Anarchism 101: Lesson #8 - Anarcho-Capitalism Vs. Anarchism

[rwoz]

So anarchists believe that over time the opportunities to work will decrease,,,, and anarcho capitalists believe (if they cherish the wellbeing of humankind) the opposite?

[BogartWestern]

I think it is possible for an anarchist, who opposes government, not just "authority", to allow themselves to be employed, to have their labor bought by another for payment. You can hate the Federal government and not vote or obey laws and work at a pizza place as a driver for the rest of your life and be content as the anarcho-pizza delivery boy. It's totally possible.

[BogartWestern]

If a worker chooses to be employed by a capitalist, they are allowing themselves to have an authority over them. An anarcho-capitalist is probably akin to a libertarian in the sense that they follow the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism; therefore, an employee will have the choice to work for an anarcho-capitalist or not.  If they don't, and we have a society where they must put themselves to work and not be a societal leech, they will be their own boss.

[MillionthUsername]

"That property requires a class of people who must sell their labor for less than its value."

No, it doesn't. Private property originates in homesteading unowned natural resources. When people produce more than they consume with their private property, they then have capital to invest in another productive enterprise. The capitalist offers work and the laborer agrees to sell his labor at a certain price because it is mutually advantageous, not because it is "required."

[MillionthUsername]

@MillionthUsername "Thus workers usually sell their labor at a price which does not reflect its real value."

In a market, the "real" value IS the market value. If the worker's labor is for sale and someone offers to buy it, then the agreed upon price is the value of the labor in that market. You say the worker has no other choice but to starve. This is such an outrageous lie, especially when told to fat lazy westerners who are sipping coffee in front of their new computers.

[CybershulDotCom]

All viable communities embrace elements generally associated with socialism and elements generally associated with capitalism. Anything that deviates from this invariably fails.

[neue01]

Capitalism implies that nobody has the right to resources simply because they are born into this world. This is the correct view point. Resources exist in scarcity and are not infinite. Capitalism is a system of dividing up those resources without rulers. There will always be hierarchy. There will always have to be a decider in the rationing of scarcity and resources. Capitalism says it's the law of nature that will decide. Conversely, under Syndicalism it will always be other men.

[ProDCloud]

Everyone who thinks capitialism/free markets exploit workers watch this.

watch?v=lOavVv0DrbE&feature=re­lated

[LoklarYsera]

People starve without capitalism. People go to war without capitalism.

[JasonDamisch]

Tell that to the sweatshop worker. Or tell it to the gulag laborer. Anarchism is basically just Marxism. Marx liberated its party members by sending people to work for those party members to the gulags. Total freedom means enslaving other people, because what everybody really wants is to sit on their ass all day and have their needs met for them. This can only come about through enslaving others. Indeed FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

[CybershulDotCom]

@JasonDamisch I don't know where you get your information from. I am an anarchist, and I firmly believe in the value of work and contributing one's skills (including my own) to the economy, community and trade of goods and services. It is directly because of people who work in my industry you can enjoy this site!

[JasonDamisch]

anarchists are not against property, they are just against property if you have any of it. They will liberate it from you and then they will have more freedom, and you will be put in your place.

[CybershulDotCom]

@JasonDamisch I am for individual and commural property. What I am against is people who have far too much and hoard more then what they need. If you take land as an example there is plenty to go around. An acre (4,000 m2) of fertile land can produce plenty of food - enough to feed a family - and yet some have huge land holdings and some have none. Is this fair? Land is not the result of personal effort. Noone created land. It was just there and it will remain there. Did you create any?

[qwertypoiu4321]

Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.

[libertytooth]

i disagree with you, but i do have a question, how do you value the worth of your work? anarchist please reply i am courious. what makes the value of your work? in capitalism its how much your employer pays you and in communism its how much the goverments says you get. and i would call myself an anarcho-capitalist and i do stress there is a difference between capitalism and corperatism

[MrMaxBoivin]

Honestly, I don't even know what to tell anymore... this was so stupid and do arbitrary.

[neoptolemus]

What i find funny is that when you look at every example where people had their own land to cultivate, their own tools to use they never entered wage-labour. In fact it was necessary for governments to deny access to land in the first place in order for capitalism to develop.Without the initial use of force capitalism would never have existed. The evidence is usually freely available, in Britain for example it's in various university and council archives.

[soyuski]

So Anarchists don't believe in property or trade? So that's leaves stealing (aka. exploitation) . So your pretty much for the way in life u would find in Somalia?

[CybershulDotCom]

@soyuski Absolutely we believe in FAIR trade.

[newperve]

Choosing not to work for a capitalist is choosing another way of earning a living, of which there are plenty. I have passed people earning a living without needing a capitalist almost every day on my way to work. Why is it that so called "anarchists" need basic economic facts explained to them? I'm not even talking about economic theory, I'm talking about facts readily observable in everyday life. And if people are selling their labor for less than it's worth, why aren't you buying?

