Anarcho-capitalism vs. Anarcho-communism

[CmJour]

This topic is a defense against the claim that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. I also think that both anarcho-capitalists (ancaps from here on) and anarcho-communists(ancoms) have alot to agree about. Here's a list of things that I think both anarcho-capitalists, and anarcho-communists should be able to agree on if they are to be consistently anarchistic

1. There shouldn't be a state, and all social interaction should be voluntary. By state, I mean that organization that claims the right to take wealth with or without the consent of those ruled under it, in the form of taxes, to fund whatever it wishes and it can use force to obtain the funds if necessary if a taxpayer (who lives under the state's claimed jurisdiction) doesn't want to pay.

2. You cannot forcefully prevent the voluntary dissipation of an organization that was initially voluntarily formed no matter how noble the cause is that the organization promotes. In anarchism people have the freedom to be apathetic.

3. One person or a group of people cannot decide by violence to make everyone live their way even if the goal is anarchism because they would be living a contradiction. They would be like a state themselves, using force to obtain their goals, and not just in self defense.

4. Theft is wrong whoever may be the rightful owners.

Now where both ancaps and ancoms part is on the issue of propery. If I am not mistaken, ancoms believe that there should be no private property. Ancaps disagree. I will be defending the ancap position on property.

It is a fact that in order to be free, there must be space to be free in (and things to freely manipulate in that environment that you are free in), otherwise, you would have no room to perform actions freely, and you wouldn't be able to use anything such as food or water to stay alive. This means that in order to be free, you have to have your own personal space that nobody can encroach on without your permission. Property can never be completely public, or the human race would perish. Many claim that property is theft, but the whole concept of theft depends on the concept of private property. The only people who can freely give are individuals, or groups composed of individuals who voluntarily gather there resources to distribute. And if only individuals can give, only individuals can own. If everyone owned everything, then you would have to get the permission of everyone to do the slightest thing if we are to take the concept of public property to it's logical conclusion. You couldn't brush your teeth with a particular tooth brush without everyone consenting to your use of it.

Also, if ancoms agree to the four points above, they couldn't prevent a community of capitalists. They couldn't prevent "capitalist acts between consenting adults" to use Robert Nozick's phrase. Voluntary free trade cannot be prevented

It is also interesting to note that an ancap community could tolerate the existence of an ancom community as long such a community was formed voluntarily. But an ancom community couldn't tolerate a ancap community as long as private property is opposed by them. But since it is incoherent believe that private property is incompatible with freedom, anarcho-communism is incoherent as long as it opposes private property. But if an ancom community would tolerate the existence of a community of private property anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism would basically be the same position.

Another criticism that I would like to address is that, in order for there to be private property, there has to be a government to determine property titles. So therefore capitalism or private property is incompatible with anarchism. This claim is false. Anarcho-capitalist believe that private property has to be determined by just principles independent of the government because the government isn't the source of ethics. Well then how do you get people to respect such ethics respecting private property? This is a complicated practical question. For this topic, I am only defending anarcho-capitalism anarcho-communisim, and such pratical problems plague anarcho-communism as well. How do you get everyone to agree to have their wealth shared by everyone else without a government forcing them to?

On that note I stop here

[ComradeRed]

First off, I am not an ancom, but a REAL marxist; but I will take the ancom's side...

Theft is wrong whoever may be the rightful owners.

Suppose that there was a factory. And this factory has 10 workers working 10 hours a day. Every hour, each worker makes 10 commodities, and said commodity is worth $10. If my calculations are correct, there will be $10000 revenue. Supposing still, that the workers are paid minimum wage ($5), to a grand total $500. Still supposingthat raw materials, etc. is worth for a total of $1500. That woul be $3000 profit. And this profit goes into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. That is theft; the bourgeoisie did not produce one single commodity! Is this not theft???

It is a fact that in order to be free, there must be space to be free in (and things to freely manipulate in that environment that you are free in), otherwise, you would have no room to perform actions freely, and you wouldn't be able to use anything such as food or water to stay alive. This means that in order to be free, you have to have your own personal space that nobody can encroach on without your permission.

