbed, beaten, possibly shot, if you were female you were raped, and you're telling me that you're going to show up to work?

>>3266154
Again, you're seriously overestimating people's ability to care. They're going to shrug and say "Well, I pay, and I've never had any problems. They should've just paid."

>>3266163
"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism.
But I support it nonetheless, since I like corporatism. All the individualist shit must go, though.

>>3266168
>Why would they loan to you?

Because banks make money by giving loans to people, you know, the GREED your type whines about.

>Whats to stop the enforcement agencies from just buying their own court, taking people in on trumped up charges, and taking all their money away?

Because the judges are private and nobody would pay for their service if the community felt they were making illegitimate judicial decisions.

>>3266178
>Because the judges are private
You never answered where they'd get their authority from.

>>3266173
>You were robbed, beaten, possibly shot, if you were female you were raped, and you're telling me that you're going to show up to work?

Of course, I need to catch the thugs who did this. All the more reason to work extra hard in order to bring them to justice. I would also be able to take time off after their arrest since I would receive monetary compensation for the trauma I've suffered.

>They're going to shrug and say "Well, I pay, and I've never had any problems. They should've just paid."

But the scenario was that the security people didn't care that I paid and decided to rob my by gunpoint. If I'm looking for a security company, would I pick one that turns on its customers?

>>3266190
>after their arrest since I would receive monetary compensation for the trauma I've suffered.
>>3266118
>No workman's comp, you've been fired
So that thing I said you don't get because your company doesn't offer it and they were the only ones who would hire you, you're saying you get based upon absolutely nothing.

>>3266184
>So that thing I said you don't get because your company doesn't offer it and they were the only ones who would hire you, you're saying you get based upon absolutely nothing.

I'm saying that I am compensated by the thugs who attacked me via the courts for inflicting trauma on my body and mind as well as having my stuff returned.

>>3266178
>Because banks make money by giving loans to people
Only when it's a worthwhile investment, helping you get your TV back from some thugs with machine guns isn't at all worthwhile.

>>3266190
You're fucking retarded, by the way, you _can't_ go back to work, you have massive injuries.
On top of never having been poor, you've also never been actually hurt in your life.
I had my nose broken and could barely think for 3 days afterwards, the headaches were almost unbearable, and that was just my damn nose. I've actually been robbed and beaten before, and I can assure you, I was neither physically nor mentally capable of working the next day.

>>3266200
Why do the thugs give a shit what the courts say? Where do these private judges get their authority from?

>>3266201
>Only when it's a worthwhile investment, helping you get your TV back from some thugs with machine guns isn't at all worthwhile.

They charge interest on the loan, which I pay back after a certain amount of time. I am an upstanding citizen with a good credit score so there are no problems.

>>3266203
>I had my nose broken and could barely think for 3 days afterwards

Not everyone is a little crybaby.

>>3266207
What the courts say are recognized by the community and enforced by the enforcement agencies. Naturally the community would go to courts they trust to uphold the law justly.

>>3266208
>I am an upstanding citizen
According to the police, you're a vagrant who causes problems. They have several reports on your activities, you're an unsavory character and a troublemaker.
>with a good credit score so there are no problems.
... you've never been hurt, you've never been poor, and now we also know you've never applied for a loan, either. That's not how loans work, genius, they check more than your credit score.
This also begs the question of what poor people are supposed to do....

>>3266217
> and enforced by the enforcement agencies.
You mean the private police that are harassing and robbing you. Yeah, sounds legit.

>>3266208
>Not everyone is a little crybaby.
>You have to be like everyone else, otherwise you're worthless.
And here we get to the reality of the anarcho-capitalist point of view, be tough or you deserve what you get. They try to wax humanist, but in their reality only a certain class of person counts as human.

>>3266219
>According to the police, you're a vagrant who causes problems.

No, according to the security agency who has attacked me for no reason and this is known throughout the community. It would be in the banks interest to give me money knowing that I have had force used upon me unjustly and have a large settlement awaiting.


>>3266222
There's a difference between security and enforcement agencies. The enforcement agencies are hired to enforce the law and bring about justice, security is something you hire to protect you from criminals. In this made up situation the security attacked me.

>>3266217
>What the courts say are recognized by the community and enforced by the enforcement agencies

SO the community has say over what court gets monopoly? WHat makes that any different than a normal government?
Why would the community even pay for a court if they could just lynch people they don't like? In what way is it economically sound to support a court system or try to get fair trial outside of a limited amount of interactions?

>>3266208
>They charge interest on the loan, which I pay back after a certain amount of time. I am an upstanding citizen with a good credit score so there are no problems.
You really have no idea how loads work, do you? Are you even out of highschool yet? I have trouble believing someone as dumb as you could possibly support themselves. Also, you have yet to address >>3265928 . What's to stop slavery and union crackdowns, which happen all the time?

>>3266230
>You have to be like everyone else, otherwise you're worthless.

