Anarcho-Capitalism will never happen.

[n0thing]

Nobody wants to live in a society where the only reason a chef doesn't serve poisoned food is because he's scared about losing his income. Who would risk their lives revolting, for a society like that? Are workers really going to put their lives at risk to abolish striking rights, the 8 hour workday, anti-discrimination laws, free healthcare and the dole? You know, those rights that people fought, died and starved over for decades to earn?

That you people think that sort of society is even remotely possible is just unbelievable.

[Il Medico]

Right. Plus, capitalism relies on the state for its very existence.

[Havet]

I used to be a full-blown hardcore absolutist-propertarian anarcho-capitalist who would totally have advocated blowing up anyone that disrespected my property rights. There was this reasoning that when you mess with my rights, you become a part of my past, which makes you my property, and therefore I'm perfectly justified in blowing you up.

Most ancaps are anti-corporation, but they often have the mindset that inequality is natural and tend to advocate the same pattern of corporatist capitalism for a stateless market.

They also have an annoying knee-jerk defense of all social heirarchy (with any quasi-egalitarian view inherently being mischaracterized as an attempt to radically transform human nature) and a very narrow conception of libertarianism in which anything other than their absolutist property conventions inherently are equated with Stalinist gulags, lacking any capacity to distinguish state-socialism from any other sense of socialism. I think part of it is that they've inherited the assumptions of the American right.

It seems like there is a good deal of misunderstanding. On one hand, many "ancaps" seem to dismiss more or less the entirety of anarchist tradition (outside of their own, relatively new one) without always being particularly familiar with the ideas, figures and texts and by conflating it with the negative definition of "socialism" that they've already assumed ahead of time. On the other hand, the more vulgar "social anarchists" tend to take things too far to the point of dismissing individualist and mutualist traditions of anarchism, often acting as if anarcho-communism (or something very close to it) is the only legitimate school of anarchism. The extremes of "both sides" talk past eachother, make conflations and ignore subtlety. It's basically the extremes of mainstream politics playing itself out again within anarchism.

[Pogue]

And I would like to re-assert that in the real world we know this people as nutters, or the rich.

[Il Medico]

Mostly nutters.

[Misanthrope]

The capitalists would just form a new state to forcefully protect their business interests and control the market.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sitting here at my computer thinking WHY a Capitalist would ever want to get rid of government--I can't think of one reason. While I don't always like everything the government does--it by far and away helps me more than it hurts me.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The state would only reform at the power gained by the private police and paramilitary organizations.

[StalinFanboy]

I'm sitting here at my computer thinking WHY a Capitalist would ever want to get rid of government--I can't think of one reason. While I don't always like everything the government does--it by far and away helps me more than it hurts me.
Most correct thing you've ever said.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Hell, if we can be rid of the State for even a month I say give it a go. Not an ancap myself but I'll work with them to accomplish mutual destruction of our common enemy.

[trivas7]

Ditto to stateless socialism/communism. Nobody would want to work in a society where there is no material incentive to do so. I give you the Soviet Union as test case.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Ditto to stateless socialism/communism. Nobody would want to work in a society where there is no material incentive to do so. I give you the Soviet Union as test case.The USSR was stateless? News to me.

In anycase, people did work, there were incentives and measured purely in terms of economic performance, the early USSR did much better than the rest of the world at the time. Western planners' concern over Communism as a form of economic independence is stated bluntly, for example, in an extensive 1955 study sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Planning Association, conducted by a representative segment of the U.S. elite (including the Chairman of the Board of the General American Investors Company, the Associate Director of the Ford Foundation, the Dean of the Columbia Business School, and the Dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Public Administration). See William Yandell Elliott, ed., The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy: Its Concepts, Strategy, and Limits, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1955. An excerpt (p. 42; emphasis added):

