this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
1190 points (93.3% liked)
Memes
45643 readers
1086 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capitalism is a system of economics. It can exist with or without a government also existing.
Capitalism cannot exist without a government of some sort, as Private Property Rights are only legitimized by the threat of violence.
I was gonna disagree, but I couldn't actually think of a functioning stateless ideology which allows private property. Anarchism is inherently for abolishing private property, so that's out already. That mostly just leaves you with "anarcho-"capitalism which is just replacing the government with an ultra-capitalist power structure and decimating social mobility, it's just an undemocratic state but shittier...
Yep, trying to untie Capitalism from the states that accompany it is usually just a futile attempt at keeping the Capitalist State's sins separate from Capitalism.
If there was no government, and the capitalist organization hosted their means of violence internally or by hiring thugs like the Pinkertons, would it stop being capitalism?
What is a "State" or "Government" in the first place? If the Capitalist organization controlled its own means of defense, then we would see corporate wars and absorption. If there was a central mercenary force that everyone subscribed to for protection and peacekeeping, this is essentially a nightwatchman state, and you merely have a limited state.
All in all, Capitalism maintains itself through threat of violence, and monopolizes said threat. Without that factor, Private Property Rights depend on individual respect, which doesn't ultimatley matter.
There's also the issue of banking and currency, which needs to be backed up and maintained.
Given this paradigm, how would you describe anarchy and communism?
We never really laid out what it means to be a "State." Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, and gets into technicalities.
For Anarchists, the State is a monopoly on violence. Workers having unified horizontal coalitions and equal power, in their eyes, counts as stateless.
For Marxists, the State is the portion of Government that enforces Classist society. Get rid of class contradictions, and the elements that make up those contradictions, Private Property Rights for example, and you achieve Statelessness, even with a government.
Using either of the previous definitions, Capitalism still fails to exist without a State, it requires a monopoly of violence and class society to exist.
Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren't government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.
So what I'm seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.
Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.
Oh, I'm a Marxist. I am fine with government, not Capitalism nor the tools of government present in Capitalist society that Capitalists use to maintain power. I am absolutely fine with courts, administration, laws, social programs, etc.
Which tools of government are used to maintain power for capitalists that also are of no use to a communist government?
Private Property Rights are a quick example, along with all aspects related to Capitalist ownership.
A little vague, but fair.
Kinda has to be vague, there are so many aspects of current society that exist to support Capitalism that would no longer need to exist. The SEC, for example, would cease to exist, as would the stock market. So much goes into maintaining and regulating those areas that would no longer need to exist that they cannot be listed outright.
Then that entity, be it Pinkerton or gang or army, would be government. Sure, it could also devolve below capitalism, but capitalism need government structure of some sorts, it cannot exist without it.
That makes no sense. How is our economic system highly controlled in the US? Corporations run rampant, with scant regulation compared to some places like Europe.
A government's size being big doesn't instantly equal less capitalism if that government doesn't do as much as it could to reel in corporate interests.
Case in point, our government here in the US is big but is controlled by corporate interests to such a degree that despite knowing about human made climate change since the late 60s, basically nothing has actually been done about it. Or how whenever there is any push for even a public option to live alongside private insurance, insurance companies go into overdrive running ads and paying politicians to push back against it so it never gets brought up after an election season.
Economic systems and Political systems do not exist independent of each other. They are intertwined.
Sure, that's not what I am talking about. Capitalism cannot exist without a state to verify Private Property rights.
Again, my point is that stateless Capitalism does not and cannot exist.
I agree, but the bigger the government the less capitilism there is because they are controlling the system. I am not saying its good or bad, but the economic system is highly controlled.