More like, don't expect anyone to take care of you for free like a child. If you're hurt and want the criminals caught, you have to work hard to see your goal recognized, not cry in a corner and live off of other people's money. You will be rewarded in the end for your pursuance of criminal scum.

>>3266231
>The enforcement agencies are hired to enforce the law and bring about justice
So we're back to this:
>>3266059
That thing you never addressed.

>>3266235
>You really have no idea how loads work, do you?
No, this person really does have no idea how loans work, they think the bank just checks your credit score and says "Oh! You pay bills! Here's your money, no problem!"

I'm out, tired of arguing with a college/high school kid.

>>3266235
>SO the community has say over what court gets monopoly? WHat makes that any different than a normal government?

The people would go to the judges they trust the most, so in order to get the most customers and outdo their competition they would uphold the law according to the wishes on the community. It's different than our normal government because right now the state has a monopoly on force and no competition.

> Are you even out of highschool yet? I have trouble believing someone as dumb as you could possibly support themselves.

I could not find the argument you provided in this post, could you please clear that up? Thanks!

>>3266245
It's okay, anonymous! You're not the first person I've easily intellectually humiliated in an argument. I guess I'm just above most people when it comes to intelligence, don't be frustrated!

>>3266254
That's it, I'm out too. You're obviously either trolling or dense as fuck. I hope you look back on this when you graduate high school and realize what a fucking retard you are

>>3266263
Sounds like an admission of defeat to me! Thanks for playing, it's nice to get the opinions of those that are clearly less educated once in a while. It helps keep things in perspective.

Anarcho-capitalism: 1
Teenage socialists who have only read one economic textbook in their lives and rely entirely on Das Kapital for their opinions: 0

This thread is rage inducing.

>>3266271
Are you 12?

Anarcho-capitalism FAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jaGb1GUxces#!

The main difference between an anarcho-capitalist society and an anarcho-communist society, is that you would be free to start a commune full of like-minded individuals in Ancapistan as long as you don't force it on others. In an anarcho-communist society, your attempts to have a capitalist community would be crushed.

>>3265628
Modern society is too complex with too many large, interdependent systems to function without a governing body of some kind.

Your hypothetical is invalid.

>>3266457
Addendum: the average person is too pants on head retarded to value these systems until they fail and would, even then, be too pants on head retarded (and greedy) to devote a portion of their resources to maintaining such systems.

>>3266457
>People are shitting therefore we need to put people in charge of other people to make the people less shitty.
>statists

>>3266492
>>3266457
>>3266457
>People are shitty therefore we need to put people in charge of other people to make the people less shitty.
>statists

>>3266497
No, _most_ people are shitty therefore we need to put the non-shitty people in charge of the shitty people to make the shitty people less shitty

>>3266499

>thinks anyone transcends shittiness

>>3266499
And who determines someone shit value? A government bureaucracy?

>>3266507
me, the totalitarian dictator of the world.

Not to interrupt the name-calling and mockery, or anything, but I have a serious question.

We're rapidly approaching a post-scarcity world, in terms of a lot of essential things. The canadians tell me that fusion will make us post scarcity for energy in another fifteen years, and america has already taken giant steps in making the world post scarcity for food, and the chinese for manufactured goods. I'm not saying tomorrow, but by the end of the century we'll be looking at a world where private property will be a lot less compelling an idea, in the same way anything there is plenty of ceases to be a commodity of concern.

Now my question is: In a society where everybody has all they desire in terms of food, shelter clothing entertainment, education, recreation travel and health care, provided by the simple mechanics of efficient production and surplus supplies, with minimum input from the individual in the form of labor, what form of government would be the most desirable, useful and relevant?

Please don't dodge the question by invoking artificial scarcities, "shiny rocks" economics or just saying it'll never happen (in my lifetime it's already happened for the most part, and it seems to be gathering momentum). . If you need justification, just assume it's accomplished by magic.
What government would we want?

>>3266541
> In a society where everybody has all they desire in terms of food, shelter clothing entertainment, education, recreation travel and health care, provided by the simple mechanics of efficient production and surplus supplies, with minimum input from the individual in the form of labor, what form of government would be the most desirable, useful and relevant?

Just because we have the means to feed everyone doesn't mean they deserve to be fed.

>>3266552
"deserve" is the tricky part: If there's no scarcity of food, why would i waste my time preventing anyone from accessing it? There are people who don't deserve to breathe, I'm sure. But why should I waste my time suffocating them?

the state will be pushed to serve the majority, as far as it can go. if we need to change society further the state will slowly be replaced with institutions we deem legitimate to hold authority.

slow revolution.

>>3266541
i dont think millions of chinese people being exploited and spending the only lives they have is the sort of postscarcity we want.

states usually exist to distribute resources. conservative states make sure to distribute largely to rich,white,men, further left tends to try to distribute more equally. If we live in postscarcity (say robots doing all our work) we'd want a government that would assist us to distribute our endless resources as equally as possible. then we can all sit around and talk, do our hobbies, be humans again. all communists should be building robots to do all the shitty jobs

>>3266600
>states usually exist to distribute resources. conservative states make sure to distribute largely to rich,white,men, further left tends to try to distribute more equally.