[godofreudson]

No. Proudhon opposes Lockean property. But advocates his own mutualist private property.

There are lockeans, georgists and mutualists: All of them advocate private property. In libertarian literature there has been an ongoing discussion about which is the best (and i think the lockean is winning).

So, you people should check out how much we are alike, before bashing the anarcho-capitalists.

[jaminunit]

2:58 What about the capitalist who is responsible for the upkeep of equipment, and other expensive that the worker does not have to worry about, he just gets to come in and "hire" the equipment to produce stuff and then leave and not have to worry about the upkeep, the marketing, the shelter of the work, the security. the worker also doesn't need to save up to buy all this stuff, he can "exploit" the capitalist by simply coming in, using the equipment then get paid the market value for his work"

[CybershulDotCom]

@jaminunit I sell my labour to capitalists all the time and they make a profit on the work I do. The key is I am getting FAIR REWARD for my labour.

[jaminunit]

There is no such thing as "the people" without a controlling government. There is no such thing as a Forrest, its just a bunch of individual trees in close vicinity.

[DaveDoggOwns]

3:03, well if you're going to base your economic theories based on mere opinions I can't fucking blame yah. 

[DaveDoggOwns]

2:38, yes but you have provided no reason why capitalist workplaces would outcompete worker co-ops. If both can exist it's ridiculous to say that anyone is "forced" to work for a boss.

2:44, there is no such thing as "real value". Economic value is an opinion.

2:49, Why? What if this inequality is the result of supplying the consumers better than the competitors?

2:58, whatever is the "full value" of your labor is your opinion that NO ONE can falsify.

[DaveDoggOwns]

2:28, everyone is a worker. Anyone who thinks the capitalists do not work have never ran a business before. Most of the time business owners have more ardious work hours than the workers themselves.

[jaminunit]

@DaveDoggOwns Totally!

[DaveDoggOwns]

2:01, again you are implying that capitalist workplaces are more efficient than worker co-ops.

2:09, are you talking about RIGHT NOW or in theoretical anarchy? And how is that an arguement against capitalism? That seems to be an arguement for it. If everyone can't start their own business and cause it to be successful that proves that capitalists do in fact work.

[DaveDoggOwns]

1:47, completely not true. The right to be surpass your peers intellectually, materially, etc is ITSELF a freedom. Letting your peers trick you or make you feel guilty for not being "equal" to them is not "Self-government" or "self-management"; it is letting other people manage and govern you. 

[DaveDoggOwns]

1:40, first of all what else is "society" or "the people" made up of anything BUT individuals? Second, there is not equality between possessors and non-possessors either!!!! If I possess something clearly I have more power over it than someone who does not possess it. Also, there is no equality of authority between the individual and "society".

[DaveDoggOwns]

1:33, there is no difference in terms of authoritarianism between a democratic world government owning and controlling the world resources and having all the worlds resources owned by what you euphamisticly call "the people". No difference at all. The idea that everything belongs to everyone is a communist idea not an anarchist one.

[DaveDoggOwns]

0:55, yes but this hierachy is voluntary unless you are willing to admit DannyOKC that when we go to an economy of worker co-ops we are sacrificing economic efficiency for liberty. If worker co-ops are better than capitalist workplaces then it is completely ridiculous to say that people are "forced" to work for a boss.

1:07, there is no such thing as voluntary slavery.

[DaveDoggOwns]

0:49, that's an opinion. The value of a good is an opinion.

0:51, here you are implying that capitalist workplaces are MORE ECONOMICLY efficient than worker co-ops are. You can't have it where worker co-ops are either equal or more efficient than capitalist workplaces and then in the next second say that working for a boss isn't fundamentally a choice. You can't have it both ways.

[EnergizerBunny804]

so would teachers still have a certain amount of authority over their students, how does stuff like that work?

[MrAmericaPie]

I'm a little confused. When you say things like "the anarchist want to work WITH you. The anarcho-capitalist wants to EMPLOY you" are you saying that all people working in a business should earn an equal share of the profits made by said business?

It would seem wrong to me to say that simply "because a person is equal to another in a human sense, therefore they deserve equal pay to that person for their work."

[ed9s]

It's amazing how you still don't get the point. Value is relative. If no worker works, no entrepreneur can benefit. Therefore, the worker is the one who calls the shots and determines the amount of money paid and the conditions of the work environment. Get it?

[Reyludd]

"anarcho" capitalism is an ideology created by children who want to make money and they want no intromision with his bussines, obviously, given its population of first world and especially from a country where McCarthyism wash brains, perhaps they never experienced the exploitation of capitalism. "anarco" capitalism is the biggest lie you hear.