The Soviet threat is total -- military, political, economic and ideological. Four of its specific aspects are important for an understanding of present and prospective international economic problems. It has meant:
(1) A serious reduction of the potential resource base and market opportunities of the West owing to the subtraction of the communist areas from the international economy and their economic transformation in ways which reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West;
(2) A planned disruption of the free world economies by means of Soviet foreign economic policy and subversive communist movements;
(3) A long-term challenge to the economic pre-eminence of the West arising from the much higher current rates of economic growth (particularly of heavy industry) in the Soviet system;
(4) A source of major insecurity in the international economy due to the fact that Soviet communism threatens not merely the political and economic institutions of the West but the continued existence of human freedom and humane society everywhere.

[Misanthrope]

Ditto to stateless socialism/communism. Nobody would want to work in a society where there is no material incentive to do so. I give you the Soviet Union as test case.

The Soviet Union was a state. The Soviet Union also had one man management of the workplace, capitalism. You are straw manning communism. How is there any less material incentive in communism than capitalism, theoretically?

[trivas7]

In anycase, people did work, there were incentives and measured purely in terms of economic performance, the early USSR did much better than the rest of the world at the time.

If you're trying to persuade me that there was general material incentive to work in the USSR over the course of its history I remain unconvinced.


How is there any less material incentive in communism than capitalism, theoretically?
What material incentives exist under communism?

[rednordman]

I'm sitting here at my computer thinking WHY a Capitalist would ever want to get rid of government--I can't think of one reason. While I don't always like everything the government does--it by far and away helps me more than it hurts me.Thats an honest and interesting thing to hear from a capitalist. I must ask the question of why do most conservatives more and more hate the state and blame almost everything that hinders them on it?

[rednordman]

If you're trying to persuade me that there was general material incentive to work in the USSR over the course of its history I remain unconvinced.


What material incentives exist under communism?From what I know there was indeed incentives, as LWARWN has mentioned. This was basically in financial terms (bonuses for high productivity and record breaking), as well as other ways such as medals for extreme examples of hard work. They took work ethic rather seriously in the USSR (Not sure after 1970s though) at those times, unlike nowadays.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ditto to stateless socialism/communism. Nobody would want to work in a society where there is no material incentive to do so. I give you the Soviet Union as test case.

Clearly you've never heard of the Spanish Revolution.

[Conquer or Die]

If you're trying to persuade me that there was general material incentive to work in the USSR over the course of its history I remain unconvinced.

The USSR under Stalin became the second most powerful military country in the world.



What material incentives exist under communism?

Silly and stupid. The bare minimum incentive for existence is survival. But communism does not discriminate against anybody; so not working to not eat is okay.

Forced labor as reparations will be the only punishment after the institution of world socialism.

[#FF0000]

Just for the record, we all think Sega Communist is an idiot.

[Conquer or Die]

Just for the record, we all think Sega Communist is an idiot.

What part of the post do you take gumption with?

[Havet]

The USSR under Stalin became the second most powerful military country in the world.


that was the incentive to not get shot

[Ele'ill]

Nobody wants to live in a society where the only reason a chef doesn't serve poisoned food is because he's scared about losing his income.

And if he's not afraid of losing his income?




Who would risk their lives revolting, for a society like that? Are workers really going to put their lives at risk to abolish striking rights, the 8 hour workday, anti-discrimination laws, free healthcare and the dole? You know, those rights that people fought, died and starved over for decades to earn?

That you people think that sort of society is even remotely possible is just unbelievable.





How is this any different than what we're living now?

[ineedaride]

Right. Plus, capitalism relies on the state for its very existence.

Please continue. I'm interested to hear the rest of this line of thought.

[I<3OsiUmenyiora]

Nobody wants to live in a society where the only reason a chef doesn't serve poisoned food is because he's scared about losing his income. Who would risk their lives revolting, for a society like that? Are workers really going to put their lives at risk to abolish striking rights, the 8 hour workday, anti-discrimination laws, free healthcare and the dole? You know, those rights that people fought, died and starved over for decades to earn?