>>3266600
>>3266601

markets distribute goods, with or without state control. and a rich white guy is only rich if he has better access to a scarce resource. i'm asking what if no important resource is scarce, and how do markets work when everything is essentially costless? how is a market incentivized? and a government funded?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOW1CxHvNY

Did this make anyone else go out and register as a Republican?

>>3265905
10/10 response anon

this is why i made this thread

I think you need such a global all-out dislike for state governments that nobody will buy into it again no matter how well it presents itself.

>>3267579
i.e. class consciousness

>>3266621
why would you go out to vote at all

>>3267613

the "classes" Marx was talking about haven't existed since the forties. there are hundreds of classes now, each with a different aspect on "means of production" and "capital" Class conflict in any real sense would be chaos.

>>3267648
has anyone revised marx's theories recently to account for this change?

>>3267648
>>3267696

If you think that the world isn't still divided into those who own the means of production and those who work them, then you need to get out of the house more.

People don't work in steelmills and coalmines so much these days, but nothing's changed.

>>3267708
well certainly western society is less production based as a whole

more and more we are transitioning to a service based economy

>>3267719

So now the call-centre or the jamba juice or the cable company is the means of production. If you just drive the van, and someone else owns it, then you're the proletariat. Nothing's changed.

>>3267742
okay fair enough

>>3267742
still, millions of people own computers which they use to produce products that they sell, or market products that they manufacture. more people own their means of production than at any time since the rise of civilization.

>>3267865
>more people own their means of production than at any time since the rise of civilization.

Not so - the number of people who make money in the way that you're discussing is infinitessimally small. The majority of people who work with a computer do so to provide profits for those who own them.

If your name's on a badge, you're a prole. If your name's on the building, you're in control.

I don't know a single person who uses their computer to produce a product that they can sell (myself excluded, because that's how I make my living), but I know a lot of people who work online for others.

>>3267885
the whole definition of "worker" and "means of production" gets pretty sticky here, though. If i produce something I can't sell, am i still producing? If i market my skill to the highest bidder, am I a professional or a worker or do i own a means of production? If I'm a marketing professional who buys handcrafted wares and sells them in packaged lots to state parks and gift shops, what am I" I actually did that for awhile) And if I manufacture as a home business something that I sell to Cracker Barrel am I working for them or do I own the means of production? (I've done that too).

How does intermediation work? disintermediation? If I'm a manufacturer and sell to wal mart, but hire others to make the things I use to make the things I sell...

You see the problem. Also, since I own stock in wal mart and an Cracker Barrel. The number of classes multiplies, and where we stand gets hard to figure in real life.

>>3267918

I don't see anything new there - under traditional marxist analysis, almost everything you describe falls under the category "petite bourgoisie". It's no different to a shopkeeper or a lawyer.

>>3267948
but that's the point. I'd put myself at the bottom of the market: as a worker. Guys like me far, far outnumber guys working in factories or on farms, probably by about twenty to one. where are the workers of the world, if it's not us?

>>3267967
>Guys like me far, far outnumber guys working in factories or on farms,

But you don't outnumber the people who work in McDonalds, in shopping malls, on the phone of a computer help-desk. The jobs have changed, but the proletariat is still there, and marxist analysis still applies, inasmuch as it ever did.

>>3267967
>Guys like me far, far outnumber guys working in factories or on farms
That's really not true, not by a long shot.

>>3267987
i guess i see it, except I've worked at mcdonalds, and in a shopping mall too. Nobody stays in those jobs, usually. Though I knew a guy who worked at wal mart till he was head of the produce department and then went on to manage a grocery wholesale company, which is sort of staying in the same field. I just think it's a lot more fluid. and a guy who works on the trading floor at a wallstreet firm would be just as justified at calling himself a worker as a potato share cropper, since he even less owns the means of production, despite the fact that he could buy ten potato farms with his annual salary. he couldn't afford even one wallstreet trading firm

>>3268008

Again, under classical marxism the Wall St. trader is almost the epitome of the petite bourgeoisie - he does in fact own the means of production (his "skills" and intelligence), but only uses the profit from it for himself. A trader is like a lawyer or any other professional. The firm he works for control further means of production (the access to the trading floor, the capital investment of a swanky office building, etc.), but he hires his skills to them like any other professional. Meanwhile the potato farmer, assuming he owns no land, is utterly subservient to someone else's means of production.

I agree with you that it's no longer so easy to identify labour relations, society is far less stratified and there are more interzone jobs, but the majority of people still work in proletarian positions, and marxist analysis of these relations is essentially unchanged.

You might want to look at Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt - it has quite an interesting post-marxist analysis of the professional classes. Quite a good book.

Anyway, toodles, I'm off to watch some mindless TV for an hour or so. Religion is the Opiate of the people? Marx would plotz if he saw I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

It won't work. A state is crucial to the survival of society.