LONG LIVE THE CNT!!

LONG LIVE THE IWW!

LONG LIVE THE LIBERTARIAN COMUNISM!

LONG LIVE THE ANARCHISM!

SMASH THE STATE AND THE CAPITALISM!!

[diego4815]

remember boys, there is no equality, the evolution of the human being do his work and everyone are different.

But if you are meaning that we are equals under the law, you are in a obvious mistake 'cos the law comes from the state, and you dont belive in the state, so you are in a cross mistake.

LONG LIVE TO THE CAPITALISM!

[nurbSoldier]

How can anyone say that property is theft? For there to be theft, there has to be an original owner of something (the thing that is claimed to be stolen). Therefore, this idea contradicts itself.

[TheCapitalistdog]

@nurbSoldier

Socialists think property is theft. This basically means that they think a TAX should be imposed on anyone who owns property, to ensure that the community owns it more than the individual.

Taxation (taking property by force) is how all governments are funded.. Socialists are not anarchists, they justify the concept of taxation by denouncing your right to own property, which makes them statists.

"capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone" - Kenneth Minogue

[TheCapitalistdog]

@nurbSoldier

I know we agree, i just wanted to add in my 2 cents. :-)

[cogar48]

@nurbSoldier Property is theft from the society.

[nurbSoldier]

@cogar48 then who did society steal its property from?

[cclodfe]

Socialized control(workers) of the means of production would have no means of economic calculation on capital goods. Prices could not be determined and standards of living would fall for everyone. New technological advances would be undermined by the governing council representing the people. This council would have monopolistic control over society. I trust no man to represent me. I want to represent my self. A group (society/workers/etc.) does not have rights only individuals have rights.

[cclodfe]

I have yet to find a collectivist that understands the first thing about economics. If they had a greater understanding of economics they would realize their understanding of ancap is wrong. They would see the social mobility ancap would provide, how it would prevent monopolistic control, and increase workers wages and living standards. All forms of anarcho-collectivism would require a governing body to represent the "people". This would forcefully prevent individuals actions=no freedom.

[jmsnooks]

It's "work or starve" under any system. Even if you're a pirate you still have to do SOME work at least. Your ideas are a bit convoluted. Suppose there is a true anarchist system and some sweaty hippies show up to take my stuff, I'm not going to rely on the non-existent legal system to defend myself. Those guys are going to be killed quickly. What gives you the right to take my stuff anyways? If you work, then what you earn is yours. No one has the right to take it, including a government

[cogar48]

@jmsnooks Wrong, it's work or starve under all systems, but under Capitalism, it's work for less than you're worth or starve.

[jmsnooks]

@cogar48 No, you get paid based on the market value of the service you provide, unless government takes over in which case you work for less than that. Anyone can push baskets at a grocery store, but not everyone can be a brain surgeon. If you think that a basket pusher should get paid as much as a brain surgeon then you probably need a brain surgeon. And when you take away the opportunity for personal advancement then you set a limit on achievement, and quality also goes down.

[cogar48]

@jmsnooks That's not what I'm talking about, the only way to have profits as a business owner is to either overcharge for your products or underpay your workers. I'm not saying that the brain surgeon shouldn't be payed more than the "Basket pusher" I do however think that the Brain Surgeon should get payed more than the CEO who gave him the tools to do the actual work.

[jmsnooks]

@cogar48 And I don't know why you guys think Communism could ever exist with Anarchy when Karl Marx himself said that a totalitarian government is required to enforce it.

[cogar48]

@jmsnooks I'm not a Communist, I'm a Socialist.

[DickeyRogers]

@cogar48 lol

[sexythingys]

You all live in your oversized homes in a gated community, while millions of people are homeless. Just trying, to live out in the woods or in an abandon building, but the state tells them no. You have to own property to live basically. Is this what you want?

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

I either produced it with my own labor or paid with it with money that I either earned or inherited. Maybe a combination.

Owning a factory is no different than owning a house or anything else.

I don't eat shit, but I might compost it to fertilize soil and grow some food.

It is good that you have people to work with, now go work for them.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

It is my factory, tools, and materials.

You choose to work for ME, you automatically choose to do what I ask you and agree to the wage that I set.

I am not forcing you to do a damn thing. You can decide not to work anymore (you asked for the job in the first place), find ways of making money on your own like I did, save the money I pay you to fund your own production etc.

Calling capitalism force is nonsense!

[AfricanPrince]

Your videos are a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of the info. I've found on anarcho-communism/libertarian socialism. They are simple and to the point without the overly intellectual jargon that just confuses me, and I'm sure many other people as well!

[TheLeftLibertarian]

The way I see it, Market Anarchist just want to take power from one institution and place that power into another institution. Power is never dissolved. Plus, if you were able to place all power into the market, the first thing they would do is create a state to protect their interest.