That you people think that sort of society is even remotely possible is just unbelievable.

How many psychopathic chefs for whom the only thing stopping them from poisoning the food they serve is a loss of income do you think exist? Do you think there are really murderous chefs who say to themselves, "I would love to off the people eating my meals, but just can't because I would lose my job?"

Nobody lives in a world where monetary profit and loss is the mechanism which prevents despicable actions like this. At a basic level, our humanity, the values we are instilled by society during our upbringing, and the emotional aversion to doing evil things is what is effective in stopping things like this. Hypothetically, I could torture my cats without anyone ever finding out, without losing any money, but the chance of me doing that is nonexistent. What prevents me from doing that are my moral beliefs and my conscience, not an economic concern.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Please continue. I'm interested to hear the rest of this line of thought.

In the absence of a State, who enforces private property?

[I<3OsiUmenyiora]

The USSR was stateless? News to me.

In anycase, people did work, there were incentives and measured purely in terms of economic performance, the early USSR did much better than the rest of the world at the time. Western planners' concern over Communism as a form of economic independence is stated bluntly, for example, in an extensive 1955 study sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Planning Association, conducted by a representative segment of the U.S. elite (including the Chairman of the Board of the General American Investors Company, the Associate Director of the Ford Foundation, the Dean of the Columbia Business School, and the Dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Public Administration). See William Yandell Elliott, ed., The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy: Its Concepts, Strategy, and Limits, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1955. An excerpt (p. 42; emphasis added):


The US' politicians and leaders were in fact very afraid of the USSR during the 1950s. They (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) believed that the USSR was actively seeking to spread its ideology using military might or violence, that the USSR had spies in the US which could cripple the US and endanger its population, and that the mysterious and unfamiliar idea of Communism was going to start subverting American kids, destroying the foundation that allowed US society to function, and even result in cats living with dogs.

This fear of the USSR wanting to dominate the world and destroy the American way of life was combined with a fear that their economic system might end up creating an economy superior to the US one. They had just had a close call in dealing with Hitler, and were relatively paranoid. They saw the initial production numbers coming out of the USSR, and got very scared. A big part of this was their unfamiliarity with what was going on inside the USSR, they were facing an entirely unknown enemy, and paranoia set in, leading to some horrid worst case scenarios. Lots of US leaders were genuinely afraid that totalitarian Communism would be able to create a massive military which could overrun the rest of the world.

However, their fear turned out to be unfounded, and the Soviet system proved to be unsustainable. But during the 1950s, it was a still an open question which way this would turn out, which is why studies like the one you mentioned were created.

[Ohnoatard]

Yes, it wont happen because we wont let it happen.

[I<3OsiUmenyiora]

From what I know there was indeed incentives, as LWARWN has mentioned. This was basically in financial terms (bonuses for high productivity and record breaking), as well as other ways such as medals for extreme examples of hard work. They took work ethic rather seriously in the USSR (Not sure after 1970s though) at those times, unlike nowadays.

There certainly were extreme examples of hard work in the USSR, but hard work is not enough on its own to create a successful economy.

People both need to not only work hard, but also be performing this work on a useful task. If you have a factory full of extremely hardworking people, but they are making a good no one needs, this hard work has been wasted. The USSR fell into situations where high producing factories were kept in business well after they had produced more than enough of what they needed to, just because its overseers had been instructed or incentivized to break a certain record. This creates economic output, but once you have enough of a certain good, mindlessly producing millions more of it is not a good outcome.

At the same time, you also need to have people working hard at the tasks they are well suited for, not just any old task. I could work as hard as I wanted on sewing sweaters, but it wouldn't do anyone much good.

[Solzhenitsyn]

In the absence of a State, who enforces private property?

