Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?

[latefordinner]

re: points about egalitarianism only being possible with continual violent reappropriation and redistribution

no I don't think that's the case and need not be the case and i'll make that argument in the anarchy and community thread

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate what your trying to say but it goes against the facts of human nature. Fine, give every one tomorrow the exact same amount of capital, the exact same amount of education, and the same job. By the end of the month, you'll again have rich and poor. What are you going to do then? Styeal it all back and try again? How many times are you going to repeat that until you realize you can only have wealth equality at the point of a whole lot of guns, and now how is that much different in practice than totalitarian communism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

Just a PSA. Very little is scientifically known about human nature. You've been duped.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate what your trying to say but it goes against the facts of human nature. Fine, give every one tomorrow the exact same amount of capital, the exact same amount of education, and the same job. By the end of the month, you'll again have rich and poor. What are you going to do then? Styeal it all back and try again? How many times are you going to repeat that until you realize you can only have wealth equality at the point of a whole lot of guns, and now how is that much different in practice than totalitarian communism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

Just a PSA. Very little is scientifically known about human nature. You've been duped.

[/ QUOTE ]
Go on.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate what your trying to say but it goes against the facts of human nature. Fine, give every one tomorrow the exact same amount of capital, the exact same amount of education, and the same job. By the end of the month, you'll again have rich and poor. What are you going to do then? Styeal it all back and try again? How many times are you going to repeat that until you realize you can only have wealth equality at the point of a whole lot of guns, and now how is that much different in practice than totalitarian communism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

Just a PSA. Very little is scientifically known about human nature. You've been duped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'll just take history as a guide. And my interaction with humans for the last 35 years as additional input and make a best guess. And since I shared my home growing up with homeless persons on several occasions, and used to hang out with them regularly to feed and minster to them, as my parents founded an outreach program, I think that info helps.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

You pretty much just rephrased your original assertion. What about capitalism requires large amounts of people without capital?


[/ QUOTE ]

because otherwise everyone would simply be an artisan, and the efficiency of socialized production never would have outpaced the slave based economy in the US south, or the feudal economy in europe, and russia, etc. It's just history.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism has also always required a massive amount of people /not/ to own capital.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about massive, but for capitalism to be present you must have capital owners, who buy labor power, and those that must sell their labor power because they lack capital.

[/ QUOTE ]
You pretty much just rephrased your original assertion. What about capitalism requires large amounts of people without capital?

[/ QUOTE ]

wasn't me that replied FWIW

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I appreciate what your trying to say but it goes against the facts of human nature. Fine, give every one tomorrow the exact same amount of capital, the exact same amount of education, and the same job. By the end of the month, you'll again have rich and poor. What are you going to do then? Styeal it all back and try again? How many times are you going to repeat that until you realize you can only have wealth equality at the point of a whole lot of guns, and now how is that much different in practice than totalitarian communism?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Kaj,

Just a PSA. Very little is scientifically known about human nature. You've been duped.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then I'll just take history as a guide. And my interaction with humans for the last 35 years as additional input and make a best guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your observations won't be worth anything. People always get really offended when others are unimpressed by their seat-of-the-pants way of doing things, because it seems like an insult to their general intelligence. Intuition or other forms of sloppy reasoning are usually efficient for everyday decision making. When it comes to more complex questions, they fail completely, but everyone pretends they don't. This is why bizarre unscientific attitudes about human nature, politics, cosmology, medicine, etc. are so prevalent.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You pretty much just rephrased your original assertion. What about capitalism requires large amounts of people without capital?


[/ QUOTE ]

because otherwise everyone would simply be an artisan, and the efficiency of socialized production never would have outpaced the slave based economy in the US south, or the feudal economy in europe, and russia, etc. It's just history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do these people "without capital" have more or less capital under a capitalist economy or without a capitalist economy? Because if the answer is more (which I believe is likely the case), than the point that capitalism requires people without capital is moot.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I'll just take history as a guide. And my interaction with humans for the last 35 years as additional input and make a best guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

As "human nature" is a frequent point that both statists and ACers argue for their system (statists=we need the state cause ppl are baaaaaad; ACers=the magic of a market economy is that everyone acting in their own best interests (which is human nature) produces the best outcomes for society) and it's an important part of the need for community and socialization processes that reinforce egalitarian preferences, it will be aprt of the community thread too, but for now I'll just throw in an emma goldman quote and a gandhi quote

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?"

the belief (whether of Lenin or Adam Smith) that we can devise a social system so perfect that no one will need to be good, is one of the great delusions of our time.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


Do these people "without capital" have more or less capital under a capitalist economy or without a capitalist economy? Because if the answer is more (which I believe is likely the case), than the point that capitalism requires people without capital is moot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said productive goods or something else. The pace of industial capitalism is always accelerated when people lose their land or trade in their artisan's smock for an employee name tag.