No, you assert that freely moving around requires owning the space to go around in. But is this really true? How can one own land? They can't! Further, you assert that you would only take what you need "to stay alive". This is speculation, as a matter of fact, it happens more often in capitalism!!!

Is "ancap'ism" based on the writtings of Ayn Rand?

How do you prevent slavery? Prostitution? Drug sales? Counter fitting?

They couldn't prevent "capitalist acts between consenting adults" to use Robert Nozick's phrase.

I find it appropriate that you quote a fascist.

But if an ancom community would tolerate the existence of a community of private property...

No real communist would tolerate the existence of a capitalist state during the revolution.

and such pratical problems plague anarcho-communism as well. How do you get everyone to agree to have their wealth shared by everyone else without a government forcing them to?

There is no state in real communism! (Since it hasn't existed!)

But that is not the point I am trying to make, allow me to restate the arguement. In the marxist theory the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a quasi-apparatus. So is the dictatorship of the proletariat a "state" or not? The best answer is "sort of" but "not exactly". Most unsatisfactory! And I don't want to write what the link did!

[CmJour]

First off, I am not an ancom, but a REAL marxist; but I will take the ancom's side...

Whatever a "real" marxist is.

Suppose that there was a factory. And this factory has 10 workers working 10 hours a day. Every hour, each worker makes 10 commodities, and said commodity is worth $10. If my calculations are correct, there will be $10000 revenue. Supposing still, that the workers are paid minimum wage ($5), to a grand total $500. Still supposingthat raw materials, etc. is worth for a total of $1500. That woul be $3000 profit. And this profit goes into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. That is theft; the bourgeoisie did not produce one single commodity! Is this not theft???

In order to become a capitalist or a member of the bourgeoisie, you have to save up money from work that you have done for a sufficient amount of time to invest it in a big project like a factory. This is why the workers have a job in the first place because the capitalist saved up. What is happening is not theft. The workers have not received ownership rights for the commodities that are being sold. The workers are "buying" the money they receive with their labor but their labor does not purchase them ownership rights for the commodities. The workers don't get the same pay as the capitalist, because they don't suffer the same financial burden as the capitalist if the factory doesn't produce satisfactory commodities for consumers. If the factory goes out of business, the worker can work in another factory. The capitalist on the other hand has lost a considerable amount. The capitalist is sheilding the workers from such a risk. That is why he gets paid more

No, you assert that freely moving around requires owning the space to go around in. But is this really true? How can one own land? They can't! Further, you assert that you would only take what you need "to stay alive". This is speculation, as a matter of fact, it happens more often in capitalism!!!

How can one not own land? You didn't respond to my argument that public property taken to its logical conclusion makes one inable to use anything because he would have to gain the consent of everyone else to use anything. But this would lead to starvation and death because such consent is impossible.

Is "ancap'ism" based on the writtings of Ayn Rand? How do you prevent slavery? Prostitution? Drug sales? Counter fitting?

Ayn Rand despised anarchism. As for your other questions, the purpose of my post was to defend ancap'ism against complaints raised by ancom'ism not techincally to defend ancap'ism generally. And I even conceded that there were practical difficulties in implementing anarchism in general. Ancap'ism is not something I would expect in the near future.

I find it appropriate that you quote a fascist.

Ignoring the emotionally charged rhetoric of this statement, Nozick was a libertarian (or classical liberal if you prefer) not a fascist.

No real communist would tolerate the existence of a capitalist state during the revolution.

Perhaps not, I was mostly speaking hypothetically, pointing out what ancoms would have to agree with to be virtually identical to ancaps.

There is no state in real communism! (Since it hasn't existed!) But that is not the point I am trying to make, allow me to restate the arguement. In the marxist theory the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a quasi-apparatus. So is the dictatorship of the proletariat a "state" or not? The best answer is "sort of" but "not exactly". Most unsatisfactory! And I don't want to write what the link did!

I will look at your link for clarification.

[ComradeRed]

In order to become a capitalist or a member of the bourgeoisie, you have to save up money from work that you have done for a sufficient amount of time to invest it in a big project like a factory.