Ultimately, the men with the most guns. Which is why any ideology with the anarcho- prefix is doomed in the cradle. Look at Somalia. It has had no government whatsoever for a very long time but instead libertopia or communism we find warlordism on land and piracy at sea. All it takes to wreck the place is a small group of barbarians with the will to out muscle everybody else.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Ultimately, the men with the most guns. Which is why any ideology with the anarcho- prefix is doomed in the cradle.And ideologies without the anarcho- prefix will do better because?


Look at Somalia. It has had no government whatsoever for a very long time but instead libertopia or communism we find warlordism on land and piracy at sea. All it takes to wreck the place is a small group of barbarians with the will to out muscle everybody else.You realise what actual anarchists believe is different from the straw men put out against them? Anarchism is a subtle and complex movement and social theory, not the desire for 'no government' (whatever that is supposed to mean). Anarchists advocate organisation to defend society from agression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

The US' politicians and leaders were in fact very afraid of the USSR during the 1950s. They (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) believed that the USSR was actively seeking to spread its ideology using military might or violence, that the USSR had spies in the US which could cripple the US and endanger its population, and that the mysterious and unfamiliar idea of Communism was going to start subverting American kids, destroying the foundation that allowed US society to function, and even result in cats living with dogs.

This fear of the USSR wanting to dominate the world and destroy the American way of life was combined with a fear that their economic system might end up creating an economy superior to the US one. They had just had a close call in dealing with Hitler, and were relatively paranoid. They saw the initial production numbers coming out of the USSR, and got very scared. A big part of this was their unfamiliarity with what was going on inside the USSR, they were facing an entirely unknown enemy, and paranoia set in, leading to some horrid worst case scenarios. Lots of US leaders were genuinely afraid that totalitarian Communism would be able to create a massive military which could overrun the rest of the world.

However, their fear turned out to be unfounded, and the Soviet system proved to be unsustainable. But during the 1950s, it was a still an open question which way this would turn out, which is why studies like the one you mentioned were created.This is the US propaganda line. Needless to say it is nonsense.

Serious US government analysts never took the military threat posed by the USSR seriously. They were right not to, USSR military spending was never half the american figure. What the US did fear was third world liberation movements. Crushing them was what mattered to the US - the USSR was a sideshow. It was a very useful sideshow, fear of the USSR was what the US used to sell its war against the third world to its own population. To this end paranoia about the USSR was whipped up - but it was propaganda, US planners never actually believed it.

The USSR economy was significantly different in different periods. Eariler on, it was focused on developing industry. In this period, judged solely in terms of economic performance, it was outstanding (this being when the study i mentioned was performed). Later, as nationalist ideology became more important, it was directed more towards the military and the space programme. When this happened the economy wasnt nearly as effective as it had been, but still fairly good by world standards. Since 1991, the russian economy has been a catastrophe with few parallels in history. in the 90s GDP shrank over 50%. I don't know what you mean when you say the USSR economy was 'unsustainable'.

[Skooma Addict]

Ultimately, the men with the most guns. Which is why any ideology with the anarcho- prefix is doomed in the cradle.


It just isn't that simple. But anyways, the decentralization of power is the best way to mantain peace.



Look at Somalia. It has had no government whatsoever for a very long time but instead libertopia or communism we find warlordism on land and piracy at sea. All it takes to wreck the place is a small group of barbarians with the will to out muscle everybody else.


Are you really using Somalia as an example? Somalias economy has improved greatly since its oppressive government was overthrown. It is doing much better than similar Aftican countries. Also, its entire warlord sitiuation can be blamed soley on U.S. and Ethiopean imperialism.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Nobody lives in a world where monetary profit and loss is the mechanism which prevents despicable actions like this. At a basic level, our humanity, the values we are instilled by society during our upbringing, and the emotional aversion to doing evil things is what is effective in stopping things like this. Hypothetically, I could torture my cats without anyone ever finding out, without losing any money, but the chance of me doing that is nonexistent. What prevents me from doing that are my moral beliefs and my conscience, not an economic concern.

AHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA.
Have you ever like studied history at all? History is punctuated time and time again with one undeniable fact, all pretenses of morality will be dropped if it benefits people.
Go look up what work conditions were like in the days of lassiez-faire capitalism, to see how little morality applies when there's money to be made.

What prevents you killing your cats is that you benefit from your cats existence, and would suffer from there lost.

[Radical]

Being a strong advocate of Collectivism, the incentive for me to workhard is to help humanity progress as a whole. The Incentive is knowing that you're doing something good to help the collective.

For Capitalist mentality it's completly the opposite. This is why Capitalists always bring up the same argument (Why should Dustbin Men and Doctors get payed the same?). Because both have very important roles in helping the Collective. It's not about yourself in Communism, its about Humanity. The interests of the Collective must come before the interests of the Individual.

[Havet]

The interests of the Collective must come before the interests of the Individual.

Even when such interests require the enslavement or murder of some individuals?

[1billion]

In the absence of a State, who enforces private property?

I suppose an ancap would argue that the owner of the property would. HE would either do this through himself by stocking up in arms or buying contracting a private defence agency to protect him.

[1billion]

Being a strong advocate of Collectivism, the incentive for me to workhard is to help humanity progress as a whole. The Incentive is knowing that you're doing something good to help the collective.

For Capitalist mentality it's completly the opposite. This is why Capitalists always bring up the same argument (Why should Dustbin Men and Doctors get payed the same?). Because both have very important roles in helping the Collective. It's not about yourself in Communism, its about Humanity. The interests of the Collective must come before the interests of the Individual.

It's good to know that you care about the community as a whole but some people if not most people do not think that way. While I think the collective is important I dont see a problem with someone caring about the indivuaual. I mean tbh you are using your indivuality to further the movement of the collective.

[Outinleftfield]

The crazy thing is some ancaps use Somalia as an example.

Maybe some businesses are doing better but in Somalia the "Private Defense Agencies" are making people pay protection money just like the mafia and most states(i.e. taxes). Looks like anarchocapitalism means being subject to the will of conflicting extortionists. No different from what we have now except without any democratic control people who are able to pay more will get better 'service' (they already do think of campaign contributions but its not as bad as it could be) meaning people with enough money could ignore any laws the private law-making companies try to enforce. There is no such thing as anarchocapitalism, its just plutocracy.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

The crazy thing is some ancaps use Somalia as an example.They actually do:
http://mises.org/story/2066

[1billion]

The crazy thing is some ancaps use Somalia as an example.

Maybe some businesses are doing better but in Somalia the "Private Defense Agencies" are making people pay protection money just like the mafia and most states(i.e. taxes). Looks like anarchocapitalism means being subject to the will of conflicting extortionists. No different from what we have now except without any democratic control people who are able to pay more will get better 'service' (they already do think of campaign contributions but its not as bad as it could be) meaning people with enough money could ignore any laws the private law-making companies try to enforce. There is no such thing as anarchocapitalism, its just plutocracy.

I agree its is crazy, most reasonable ancaps will realize that the US and Ethipiopa are supplying arms to different sects to try and form a new government. The only an cap you will see defending it is confederal socialist and one author at Mises who is insignificant. Ancaps who love Somalia are imo just as bad as communists who like Stalin.

[1billion]

They actually do:
*article*

I've seen that story numerous times, its a stupid article written by some unknown author, to say their hasnt been any commies spouting, zomg Stalin is my hero, by a communist author is just ignorant. If you take random articles written by loons as a critique of a whole sect of ideology you are wholly missing out.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I've seen that story numerous times, its a stupid article written by some unknown author, to say their hasnt been any commies spouting, zomg Stalin is my hero, by a communist author is just ignorant. If you take random articles written by loons as a critique of a whole sect of ideology you are wholly missing out.Communism is a major political movement which has had an enormous impact on world history. So taking a few loons on the internet as representative would be silly. However, ancap consists entirely of a few loons on the internet. Mises.org is one of their premier organisations, and if its editors see fit to publish that article, it represents at the very least a significant minority view within their movement.