[Menace3434]

market anarchism or anarcho capitalism wants the privatization of power they don't really  want to abolish the state they just want to privatize it

[VanDoodah]

"The way I see it, Market Anarchist just want to take power from one institution and place that power into another institution."

Voluntary hierarchies are completely acceptable. In a market anarchist society, there would be no monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force, so the power of PDAs could only be maintained through the voluntary support of individuals.

You cannot create a non-hierarchical society. Grow up and come to your senses.

P.S. Many left-libertarians are market anarchists

[ZiggyEncaoua]

I anarchists say 'property is theft' then do they believe everybody owns everybody else?

[kurt44mg42]

If anarchists say "property is theft" then how do they square that with "anarchists are not against property itself"?

Therefore, this begs the question: what would be defined as property in an anarchist society? Just the clothes and shoes one wears?

And if private individuals are not allowed (and WHO decides what is and what isn't allowed?) to own land, buildings, capital and the means of production, then who owns it?

[rcroton]

There seems to be in the general view the idea that people who support free markets necessarily support big business. This, however, for the most part is not true. We all believe that you can all must be equal in the eyes of the law, but that is the extent that equality can be enforced- from then on, it's simply the actions of individuals, and it's up to no-one to limit the action of another individual unless they break the harm principle-no man has the right to order another unconditionally.

[MarketAnarchy]

Do no anarcho-collectivist remember that the original Anarchists were against government and religion.

"Until Kropotkin and Cafiero's address to the Congress of the Jura Federation in 1880, there was no organized anarchist communist movement. In fact one of the anarchist communists at the 1880 meeting. Bakunin equated communism with statism, and Proudhon hated the idea, whether it was small autonomous communes or state communism"

~ozarkia net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-­anarcho-cap html

[MarketAnarchy]

ignore "In fact one of the anarchist communists at the 1880 meeting.", it should be an ellipsis.

[MarketAnarchy]

Communist are collectivists. My mistake was conflating them but to claim that Anarchists want to abolish property or capital is to make a claim specific to communist anarchist, and a few other collectivist branches. Anarcho-syndicalist for example believe in property owned by a collective. And the original anarchist were against the government and the power it gave to religion. They were removed from economics. To frame anarchy as property-less it to ignore many forms of anarchy.

[evilmick66]

Anarchism was originally conceive by Peirre-Joseph Proudhon as a social theory that is against "Church, State, and Property." As shown in Proudhon's book "What is property?" where he boldly proclaims it as "theft" by the rich from the poor.

Talking of communism like it's the only socio-polical theory that is against property, only expresses your ignorance.

[MarketAnarchy]

Proudhon was merely the first to call himself am anarchist. Rousseau's writings smacked of anarchist tendencies long before Proudhon was using the term. Proudhon is not the beginning of anarchism.

I am not insisting communism is the only system against property but it is the one this video is clearly referencing, and doing so as to suggest it is the only type of anarchism, which is not true.

[evilmick66]

Writings with "anarchist tendencies" isn't the same as writings that are full blown anarchism. There are several types of anarchism, yes, but heirARCHY cannot fit with any of them... Anti-state Capitalism is not Anarchism.

[rcroton]

Furthermore, I think you confuse the Individualist Branch (which Anarcho-Capitalism is in, and is an extension of) with the Social branch, despite in your other video detailing the differences...in your other video you warn against sectarianism, yet you here brand any form of anarchy which supports private property (and much individualist anarchism does this from way before Anarcho-Capitalism was conceived) as not being Anarchy. You confuse Society and Individuals. Individualism rejects society.

[rcroton]

I don't think Anarcho-Capitalists "want a society where some have authority over others". They just believe that control of property one has produced or worked to purchase is good, and that the free market- unrestrained by controlling forces which are not natural, psychological, market forces- is the best way to achieve this, and that being able to expend the capital gained from your labour in the free market is inherently free and embued with liberty. How is that control? It's contract!

[DasGuntLord01]

Spot on. People agree be an employee, and can leave their place of employment at any time. If the "boss" is being a prick, you take your skills somewhere else. Attempted coercion would drive away your employees (and your customers), killing your business.

[givetheanarcapajoint]

exactly! this video shows well how obsolete can be the conceptions of anarcho-communists

[toesandumbrellas]

"just save some money"? yeah, tell that to a sweatshop worker

[mdkbam]

If everyone was equal how would we strive to be better and improve if it didn't exist? There would be no innovation or motivation. Seriously somebody answer me please, I'd like to know.

[QQiro]

People are more motivated to work when they're free from exploitation.