No, the capitalist class perpetuates itself by investing in capital with the money they took from the workers. The workers have to spend their money imediately to buy food, etc.

I have to go, but I'll argue some more later...

[Kyran]

CmJour, I would like to clarify a few things.

On your first point, all anarchists believe there should not be a state. That's why they are anarchists. When someone says they are an anarcho-communist, to me that means they want to rebel and pillage. It is my understanding that ancoms want to seize businesses & industries during the event of revolution. They don't favor a government carrying out these acts, but they would like to themselves.

When we talk about having Economic Systems within a governed nation, communism has been done under Lenin.

What did Marx and Engels "really mean" by "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

A dictatorship is a government for one thing.
It is also not limited by a constitution.

If my assertions about ancoms are correct than every capitalist will oppose them, even ancaps. Why? Because ancaps oppose anybody infringing on property rights, and ancoms advocate the pillaging of the entire private sector. I would not expect any two people with these ideologies to get along unless there was a revolution happening already. As soon as the government was gone, they'd fight.

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And this profit goes into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. That is theft; the bourgeoisie did not produce one single commodity! Is this not theft???[/b]

Theft is the taking of other people's belongings by force or by threat of force. The workers didn't own the goods to begin with, so they are not being robbed. Supposing my employer took my radio or my hat whenever he felt like it, then you might have a case.

<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,
No real communist would tolerate the existence of a capitalist state during the revolution.[/quote]

This reinforces all our points. Perhaps ancoms are only interested in revolution because it would be an opportunity for them to pillage. This, of course, is merely an interjection...but if we were revolting and you went after the Arby's owner I'd expect you to get killed for looting.

The average person would run from you. You can't just barge into a commercial office building, kill the CEO and all the stockholders, and then claim it for "all the workers." Nobody would stick around, much less work and share the loot me BUCKO!

I hope I'm not trailing off too far, but sometimes even the mateys need a remindin bout plunder. Arr! Hey, you can always raid Fort Knox :). Go after da gold ye landlubbin sea dogs! DE GOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLD!

The only time when ancoms are the good guys is when the communists have taken over the country and stolen all the businesses within it's jurisdiction and killed all the owners. At that point there is no way to justly return the businesses to their prior owners so it's okay for the people to claim them.

In order to objectively discuss the differences and similarities in anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, I feel that it is necessary to look at them for what they are. And we have done that. Revolutionaries can be motivated by greed or a desire for freedom.

If you would like to discuss this in a purely political aspect then please let me know. I didn't think it was necessary to go into that very much since revolutionary callings are on the table.

[bishop]

your depiction of anarcho-capitalism would easily lead to monopolies and oligarchies.. capitalism is a tool to aquire power in the form of wealth. absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it is logical to assume that absolute capitalism (i.e. capitalism without any rules whatsoever) would also become corrupted absolutely.

[CmJour]

ComradeRed:

No, the capitalist class perpetuates itself by investing in capital with the money they took from the workers. The workers have to spend their money imediately to buy food, etc.

The capitalist can't steal from the workers before hiring them, and the capitalist can't hire the workers unless he already has the money that you say he stole from the workers to afford hiring them. Your argument is based on circularity.


bishop:

your depiction of anarcho-capitalism would easily lead to monopolies and oligarchies.. capitalism is a tool to aquire power in the form of wealth. absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it is logical to assume that absolute capitalism (i.e. capitalism without any rules whatsoever) would also become corrupted absolutely.

There are two basic types of monopoly, coercive, and natural. A coercive monopoly gains its power through the restriction of competition. The only way competition can be restricted is through the government. A coercive monopoly is a state monopoly. Not a monopoly based on free-market captalism. The other monopoly, natural, got its power through competition, and because of this its place is temporary, because it is vulnerable to competition. A natural monopoly receives its power from the consumers who use its services. They fund it. If the consumers were no longer satisfied with its services this monopoly would lose its power. It can not defend itself by making it illegal for others to compete with it, hence it got where it was through voluntary transaction. Not by means of the state, or an anti-capitalist means.