As for Stalin, I guess most russians are loons?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7802485.stm
While I most definitely don't, there is a stronger case for idolising Stalin (the whole saving the world from the nazis thing) than for most claims in mainstream political discourse. Certainly those who idolise Stalin are much more respectable than those who idolise any american president. While I think they are stupid, they aren't in the same league as ancaps.

[RGacky3]

Certainly those who idolise Stalin are much more respectable than those who idolise any american president. While I think they are stupid, they aren't in the same league as ancaps.

I was going to say that its rediculous to say that, but then I remembered Truman .

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I was going to say that its rediculous to say that, but then I remembered Truman .The policy towards the third world of all post-WWII US presidents has ensured conditions, the death toll from which makes Stalin look like an amateur. The 'we had to because of the threats we faced' argument is much, much more (but obviously still not) credible when made by Stalin.

[1billion]

Communism is a major political movement which has had an enormous impact on world history. So taking a few loons on the internet as representative would be silly. However, ancap consists entirely of a few loons on the internet. Mises.org is one of their premier organisations, and if its editors see fit to publish that article, it represents at the very least a significant minority view within their movement.

As for Stalin, I guess most russians are loons?
*article*
While I most definitely don't, there is a stronger case for idolising Stalin (the whole saving the world from the nazis thing) than for most claims in mainstream political discourse. Certainly those who idolise Stalin are much more respectable than those who idolise any american president. While I think they are stupid, they aren't in the same league as ancaps.

Well I wouldnt say ancaps are loons, alot of posters at mises.org are very intelligent and have alot to add to a formidable discussin on the nature of humans and of the state, while I'm certainly not arguing they're omnipotent(lol) I do grow tired of people here saying ancaps are stupid, and also people on mises.org saying you guys are stupid. There are people from Mises.org who could have an intelligent debate with you guys and vice versa. Personnaly I think people should stop hating on each other, maybe you think ancaps are crazy which is ok, but it doesnt help or contribute to a discussion just by saying it.

In a nutshell this is how I see the different ideology:

To the commie it seems obvoius business's by defintion are a hierarchy and are incapitaable with anarchy therefore ancaps are crazy, equality of everyone and freedom of the working class is essential in an anarchic society

Ancaps see it likes this, people risk their capital, people work for them out of their own free will(also its essential to understand than an ancap sees being a mananger is a unique skill in and of itself), and a communist soceity could only exist with someone who was willing to use force, to change the nature of humanity.

Thats just my 2 cents, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, thanks:D

[mel]

Ancaps see it likes this, people risk their capital, people work for them out of their own free will(also its essential to understand than an ancap sees being a mananger is a unique skill in and of itself), and a communist soceity could only exist with someone who was willing to use force, to change the nature of humanity.

Essentially, every revolutionary leftist here would disagree with the part I bolded.

All the other disagreements follow from that. The ancaps have a poor definition of "coercion" that centers too rigidly on individualism and fails to see the complexity of societal relations on the whole.

[Skooma Addict]

Essentially, every revolutionary leftist here would disagree with the part I bolded.

All the other disagreements follow from that. The ancaps have a poor definition of "coercion" that centers too rigidly on individualism and fails to see the complexity of societal relations on the whole.

Well then every revolutionary leftist is wrong. Because in a free market, people do work for capitalists out of their own free will.

[mel]

Well then every revolutionary leftist is wrong. Because in a free market, people do work for capitalists out of their own free will.

According to your bizarre concept of freedom.

[Skooma Addict]

According to your bizarre concept of freedom.

So you think that in a free market, workers do not work for capitalists out of their own free will? You think they are being forced against their will to work for a capitalists?

