Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol no. I suggest you learn a little more about AC (plenty of posts here to search through) before you continue attempting to criticize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry.

I guess I was just confused because nietz said

[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy named Rothbard - if I remember right - also said the same thing.

However, since you know more about it, maybe you could tell us how it really works?

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this quote, where did you get the words

"starts off with"
"redistribution"
"wealth"
"rich" "poor"
"landlord" "tenant"

I couldnt figure it out, which is why I called your post "inane"

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldnt figure it out, which is why I called your post "inane"

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep working on it. If you still can't figure it out, I'll try to help you when I have a little more time.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Some guy named Rothbard - if I remember right - also said the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

ding ding ding

My position on this is essentially Rothbard's--that corporations/companies who get the majority of their profits through government subsidies, regulations, tax breaks (note: obv i'm opposed to taxes, but when say walmart gets a huge tax break that other companies don't get its a huge competitive advantage), etc. should be turned over to the people who *legitimately* own them--the people who work them.
The bigger question is what stuff does this include? It seems clear that all government agencies and government 'property' should be turned over to the individuals actually using them. It also seems pretty clear that some corporations would fit the bill, but which ones do is an empirical matter (halliburton would, i would think).

Not sure that most 'anarchocapitalists' agree with me on this--I honestly have no idea--so there are probably differences of opinion on this.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

My position on this is essentially Rothbard's--that corporations/companies who get the majority of their profits through government subsidies, regulations, tax breaks (note: obv i'm opposed to taxes, but when say walmart gets a huge tax break that other companies don't get its a huge competitive advantage)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Governments use taxes to get people to do what they want for them through incentives. A tax incentive is basically a way of saying "do this, or I'll steal your property." And big businesses are no stranger to lobbying the incentives in their favor to get a competitive advantage.

Tax incentives are coercive, but that doesn't logically justify opposing them in the name of equality. No one should be taxed, not everyone.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Along these lines, I think that those in our society who have so much stuff as a result of heavy government intervention should not just get to 'carry it over' into an anarchist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which brings about the problem of just aquisition. Pretty much the worst case scenario has taken place over the past 10 years in the former Soviet countries where basically the government collapsed (for good reasons) and you had massive State assets and wealth built by the people which were pretty much seized by the most powerful - mostly former higher-ups in the totalitarian Communist apparatus and members of organized crime. Klepto-capitalism at its finest.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, which brings about the problem of just aquisition. Pretty much the worst case scenario has taken place over the past 10 years in the former Soviet countries where basically the government collapsed (for good reasons) and you had massive State assets and wealth built by the people which were pretty much seized by the most powerful - mostly former higher-ups in the totalitarian Communist apparatus and members of organized crime. Klepto-capitalism at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right? Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right? Now you are being intellectually honest here, right? Concentration of wealth and power was already established in Soviet Russia long before the first reforms came along, right? Right?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who ever makes any kind of trade is a capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is /not/ true. Is a barter system capitalist? No. Capitalism requires capital, and the private ownership of capital. Capitalism has also always required a massive amount of people /not/ to own capital. Hence the focus on the class interests of those that own capital and those that don't in most anti-capitalist critique.

Furthermore, the more the concentration of capital increases, the more the ability to make profit off that capital without doing anything increases. Now if you want to argue that by investing $1mil in the stock market I am creating value, fine. But don't pretend that capitalism doesn't allow for a minority to use their accumulated wealth to essentially make massive amounts of money off other's labor without laboring at all.

Your definition of a just economic system may include a situation where someone can make more wealth every day without doing anything simply by inheriting a few million dollars and owning capital than a laborer can make each year working 80 hour weeks. Mine does not.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right? Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right? Now you are being intellectually honest here, right? Concentration of wealth and power was already established in Soviet Russia long before the first reforms came along, right? Right?


[/ QUOTE ]

LFD is not pro-soviet, so you're not making a point here. Actually, it's pretty screwed up to blame anarchists for anything in the USSR, since stalinists executed, tortured, or imprisoned many anarchists. It's honestly the same as blaming the jews for hitler.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right?

[/ QUOTE ]

well replaced totalitarian tyrannical socialism yes

[ QUOTE ]
Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they were, I didn't say anything about the situation in the USSR pre the fall, simply pointed to the fact that just acquisition MUST BE a fundamental concern of ACers since the simple removal or implosion of the State can result in a country entering into a market economy where those who have strong amounts of power simply seize as much as they can get their hands on. The amount of "new billionaires" produced through the seizure of massive amounts of formerly State property is pretty [censored] up considering the general wellbeing level of the mass of Russian people (whether they are better off now or then would be a different debate)

You can largely blame the "shock therapy" folks at the IMF and World Bank and the Washington Consensus for that one

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's pretty screwed up to blame anarchists for anything in the USSR, since stalinists executed, tortured, or imprisoned many anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

They slaughtered us in Spain as well. [censored] commie fascists.

In fact among historically minded left-anarchists today I would say that the distrust of any group that identifies even remotely with strains of authoritarian socialism is greater than even their conservative opponents given that anytime in history that left-anarchists have said "look, we don't think that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat and gradual elimination of the State thing is gonna work, but since we both oppose the tyrannical system we live under, we'll go ahead and fight with you now and worry about how that will work later - if things get [censored] you can just let us live in AS world and you can have your State Socialist world" the authoritarian socialists have always, after coming into power, summarily imprisoned and killed anarchists that opposed their power structure - Russia, Spain, Cuba, etc.

anarchism in Russia - crappy wikipedia link, but a little info at least