[ComradeRed]

A dictatorship is a government for one thing.

Wow, you ARE thick! By dictatorship of the proletariat, he meant a quasi-state. Like capitalism, it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Are there constitutions? Yes, there are.

Theft is the taking of other people's belongings by force or by threat of force.

You are forcing the workers to work, or else they'll die! Moreover, you are not giving full pay to the workers for their labor; you are paying for part of their labor. I will try to be succinct, wages -according to webster's dictionary- is "a payment usually of money for labor or services", and if you don't pay for the worker's labor, it is theft!

Now, what is profit? Profit is the surplus labor that creates more products; these products are sold, and the worker receives no money for their labor. Suppose that as long as the worker makes x commodities, or services y number of people, there will be no profit. Now, the workers need to make x+a commodities, or service y+b people, to make a profit. But this extra a or b will go unpaid. And that is the profit! Aka, theft.

How can one judge the value of labor or service? And is anyone's labor or service worth billions of dollars? Or even millions?

The capitalist can't steal from the workers before hiring them, and the capitalist can't hire the workers unless he already has the money that you say he stole from the workers to afford hiring them. Your argument is based on circularity.

-_- During the "proto-capitalist" era (e.g., the cottage industry) the bourgeoisie emerged. The bourgeoisie tends to maintain the same people in the class; though there are some rare "exceptions", like Oprah or Bill Gates. But the bourgeoisie have cemented their position, though it might be easy to fall, it is hard to become one. So the bourgeoisie, really, used feudalism to their advantage to get a "jump-start" on capitalism. But in doing so, they cemented their position as the bourgeoisie, and they receive the money to pay their workers.

If my assertions about ancoms are correct

You assertion is moot since you assumed it!

Perhaps ancoms are only interested in revolution because it would be an opportunity for them to pillage. This, of course, is merely an interjection

Ancoms are interested in communal living, not "pillaging" as you persistantly assert. The idea in communism is a world revolution, having the entire class of workers cast off their chains, not just "one state". However, due to a lack of reading or understanding, you assert that it will lead to "pillaging" because of the world revolution (yet fail to state why).

Revolutionaries can be motivated by greed or a desire for freedom.

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by the great feeling of love." -Che

The average person would run from you. You can't just barge into a commercial office building, kill the CEO and all the stockholders, and then claim it for "all the workers." Nobody would stick around, much less work and share the loot me BUCKO!

No, real communists don't have "proffesional revolutionaries" nor any of that leninist crap! The movement for the workers must begin with the workers themselves!

I hope I'm not trailing off too far, but sometimes even the mateys need a remindin bout plunder.

Your sort of completely beside the mark, but whatever!

If you would like to discuss this in a purely political aspect then please let me know.

I thought that was purely political!

[Kyran]

ComradeRed, don't argue.

I've been reluctant to use insults, but from now on...when you use them...I'm just going to hurl them back instead of attempting to discuss anything. It's a waste of my brainpower.

When you try to keel haul the fat marchant owner of your Hardees, bruthaz are gonna jump yo fool ass. WTF you think you're gonna do?

ComradeRed: "ARR ye evil slave-driving dog! Give me the key to your store or I'll swab the poopdeck with ye!"
Owner: "Uh...okay..."
ComradeRed: "Now give me yer bank account so we can run this here vessel!"
Co-Worker: "WTF is going on in here? I have customers waiting."
Owner: "PFFFFFFFFT hahahahaha..."
ComradeRed: "Uhh...err...please?"
Owner: "LOLOLOLOLOL."
ComradeRed: "You there me bucko! Help me overthrow yer captain!"
Co-Worker: "Huh?"
ComradeRed: "We'll share the spoils of takin over!"
Co-Worker: "You're fucking crazy."
ComradeRed: "I'll show you who's crazy ye traitorous barnacle brain!"

Moments later, Red is court martialed, shot, and his body is burned. No one will ever remember him for his "good deeds."

Case-closed. This will never work. Again, discussing anarcho-communism in action is the best means by which to discern it's properties.

[ComradeRed]

Kyran, I've got a good mind to join a club, and beat you over the head with it.