[mel]

So you think that in a free market, workers do not work for capitalists out of their own free will? You think they are being forced against their will to work for a capitalists?

Yep.

[1billion]

Yep.
how so? I mean I can understand one saying that they kind of half to to make money but an employer doesnt put a gun to the head of the employee and tell him he must work for this salary. I get what your hinting at but one works out for an employer to make money which is out of his own free will:cool:

[Skooma Addict]

Yep.

Oh, well then you simply misunderstand the concept of a free market.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

how so? I mean I can understand one saying that they kind of half to to make money but an employer doesnt put a gun to the head of the employee and tell him he must work for this salary. I get what your hinting at but one works out for an employer to make money which is out of his own free will:cool:
If I put a gun to your head and say "work for me," you still have the option of saying "no." It will lead to your death, but you still have that option. So, in a sense, your choice is made of your own free will.

This is the exact same logic employed by capitalists. They define a "free choice" as any choice where you have the option of saying "no," without any regard for the consequences of that "no."


So you think that in a free market, workers do not work for capitalists out of their own free will? You think they are being forced against their will to work for a capitalists?
Yes, in the sense that they would prefer to work for themselves if property laws did not prevent them from doing so.

[mel]

Oh, well then you simply misunderstand the concept of a free market.

No, you simply misunderstand that there can never be such a thing.

[Havet]

Yes, in the sense that they would prefer to work for themselves if property laws did not prevent them from doing so.

Exactly. There would also be some employees, but given the possibility of self-employment, the employers would need to give massive paychecks or benefits in order to keep the workers.

[1billion]

If I put a gun to your head and say "work for me," you still have the option of saying "no." It will lead to your death, but you still have that option. So, in a sense, your choice is made of your own free will.

This is the exact same logic employed by capitalists. They define a "free choice" as any choice where you have the option of saying "no," without any regard for the consequences of that "no."


Yes, in the sense that they would prefer to work for themselves if property laws did not prevent them from doing so.

Well I'm not defending walmart here, but I mean I've never had walmart put a gun to my head and force me to work for them. I can understand thats you dont like that they pay poor wages etc but its not forced.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well I'm not defending walmart here, but I mean I've never had walmart put a gun to my head and force me to work for them. I can understand thats you dont like that they pay poor wages etc but its not forced.
What if many different people all put guns to your head and said "work for one of us, or die. You get to choose which one."

That is what capitalist companies do. Wal-Mart is one of them.

And the gun, by the way, is very real. It is the gun of the government. If you do not work for the capitalists, you get no money. If you try to take food to keep yourself alive when you have no money, the government will arrest you. So the government - or, to be more exact, the property laws enforced by the government - leave you with three options: (a) work for the capitalists, (b) get arrested, or (c) die.

[mel]

Well I'm not defending walmart here, but I mean I've never had walmart put a gun to my head and force me to work for them. I can understand thats you dont like that they pay poor wages etc but its not forced.

But you are forced to work for somebody, somewhere. It's a subtler type of coercion, one which requires a holistic perspective to recognize because if you simply look at the situation as a collection of separate individual interactions it doesn't appear to be coercion at all.

When you look at society as a whole, it is helpful to visualize in terms of entire economic classes that symbolize a representative case, this is part of the reason for the class-based analysis of capitalism. In marxist analysis, the primary representative distinction made is between property owners and non-property-owners.

The class of property owners as a whole coerce the class of non-property-owners as a whole by forcing them to labor on their property in return for a basic living. This is "force" because the only way that a non-property-owner can earn a living is by agreeing to whatever conditions the class of property owners happen to collectively impose. This is the nature of the gun held to the head, one of an entire class over another entire class. Sure, an individual property owner does not have that coercive power alone. Technically, an individual worker can merely strike a more equitable agreement with another property owner, but when all of the property owners offer similar terms, which are stacked steeply in favor of the property owner as opposed to the person working on their property, it becomes a form of class coercion.