Question about the "involuntarism" of capitalism

[State-God]

Hey Reds

I'm an AnCap, and I've been trying to understand the mentality behind so many AnComs/AnSoc's hating AnCap's with such a burning passion. The main conclusion I came to (especially after browsing these forums for more than 5 minutes) is that it's based in the idea that capitalism isn't voluntary.

I've been trying to wrap my head around how this could be possible, and the only place I could see ground being made is with homesteading and the basis of property rights. I utterly disagree that voluntary trade can be coercion since if it wasn't beneficial to both parties it wouldn't have occurred.

But I digress.

I'm guessing the mentality could run like this. Most (if not all) economic schools seem agree that the basis of deciding property should be mostly rooted in the mixture of labor with land/resources.

However, the mentality would go, simply being the FIRST person to mix your labor with the land/resources doesn't mean you're the permanent owner. To the contrary, if, say, some workers use their labor to operate their machinery, they will, at some point, become the defined owner of said machinery.

Thus capitalism, which is fairly firmly rooted in the idea that property titles are permanent until exchanged or voluntarily given away, is 'stealing' property from those who actually own it.

Am I way off base here or what?

P.S. Is this supposed to automatically go in the 'opposing ideologies' section since I'm an AnCap? If so, just.........ugh.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, it's supposed to go in 'Opposing Ideologies' as you're neither a 'revolutionary' nor a 'leftist'.

For most of us (particularly the Marxists among us) production is a social act. Saying one person or another 'owns' the result of that social act is ridiculous. There is no feasable way that the contributions of all the contributors can ever be disentangled, so all production should be administered collectively.

There is no 'ownership'. Communism is the abolition of property, not its re-distribution.

[Comrade #138672]

I've been trying to wrap my head around how this could be possible, and the only place I could see ground being made is with homesteading and the basis of property rights. I utterly disagree that voluntary trade can be coercion since if it wasn't beneficial to both parties it wouldn't have occurred.Voluntary trade is... voluntary, but how voluntary can trade be in a Capitalist society? It can not be very voluntary.

Strictly speaking, you are right in saying that nothing can be traded without there being some 'benefit' to both parties. So, then, what is 'beneficial'? Also, are the benefits equal? Do both parties have equal bargaining power? No, they do not. Far from it. One party, namely the Capitalist class, benefits so much more from 'trade' than the other party, the workers. Also, it can be very 'beneficial' to, let's say, not die from starvation or whatever, especially when there is no alternative (because the alternatives are being systematically destroyed by monopolies).


But I digress.

I'm guessing the mentality could run like this. Most (if not all) economic schools seem agree that the basis of deciding property should be mostly rooted in the mixture of labor with land/resources.

However, the mentality would go, simply being the FIRST person to mix your labor with the land/resources doesn't mean you're the permanent owner. To the contrary, if, say, some workers use their labor to operate their machinery, they will, at some point, become the defined owner of said machinery.

Thus capitalism, which is fairly firmly rooted in the idea that property titles are permanent until exchanged or voluntarily given away, is 'stealing' property from those who actually own it.

Am I way off base here or what?

P.S. Is this supposed to automatically go in the 'opposing ideologies' section since I'm an AnCap? If so, just.........ugh.I don't get the 'first person to mix your labor with the land/resources' part. What do you mean?

[RedMaterialist]

Am I way off base here or what?



A worker is paid a wage of $10 per hour. He/she produces a product valued at $20. A capitalist takes, appropriates, that product from him and and keeps the $10 difference as profit. Pretty slick deal for the capitalist, no?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

An AnCap defense of communist revolution:

The proletariat, organized voluntarily as an armed class party, makes a voluntary exchange with the capitalists, wherein the capitalists agree to the communization of their world, and the proletariat generously agrees to not dump them is mass graves.