"When you try to keel haul the fat marchant owner of your Hardees, bruthaz are gonna jump yo fool ass. WTF you think you're gonna do?" I think I understand what your saying, but I am not too sure...

Look, REAL communists don't have "proffesional revolutionaries", when the revolution comes, it will be led by the workers themselves!

Why do you assert that I am a pirate???

[ruiner]

ComradeRed, I am interested in knowing exactly how you are going to enforce your equal wealth utopia.

Lets say in your hypothetical utopia that there are initially no bourgeoisie. Your hypothetical factory has 10 workers and all profit is shared equally by them all. Lets say $1000 each.

Now lets say 9 of those workers continuously blow thier wages on gambling and fun, yet one worker saves up.

Eventually that worker becomes over five times as wealthy as the others and can afford to pay people to work for him. He essentially becomes the bourgeoisie.

How will you prevent this sort of thing from happening? Force people to spend money equally? Prevent people for paying others to do work?

Essentially this perfect ideal of equally spread wealth cannot work. It automatically breaks down because people are different.

[Kyran]

Holy crap I got through to him.

I sure as hell aint gonna let other workers kill my employer. Who would besides Red and his merry drunken sea-biscuit-eatin crew?

Ruiner hits it right on the head. It breaks down because people are different. I'm not a pirate and I don't want to be one. Millions of people agree with ME.

If you're gonna drive a Manufactured Home up to Wal-Mart & "liberate it" then at least have the decency to hoist the Skull & Crossbones flag. Let others know you intend to take over. Btw, you might want to send your flagship up to corporate headquarters soon after, because products are not going to come if you don't file your invoices. Have you thought that far down the road yet?

LMAO. The hilarity is too much. I can picture Red with a gang of redneck trailers, SUVs, and 18-wheelers behind him on I-95 singing the intro to Frayed Ends of Sanity by Metallica.

OW WE OH. WE OHHHHHHHHHH OH.

Shiver me timbers!


If you want me to be a part of yer crew, I have a list of demands:

1. We liberate every bar and strip joint first.
2. I get paid in gold on top of spoils.
3. First damsel we rescue belongs to me.
4. Damsel does not mean lardfish.
5. Our voyage ends in six months.

Any problems?

EDIT: I can play Frayed Ends for the crew. It will keep morale up while we're shitfaced with convenience store liquor and Cheezits.

[bishop]

There are two basic types of monopoly, coercive, and natural. A coercive monopoly gains its power through the restriction of competition. The only way competition can be restricted is through the government. A coercive monopoly is a state monopoly. Not a monopoly based on free-market captalism. The other monopoly, natural, got its power through competition, and because of this its place is temporary, because it is vulnerable to competition. A natural monopoly receives its power from the consumers who use its services. They fund it. If the consumers were no longer satisfied with its services this monopoly would lose its power. It can not defend itself by making it illegal for others to compete with it, hence it got where it was through voluntary transaction. Not by means of the state, or an anti-capitalist means.

in the end, it doesn't make much difference how the monopoly came to be a monopoly...

once it is a monopoly, it will do whatever it can to maintain its position. that is an undeniable element of human nature (to covet and horde power).

all monopolies are natural as far as i can see.. they simply exploit the system for their own gain. the means to the end are irrelavent, especially when the philosophy behind their actions is the same, and when their end is the same.

[Kyran]

Bishop, there's a fundamental difference between beating out the competition through quality products and services and sending your hitmen to kill the enemy gang's dealers. Coercive monopolies use force (via govt or other means) whereas natural monopolies do not.

Your assertion that "a monopoly will do whatever it can to maintain its position" is flawed. It relies upon one aspect of human nature to define the actions of all. People are different.

[bishop]

the goal of capitalism, among other things, is to beat out your competition. this is, in part, what causes the formation of monopolies. once the monopoly is formed, its interest becomes self-preservation and it will use various means to maintain its position.

example: microsoft became a monopoly naturally - consumers are responsible for the rise of microsoft, not the government. microsoft then used and abused its superior market position to pursue monopolistic policies against its competitors - to quash the competition and maintain its #1 spot.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, it is important to realize there is a fatal flaw in social darwinism. You see, social darwinism can be summed into the maxim "survival of the fittest", the same goes for darwinism. However, in darwinism competition reproduces, in social darwinism, when a competitor goes out of business (dies out) he doesn't have "offsprings"! So it creates, in essence, a pyramid -- until an oligopoly or monopoly is formed.

