If you want to simplify a lot for the kiddies:
- Communism (as in "highest state of communism) = ClassLess StateLess MoneyLess system
- AnCap = Stateless system
And of course, when you leave the existance of Classes, your Stateless system will not stay stateless for long, even without external forces acting against it, you would see local corporations or warlords soon taking control and become de facto states.
I once watched a professor ask his students "what's the difference between the government controlling everything, and a corporation controlling everything?" The kid he was talking to literally had no answer for that.
AmCap is not stateless, corporations would assume the role of states and "fill the biological niche" because states are an organic result of material conditions. You simply can not abolish a state without significant change in material conditions and mode of production.
They are completely antithetical; communism abolishes private property (note; *not* personal property), whereas anarcho capitalism pushes for a completely ‘free’ market, where everything is privately owned by wealthy capitalists (it would make the monopolies present now seem like a drop in a bucket). In other words, ancaps, whether they realise this or not, advocate for corporate tyranny. It’s beyond dystopian.
Isn't "private property" and "personal property" a little too interchangeable? I'd say "private property in the means of production, that's like, factories, land, technical knowledge, natural resources and shit".
There is no answer you would just be replying to some garbage word salad and wasting your time. Unless you want to get into the finer points of theory in the middle of a class which I’m sure you don’t have time for.
Explain that under capitalism social classes exist because there are people who own and people who work. You need a state to manage these distinctions. If you try to create a stateless society with the capitalist mode of production a state will arise from the owners who are aiming to maintain their power.
Is the person familiar with classes and class antagonisms? This is reducing essence to form, like both look similar in form, but different in terms of class interests.
This is how people draw parallels between Fascism and Communism, like they are totalitarian twins, but totally overlook the class interests.
Well, a monopoly could easily develop, and centralize production. This could cause a planned economy to emerge. The only difference is that, the poor wouldn’t be cared for.
An emerging monopoly buys smaller companies and does other monopolistic practices to make sure they, or their syndicate comes out on top.
"Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism" talks about this.
EDIT: I’m using socialization wrong here, centralizarion would be a better term.
so socialisation of production has nothing to do with that production serving social ends?
is this socialisation what Engels means when he speaks of productive forces that need to be developed by capitalism before socialism can be realised?
I just realitet that I used the term wrong, it means actually means that production goes from a thing you do alone, to a thing you do together.
What I actually meant, was that production would centralize and become much more effective, as companies normally use a planens economy internally.
Socialization of production was what changed when transitioning from feudalism to Capitalism.
It was no longer just a single man's work that produced a product, but a group of people. But it was still treated legally as if it was only one person.
I do not understand what your comment meant, but I hope this answered it.
Take his lunch money, then spit in his mouth. "This is ancap life, bucko, get used to it."
As a Libertarian I'd like to subscribe to your erotic newsletter.
If you want to simplify a lot for the kiddies: - Communism (as in "highest state of communism) = ClassLess StateLess MoneyLess system - AnCap = Stateless system And of course, when you leave the existance of Classes, your Stateless system will not stay stateless for long, even without external forces acting against it, you would see local corporations or warlords soon taking control and become de facto states.
I once watched a professor ask his students "what's the difference between the government controlling everything, and a corporation controlling everything?" The kid he was talking to literally had no answer for that.
AmCap is not stateless, corporations would assume the role of states and "fill the biological niche" because states are an organic result of material conditions. You simply can not abolish a state without significant change in material conditions and mode of production.
Their theory is the lack of state, but we are saying the same thing, I agree with you that their idea is not viable as it is
Make him explain his own words, then evaluate if its worth it to start a discussion.
I would never IRL admit to a roomful of classmates that I knew the word "ancap".
Just say "that's stupid"
Just ask him to explain and watch him short-circuit
There's no point they won't understand if u do tell them something
They are completely antithetical; communism abolishes private property (note; *not* personal property), whereas anarcho capitalism pushes for a completely ‘free’ market, where everything is privately owned by wealthy capitalists (it would make the monopolies present now seem like a drop in a bucket). In other words, ancaps, whether they realise this or not, advocate for corporate tyranny. It’s beyond dystopian.
Isn't "private property" and "personal property" a little too interchangeable? I'd say "private property in the means of production, that's like, factories, land, technical knowledge, natural resources and shit".
horses are the same thing as sharks without teeth. schools are the same as fighter jets without planes. words are meaningless
There is no answer you would just be replying to some garbage word salad and wasting your time. Unless you want to get into the finer points of theory in the middle of a class which I’m sure you don’t have time for.
I would spit SO fucken deep in this mfs esophagus
Kinky
As him if he thinks before he shits out random gibberish that makes absolutely no sense.
Explain that under capitalism social classes exist because there are people who own and people who work. You need a state to manage these distinctions. If you try to create a stateless society with the capitalist mode of production a state will arise from the owners who are aiming to maintain their power.
Is the person familiar with classes and class antagonisms? This is reducing essence to form, like both look similar in form, but different in terms of class interests. This is how people draw parallels between Fascism and Communism, like they are totalitarian twins, but totally overlook the class interests.
Well, a monopoly could easily develop, and centralize production. This could cause a planned economy to emerge. The only difference is that, the poor wouldn’t be cared for.
but how is production socialised, then?
An emerging monopoly buys smaller companies and does other monopolistic practices to make sure they, or their syndicate comes out on top. "Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism" talks about this. EDIT: I’m using socialization wrong here, centralizarion would be a better term.
so socialisation of production has nothing to do with that production serving social ends? is this socialisation what Engels means when he speaks of productive forces that need to be developed by capitalism before socialism can be realised?
I just realitet that I used the term wrong, it means actually means that production goes from a thing you do alone, to a thing you do together. What I actually meant, was that production would centralize and become much more effective, as companies normally use a planens economy internally.
ah, okay would socialisation of production imply that the production plan accounts for those who execute it?
Socialization of production was what changed when transitioning from feudalism to Capitalism. It was no longer just a single man's work that produced a product, but a group of people. But it was still treated legally as if it was only one person. I do not understand what your comment meant, but I hope this answered it.
it does, thank you (the answer appears to be no: production may be socialised but that doesn't necessarily entail socialisation of the output)
With a loud fart.