Memes

45680 readers

1473 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1022

Economic Theory is Fun tho. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (20 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (19 children)

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?"

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (18 children)

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"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago

Yes. The difference is I'm not claiming a proletarian democracy isn't a state.

load more comments (16 replies)