[stephendedlus]

shall i give you and example of corporatism and what corporations strive for- coke. how is this useless, sugar and corn syrup filled drink that can strip metal from a coin be "better and improved?" it generates huge revenue for the producers, but the product on a whole is useless, and bad for the consumers health. (i'll bypass another obvious example- tabacco) the only motivation in capitalism is revenue - not 'improvement or innovation.' the product exist solely its bargaining value that's it

[hotfudgemoney]

@stephendedlus LOL. Innovation doesn't just exist. Capitalism promotes innovation because if more people decided "Man, coke is shit for you, and I don't need it. I'll get something else." then Coke would be forced to change in hopes of attracting new customers. What's confusing about this?

[Individualism101]

I'm sorry but this is just silly.

You admit that you are forced to work in order to obtain food and shelter. Thus you have the means of survival. Now it is just a matter of thrift. If you have the means of survival then you have the means to start your own business. Just save some money you pathetic lazy anarcho-communists.

[DuffmanIRL]

wow

[ewops]

LMFAO! They believe we will all equally work as hard without taking to account that humans don't always have the same work ethics and value. Everyone has to work but there are always some who will find an opportunity to leech off others.

[Individualism101]

Which is the whole reason for advocating a society in which actions are voluntary. It becomes difficult to leech when both parties have to agree to cooperate.

[CelloProfessor]

Would a group of people living within an anarchist society be allowed to set up an anarcho-capitalistic society? If you say that private property is "theft" then you would have to say that they are criminals. If this is so, they would not allowed to set up this society. If so that necessitates the use of force, which demands a "hierarchy". If you say that they would be allowed to set up anarcho-capitalism then you contradict yourself in saying that anarchy does not promote criminal activity.

[evilmick66]

"Use of force" is not needed to prevent private property, only "lack of respect" is needed. In other words, buildings would be squatted, and ppl would walk in and out of any forms of shelter whenever they please. True private property (in the sense of today's society) only exists when there is a government to recognize it and a police to enforce it. When both are gone, private property is non-existent and impossible.

[ginopat]

The police around here are doing a crappy job enforcing it, so I say that without the police, I can still defend my property through MY enforcement. And another thing, who's going to build these buildings people are going to squat in? What would be the incentive in building something with your own sweat if you know that others that are too lazy to do it themselves are going to take it over? If we abolish property then I say you still cant invade someones home- instead you have to build your own

[evilmick66]

Yes you can defend your own property through your own enforcement, but that only leaves you with a limited amount of property; You can only defend as much land as you can keep up with, thus completely eliminating any chance of accumulating and expanding property which is the very basis of a capitalist society.

People can just squat in buildings that already exist (and they DO already exist) and build new ones, by themselves, if they want to expand. **more below**

[evilmick66]

You can MAKE a house, but you can't MAKE land; land belongs everybody, and just placing something over that land isn't gonna automatically make it yours.

[rmcdaniel423]

"You can MAKE a house, but you can't MAKE land; land belongs everybody, and just placing something over that land isn't gonna automatically make it yours." Tell that to a grizzly bear who made a den for her cubs, as you attempt to squat on her private property like some commie hippie with no respect for others. She will enforce her rights to the dismay of your poor bloody self. Private property is not just capitalist economics. It is normal natural and ethical. Collectivism is hippie fantasy.

[evilmick66]

That bear is only defending the land within her personal space, she's not monopolizing regions upon regions of land just to build an oil drill or something. Under Mutualism (the theory I'm defending, not collectivism) I take over once that bear is no longer using that den.

Private property only exists as land that the state federally owns and allows private occupation. If there's no state, from whom are you buying the property? NOBODY, it's just a spot of dirt that anyone can walk over.

[rmcdaniel423]

Fair enough. I will concede I have some learning to do, though I still favor private property rights. Mutualism is a new concept for me. Does it mean I don't own stuff (like objects, land, etc), but simply use it till I'm done, then someone else uses it next? The bear obviously doesn't desire to erect oil rigs. My only point was "what's mine is mine. What's yours is yours". So you recognize "personal space", but not more than that? What defines personal space?

[evilmick66]

You can keep "stuff" (objects, private possesions) like cars and TVs as long as you want, you can only occupy land as long as you use it; once it's left idle it's up for anyone to use. Combine all that with Worker's Self Management and you've got Mutualism. The guy that uploaded this video has another one that can explain Mutualism entirely for you.

[LibertarianOnline]

I really can't conceive how this kind of equality could really exist (much less enforced) in the real world. Sounds great and everything, but all sorts of "what ifs" pop into mind. Whenever I look for anarchist solutions to real problems, all I find is anarchists explaining what "archos" means and how anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. I mean, what about criminals and education? And what about people who simply don't (or can't) work? Does anyone know anywhere I can find a good source?

[evilmick66]

Criminals can be punished by the autonomous vote of the ppl.

