A Humorous Look At Anarcho Capitalism

[Wolf Larson]

Thank buddhagem @ youtube for giving a comical look into the minds of these people who are infesting the internet. We have our very own anarcho capitalist infiltration on RevLeft. This is for you anarcho capitalists hiding amongst us. http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=9D3eglpglKg&feature=related Notice the tendency to hail Hitler while promoting all manner of social and economic tyranny. Coincidence? I think not. I've been having a bad week and this video brightened my day. If you're familiar with these people hopefully it makes you smile as well :)

[LeftSideDown]

The link is broken.

[¿Que?]

The link is broken.
The name of the video is a humorous look at anarcho capitalism and was upped by buddhagem. With this information (provided by the OP) you should be able to find it. I would post a correct link by I haven't made 25 posts yet :(

What I thought of the video:
Very funny BUT I thought the sound editing was lousy. At the very end, when he talks about what anarchism really is, I thought that was good. It particularly made me think that in my life I've leaned somewhat heavily on Marxist viewpoints, and I have never understood really what anarchism was, I think mostly because they teach plenty of Marxism in school but virtually no anarchism.

For example, I had never heard the concept of ownership defined by use (the whole "my spoon" analogy) and I am fairly sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that this is not a Marxist argument.

[LeftSideDown]

The name of the video is a humorous look at anarcho capitalism and was upped by buddhagem. With this information (provided by the OP) you should be able to find it. I would post a correct link by I haven't made 25 posts yet :(

What I thought of the video:
Very funny BUT I thought the sound editing was lousy. At the very end, when he talks about what anarchism really is, I thought that was good. It particularly made me think that in my life I've leaned somewhat heavily on Marxist viewpoints, and I have never understood really what anarchism was, I think mostly because they teach plenty of Marxism in school but virtually no anarchism.

For example, I had never heard the concept of ownership defined by use (the whole "my spoon" analogy) and I am fairly sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that this is not a Marxist argument.

Very possible I could've looked it up, but my post was merely informative. The link WAS broken, so I believed my comment was relevant.

And the "use" ownership is not Marxist (I believe) and it is very ancient, even Horace had some verses on this, which I'll provide if you like, but to expand upon it...

"The having of production goods, contrary to that of consumption goods, can be divided in the natural sense. Under conditions of isolated production the conditions of sharing the having of production goods are the same as the conditions of sharing consumption goods. Where there is no division of labour the having of goods can only be shared if it is possible to share the services rendered by them. The having of nun-durable production goods cannot be shared. The having of durable production goods can be shared according to the divisibility of the services they provide. Only one person can have a given quantity of grain, but several may have a hammer successively; a river may drive more than one water wheel. So far, there is no peculiarity about the having of production goods. But in the case of production with division of labour there is a two-fold having of such goods. Here in fact the having is always two-fold: there is a physical having (direct), and a social having (indirect). the Physical having is his who holds the commodity physically nad uses it productively ; the social having belongs to him who, unable to dispose physically or legally of the commodity, may yet dispose indirectly the effects of its use, i.e. he who can barter or buy its products or the services which it provides. In this sense natural ownership in a society which divides labour is shared between the producer and those whose wants he produces. the farmer who lives self-sufficiently outside exchange society can call his fields, his plough, his draught animals his own, in the sense that they serve only him. But the farmer whose enterprise is concerned with trade, who produces for and buys in the market, is owner of the means of production in quite a different sense. He does not control production as self-supporting peasant does. He does not decide the purpose of his producer, determine the goal of economic activity. The producer only directs production towards the goal set by consumers."

Sorry for the length.

[Havet]

More like an humorous look at anarcho-capitalists