ComradeRed, I am interested in knowing exactly how you are going to enforce your equal wealth utopia.

Well, in capitalism, one can tell wealth through money. There will be no money in communism!!!

Lets say in your hypothetical utopia that there are initially no bourgeoisie. Your hypothetical factory has 10 workers and all profit is shared equally by them all. Lets say $1000 each.

NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY!

Now lets say 9 of those workers continuously blow thier[sic] wages on gambling and fun, yet one worker saves up.

NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! NO MONEY! Oh yeah, this article is relevant to entertainment in a classless society.

How will you prevent this sort of thing from happening? Force people to spend money equally? Prevent people for paying others to do work?

THERE IS NO MONEY IN COMMUNISM!!!

Essentially this perfect ideal of equally spread wealth cannot work. It automatically breaks down because people are different.

:rolleyes: What is communism? A brief definition.

[Kyran]

Bishop, okay fine. But Bill Gates still did not commit mutiny against MacIntosh and make it's owner walk the plank. Do you agree that this is an acceptable and valid contrast between natural capitalism and anarcho-communist reasoning?

Red is correct. After I have loaded all the gold, silver, platinum, and women into my liberated Carnival Cruiseliner...you will have nothing of value. So forget about having money and start planning to make do with the "natural resources" that you have. Believe me, if it wasn't nailed down to the continent, we'd take it.

[G. Adams]

Well, as a self-declared Anarcho-Communist, I will defend my position.

The Ancom does not differentiate himself from the orthodox communist by his personal assertion to do the overthrowing. The difference is that communists believe there must be a transitional phase between revolution and communist utopia, one governed by a "dictatorship of the proleteriat". The AnCom argues that all states exist to perpetuate themselves, regardless of their founders intentions, so a new state would in the end fail. We must ourselves, as AnCom's, create the communities we wish to live under.

I personally do not object to the existance of AnCap communities, as long as they do not bother my AnCom community. In fact I would prefer it, to see multiple small social experiments happening similtaneously. As long as they didn't clash, it would be a good way to find the most viable and preferable way of living. I want people to live as they choose, and those who wish to live the AnCap life should be free to do so. Just leave me to live in my co-operative community, and you can live in your competitive one.

Onto property - Yes, property will exist in the AnCom community. But I distinguish between Personal Property and Communal Property. Those resources which are neccesary for producing what we need to live eg water sources, farms, factories/large workshops, quarries and so on would be communal property, which we all own a share of. Our personal property is just that, to be done with as we please.

If someone dislikes the AnCom lifestyle, they would not join our community, or if they were raised here, could leave.

[bishop]

Bishop, okay fine. But Bill Gates still did not commit mutiny against MacIntosh and make it's owner walk the plank. Do you agree that this is an acceptable and valid contrast between natural capitalism and anarcho-communist reasoning?

while there are examples of nefarious companies like it&t that have actually helped cause the brutal oppression of others (read: pinochet), they do not represent the norm. the notion that these "government sponsored" companies would pursue any means possible is an exaggeration. my point is that a monopoly is a monopoly no matter how it became a monopoly.

i can't really comment on the differences between these two "ideologies".. i've never been interested enough in anarchic philosophy to bother learning much about them - i don't view anarchy as a viable solution. my post was more directed at the oxymoron that is anarchy and capitalism.

[G. Adams]

If the Anarcho-Capitalists did not interefere with other communities post revolution, they would quickly realise that capitalism is hard and brutal, and that if they want to stay alive they better be prepared to kick others down as quick as they raise their heads. Capitalism can only sustain itself with continual growth, and if they cannot take from others outside their community, they'll have to take from each other.

Though they wouldn't do that, somebody would find some reason to expand onto somebody elses territory as they do now.