Education can be provided by willing volunteers.

Tell me what ye mean by "people who simply don't (or can't) work"?

[LibertarianOnline]

Just because 51% of people say someone is guilty doesn't make it so. What about the innocent guy who is hated by everyone? Every voter would have to be fully informed about every case. You anarchists hate hierarchy and power but who is to run these elections? He/they would have immense power.

Really? How are educators to eat? Do volunteers make the food too? What if nobody wants to be a teacher?

I mean retards, orphans, and some old people.

The whole thing seems more like a democracy to me.

[evilmick66]

Most anarchists believe the voting should be based on unanimous decision. And it wouldn't hard for every voter to be inform of the cases, nor would there be anyone needed to run the elections, because anarchist communities would be small.

The volunteers would be provided all their basic needs by the community in return for their efforts. "From each according to his will, to each according to his need" -- Karl Marx.

All disabled, handicapped ppl would be taken care of by the community.

[dafatalgigabyte]

The criminal is dealt with in the appropriate fashion decided upon by the violated person. I doubt we'll see many people waking up one morning thinking "I want to shoot someone." If they ever do, they'd just have to work with "Where's that monkey." because of the probability that the target will have a gun. Unfortunately, if they don't have a gun, natural selection will, as it always pulls through in doing, kick their ass; but that's usually the case nowadays. Just defend thyself and be smart.

[dafatalgigabyte]

As for education, do you really think general education is even required? The way I see it, vocational education gets you into the industry faster than general education does. Maybe you would need some form of general education, but what library and parent can't provide just that? And if there are teachers, they can do it because they are fed, housed, and entertained. If there ever was some shortage of food, shelter, or entertaining device, then a little communal rethinking is required.

[dafatalgigabyte]

What I mean by communal rethinking is that the community must decide, through the members talking and writing up non-enforced plans, on how to get the economy rolling smoothly again. The reason you split the labor amongst carpenter, blacksmith, teacher, custodian, farmer, scientist, etc, is so that you can specialize. It makes life better for everyone. Else you could dive back into subsistence, like the capitalists all say you can choose to do if you don't want to be employed by someone else.

[A86]

I find it funny that a lot of anarcho-capitalists seem woefully ignorant of the history of capitalism and the state. Republican governments in the 18th century in Europe are the ones who established capitalism in the first place. Wealthy people in the government used government power to seize public land and make it private and seize property contracts to start a business. Capitalism needs force to exist or it will just provide its own force ala Blackwater and Pinkerton Security.

[A86]

And business is not distinct from government because both government and capitalist private property stem from the same philosophical argument. Governments exist to protect capitalist property. Without a government, private companies would hire their own private armies and court systems, essentially becoming a privately-owned government. Taxes exist for the same reason capitalists charge utilities.

[buddyfreakinholly]

(Part 1) Very bad video distorting truth. Anarchist simply means without a ruler and an owner of a business is not a ruler nor does he enslave you. You compared anarcho capitalism with what type of anarchism? social? communist? Anarcho-capitalists can start a business and produce profits and employment immediately, whereas in other forms of anarchism you would have to find other people who were interested in your idea and you would want them to pay their fair share, and you would have to (cont.)

[buddyfreakinholly]

(part 2) get permission from whoever the hell who decides where you can and cannot build a building as land is not owned. (Too much red tape! Thats worse than the beaureacratic run system we have now.) You socialists assume that if a group of people own a business that they will come to logical agreements and the business will run smoothly. You obviously know nothing about running a business. And if your business failed you could not hold anyone accountable because there is no leader in charge.

[buddyfreakinholly]

There have been and always will be people who are smart, entrepreneurial ,hard working, and successful. You socialists call them "hierarcy". You socialists seem to confuse the capitalist government system we have now which is not really true capitalism as we have welfare programs (socialism), and regulations, restrictions, and taxes with anarcho-capitalists "TRUE" free market "TRUE" free trade system. Bartering and trading are as old as society itself.

[JanxMan]

You are utilizing the outdated labor theory of value to push the notion that capitalists become powerful due to their ability to horde surplus value from the exploitation of labor.

Instead, the capitalist gains power by offering a good or service that people desire at a rate that is cheaper than the use of the consumer's own labor.

A high value is placed on the individual best able to bring cheap goods to the market. This manifests itself as profit.

Profit as distinct from exploitation.

[A86]

This has nothing to do with the labor value or anything theory of value. This has to do with the concept of ownership. If one person "owns" a factory, that man/woman has the power to deny others access from it and has control over something people need to use for sustainence. That is the same thing a government does except this power is concentrated into one person or a group of shareholders (which is just a property bureaucracy) instead of a central government bureaucracy.

[JanxMan]

Without ownership, everything degrades into primitivism. Cultivation becomes pointless because, without property, it becomes impossible to safely store labor. Do you expect someone to devote 500 hours to growing peaches, only for others to "rightly" take the fruits of his labor?

Without property, there is no vested interest in long term planning, and hence none happens. Government is distinct from free market enterprise because government is trusted with the use of force. Business is not.

[A86]

That's like saying if you don't hold a property title on your toothbrush that people will take it. Absence of property in the capitalist sense is not absence of possession. Without property in the capitalist sense people will still farm fields because they want the produce. No, people won't steal peaches that you grow on your personal farm that you use for yourself. You need to learn to distinguish personal property from public property that is used to produce for everyone.

[opinionhead444]

Anarcho-capitalists, or simply put, money-hungry corporate hacks had a coup for themselves back around the time of the Civil War in America. The corporation went from an abstract collection of people working for a common goal to a "person" in the sense that the next guy or girl I see on the street is a person. That is the ultimate end of anarcho-capitalism right there. If you are declared a person, you can move where you want to because it is your right to do as such.

[opinionhead444]

But which system would last longer?

The capitalist, wage-slave system.

Where in history has any anarchist society flourished for more than a century?

[chatnoir6]

Actually, anarchist societies have flourished for nine tenths of our time on this planet as a species. Only they weren't called anarchist then, but normal.

[opinionhead444]

Okay...like the village system, sans the fiefdom?

Small communities thriving prior to the collectivization of human interest and then the exploitation thereafter, is that what you mean?

[chatnoir6]

Yes and no. Hunter-gatherers, but also agricultural communities. When you talk about the collectivisation of human interest, you make it sound like a social-contract between equals, and that's just a fairy-tale. The first states emerged as a result of the conquest of more peaceful agricultual societies by more warlike nomadic herding societies, or as protection-rackets. States have protected and guaranteed domination and exploitation ever since.

[sexdrugsRnR]

oh and btw, anarcho capitalists dont care whether you have a socialistic system set up... but for some reason, socialist anarchists want every1 to do it their way, where is the freedom in that?

[chatnoir6]

I can accept that if one, two or more people go into business as a partnership, without employing anyone else, there might be a place for them in an anarchist economy. But as soon as someone employs me for a wage, the relationship becomes one of domination and submission and, as a result, I am not properly free. That I think is chief contradiction of anarcho-capitalism.

[A86]

Anarcho-capitalists would take some land, and shoot anyone who tried to use it without their permission. Everyone else is forced to pay money to use it buy anything from it. Anarcho-socialists/communists don't think any person should have the right to do this unless it's a personal possession. Where is the freedom in capitalism when one man or group owns the means of production and tells you when to show up, what to make and how much they think you deserve for your troubles?

[sexdrugsRnR]

anarcho capitalism owns socialistic anarchy

[nickglais]

Excellent little video restoring the good name of Anarchism hijacked by Ayn Rand cultists in the USA

[hockeybrazil]

But who decides that value? Is value not a creation of the human self? (or in many cases, an accepted ideology) And how do you decide what talents are more valuable than others? Take a mother, for example; is her labor put into raising a child not valuable because the "free-market" does not pay her for it?

[Lojikbom]

I understand anarchism better now. Thank you. However, now that I understand it better, I understand it to be fundamentally flawed. There are always going to be differences between people and, as such, always going to be hierarchies of sorts as some people are going to have more valuable labor talents than others. I liked anarchism better when I understood it to simply be anti-state.

[thelaughingman]

Finally someone gets it.

[Questionablescum]

LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE RUN AWAY!

[MatthewLeee]

Where does the line between possessions end and property/means of production begin. What if I build a means of production? is it mine. What if Joe Bob wants some extra cash and works it for me?

[Questionablescum]

Honestly, it seems like they are working from a Georgist presupposition that resources in nature are owned collectively. Furthermore, they seem to be using preference utilitarian logic in viewing that while you having a house for that is a morally significant preference (having a house). But owning a means of production is not. It seems like they want to be consequentialists and rights theorists at the same time.

[Formosus111]

Watch video #7.  If you build a means of production, and use it for yourself, fine; it's yours. If you HIRE Joe Bob and pay him a WAGE to exploit his labor, then you have crossed the line. BUT, you need to understand that the desire in anarchism is that Joe Bob shouldn't have to come to you for extra cash to begin with; he should be able to find meaningful employment at any number of communalized workplaces.

[MatthewLeee]

But what if I offer him more, and our realtionship is totally voluntary and it threatens no one? He is working for me because he sees more value in the wage than in whatever other job he works at.

[Formosus111]

How can you offer more to begin with? How does one person acquire more than the whole community? You really can't unless you're relationship is exploitative to begin with. No one is going to stop you if it is voluntary, as far as I'm aware. It would be antithetical to anarchism to disallow it. However, I see no real way for you to be able to offer more and therefore any reason to voluntarily submit to working for you.

[Terilien]

If the machines are significantly better than others he can.

[Formosus111]

Once again, how has he acquired machines that are significantly better? Also, that would simply allow more products to be produced. If he is paying a wage, the amount of products being produced has no real effect on the amount paid. It really depends on the form of economy the community operates on, but, in short, it's HIGHLY unlikely such a circumstance would arrive that cause Joe Bob to want to become a wage slave.

[KropotkinPeter]

excellent video

[bomberjay]

I consider myself as an anarchist and I believe that resources should belong to the people, but I have still a few unanswered questions. Can people possess "useless" things? (Like having, by example, a skateboard and keep it for myself?)

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Are you saying that because I own my house, I am denying the right of someone else to own my house? Does the same go for my car or my watch?

It sounds like if I want to build a house to live in, the only way you're going to stop me is if you use violence. And it sounds like you want to do that.

[Kropotkin2000]

You don't exploit anyone by owning a house, car or watch. Things you use for yourself are possessions. I'm sure this distinction between different types of property is addressed in a previous video, I would recommend viewing it.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I've seen the other video, but it seemed to say the intention for which you want to use the property determines what kind of property it is.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

If you work for me, I'm not committing violence against you by threatening to cease associating with you. That's like saying breaking up with your girlfriend is violence.

And the wage system isn't violence. It's completely voluntary. You don't have to be a wage earner. And you can't force others not to be wage earners. That's violence.

[WarriorCodex]

Violence is defined by some as being any action that makes you feel physically uncomfortable, i.e. actual pain or discomfort in the stomach at the thought of pain. The latter is a reflex to a threat, hence threats usually fall under violence in this definition.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Two scenarios:

I never existed to help you to find food.

I exist and don't want to help you find food.

Why should I be subject to your whim just because I exist? In order to get me to give you food, you'd have to commit violence against me.

The person in your definition is a toddler who needs his mother. (Literally: Children are forced into this world and abandonment is violence.)

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Do you have any problem with people wanting to exploit themselves by working for me? Or me working for someone else?

See, there is no difference, really between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. If your system (if you want to call it that) actually works better, people will automatically be drawn to it. The fact that anarcho-capitalism's basis is non-aggression (no government violence=free market) means that we're not incompatible.

[jtr3030]

I wasn't saying capitalism was good, I was just trying to clarify what XO said. I'm one of the good guys, at least one of the better ones.

The 'about me' section of my profile says 'anti-capitalism' and not much else.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I watched your video on property and I didn't really get a good explanation of my home. I assume my home is like my watch, because if someone tries to take my home, they'd have to commit violence against me or they would be taking that which they did not labor for.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

What if the hierarchical company gets me more money, better hours, produces better products, and gives me more job security? Do you have a problem with someone choosing to run a business out of their house, whether the house be a single family home or a factory?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I don't see the difference between someone's house and someone's factory.

If a person wants to voluntary pay someone rent or to work for a hierarchical company simply because they prefer it, is the anarchist going to use violence to take over the factory and give it back to "humanity"?

[XOmniverse]

I'm not in favor of capitalism in the traditional sense, but neither are most anarcho-capitalists.

[jtr3030]

I think they're in favor of a more purified, truer capitalism. No?

[XOmniverse]

The threat of force is the same as force, but nobody threatens to shoot you if you quit your job. I think wage labor would be less common on a truly free market, but I can't say I favor the use of coercion to terminate voluntary relationships.

[XOmniverse]

And if I create a "means of production" by transforming natural resources? Is it then COMMUNITY property rather than my own simply because it can be used to produce things?

[LibertarianSocialism]

XOmniverse on the mater of property it seams that you think that lokean property theory is the only legitimate theory and that it can be universally aplied. if that is so can you answer me this how do you disprove other forms of property theory like proudhonian and georgist? 2 how are you going to make lokeanism universally accepted with out forcing people how don't agree with lokeanism?

[XOmniverse]

You have a fuzzy definition of authority. Do you oppose authority, say, over your own body? What about over unowned natural resources you have transformed with your work and talent?

There is no such thing as "voluntary rule." If you enter into a voluntary agreement that you are free to end, this is not being ruled.

[ByPolarBear666]

5 stars

[LibertarianSocialism]

i disagree with you on 2 points one i dont think free markets increase inequality but only produce a natural inequality its only state intervention that makes the unnatural inequality 2 on the mater of property i think the best thing is to leave property law to local consensu, people who follow lokean property law can and people who follow proudhonian, georgist..et can to.

[jtr3030]

some points I would disagree with, but on the whole, 5 stars.

[AllieCaulfield]

here come an on slot of comments by Anarcho-Capitalists, great video as usual