Capitalism and the state

[Issaiah1332]

How, exactly, does a state arise in capitalism?

When talking to an anarcho-capitalist, He said this:

"Let's take the Agorist route to statelessness. Black markets grow, there arises demand for arbitration and justice in the black market, the black market eventually develops replacements for most state-provided "services" except on a voluntary basis, pockets of anarchy develop where the state is ineffective and almost nonexistant, these grow as the unregulated market thrives with it's higher profit margins and better ability to meet supply and demand, eventually these pockets meet and you end up with small pockets of state control, which eventually fall due to it's inability to compete with the more productive black market and the black market protection's ability to fend off the state. The state either dissolves peacefully or makes a futile last-ditch attempt to save itself with violence, and is eventually extinguished. No more state. Everything the state used to do is done by the market. Any states which try to form are crushed by the market's defenders before they can grow to an unmanageable size.

Now, somehow, make a state arise out of this lasseiz-faire free-market anarchy."

Thank, in advance!

[Issaiah1332]

WOW....not one answer?

[Whitten]

To protect property. Without a state, property laws are meaningless, so in order for private proerty to be protected some form of state would form.

[Enragé]

basicly the state is just an armed group of men

in that light, the reason why capitalism brings about an armed group of men is to keep everyone from taking what is theirs, to perpetuate exploitation.

so basicly what whitten said.

[Demogorgon]

Well it is a load of nonsense. This guy you seem to debate with a lot is a complete charlatan, he is having you on when he indicates he understands the topic you debate.

His explanation of how a state comes into being is rubbish to begin with. The state does not arise because of capitalism, it pre-exists it. Feudalism after all has a state, doesn't it? When capitalism comes along it changes the nature of the state of course, it now has a new set of priorities to reflect the changing political and economic conditions. But it is still there is it not? If he is correct in saying that capitalism will do away with the state we will have seen this bare out, won't we? Yet the exact opposite is happening. You don't even need theory to prove the guy wrong here, you can just point to the world around him. Plainly we are living in a capitalist society and plainly there is a state that is not going anywhere.

On the more theoretical side, I just don't see how this anarcho-capitalism is supposed to work. The obvious one is, how are the property rights that are the pre-requisite of capitalism going to be protected? But there are plenty of other ones too. How are externalities going to be accounted for? Of course he will deny the existence of such things, but economic fact won't vanish simply because it doesn't suit him.

Also how is this free market system going to maintain itself. One of two things will happen, it will either be overthrown or turn into an authoritarian dictatorship. People won't like the fact that some people are becoming very wealthy as they become poorer and will rise up. Either there will be nothing there preventing them and it is good bye anarcho capitalism or a state will form to stop them.

And suppose this does not happen, suppose everything goes swimmingly. Well obviously some firms will rise to the top and gain a great deal of power. Well think about it from their perspective a moment, they have got to the top, they have power, are they ging to want the system to continue now they can only go down? Of course not, they will form a Government of their own to look after their interests.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

yeh, how does anarcho capitalism protect its unequal distribution of wealth?

class still exists and class conflict will need to be resolved either by revolution or a state stopping the revolution.

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:37 pm
Well it is a load of nonsense. This guy you seem to debate with a lot is a complete charlatan, he is having you on when he indicates he understands the topic you debate.

His explanation of how a state comes into being is rubbish to begin with. The state does not arise because of capitalism, it pre-exists it. Feudalism after all has a state, doesn't it? When capitalism comes along it changes the nature of the state of course, it now has a new set of priorities to reflect the changing political and economic conditions. But it is still there is it not? If he is correct in saying that capitalism will do away with the state we will have seen this bare out, won't we? Yet the exact opposite is happening. You don't even need theory to prove the guy wrong here, you can just point to the world around him. Plainly we are living in a capitalist society and plainly there is a state that is not going anywhere.

On the more theoretical side, I just don't see how this anarcho-capitalism is supposed to work. The obvious one is, how are the property rights that are the pre-requisite of capitalism going to be protected? But there are plenty of other ones too. How are externalities going to be accounted for? Of course he will deny the existence of such things, but economic fact won't vanish simply because it doesn't suit him.

Also how is this free market system going to maintain itself. One of two things will happen, it will either be overthrown or turn into an authoritarian dictatorship. People won't like the fact that some people are becoming very wealthy as they become poorer and will rise up. Either there will be nothing there preventing them and it is good bye anarcho capitalism or a state will form to stop them.

And suppose this does not happen, suppose everything goes swimmingly. Well obviously some firms will rise to the top and gain a great deal of power. Well think about it from their perspective a moment, they have got to the top, they have power, are they ging to want the system to continue now they can only go down? Of course not, they will form a Government of their own to look after their interests.
HAHA...I told him almost the exact same thing! Of course he relies on mostly rhetoric and little to know economic fact. I always remind him of externalities and he just denies it.

[Guifes]

The thing is that the market is in fact the state in such a system. It is after all an orginization that uses physical force to justify and preserve its own existence and monopoly.

[apathy maybe]

removed by user request

[Nathan_Morrison]

From what i have led to believe the state arises to keep the Irreconcilable class antagonisms in check and to moderate them. An example of this state moderation is the miners protests in Britain, when Maragaret Thatcher used the state to close down the metalworks and mines to cripple the trade unions strength in the 1980's.

[KC]

The thing is that the market is in fact the state in such a system. It is after all an orginization that uses physical force to justify and preserve its own existence and monopoly.

Uh, no it's not.

[Djehuti]

Who cares about anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-capitalism has never existed and will never exist outside university seminars.

And anarcho-capitalism is actually based on a lot of private states, instead of national states. But say if one (or a gang of...) capitalist gets very strong, creates a superarmy and decides to tax everyone within a certain region, say todays britain, then we're back to national states? How hard can it be...

But as said, anarcho-capitalism is total bullshit. Not worth bothering about.


If you want to understand how the modern capitalist states grew forth, read Leo Huberman, Perry Anderson or some other good marxist historian.

[Whitten]

anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, as private property cannot exist without a concentration of the kegitimate use of force in the hands of the property owners.

[Led Zeppelin]

This thread is pointless. The state doesn't arise in the capitalist period of development, it arises in the feudalist period or before. Capitalism wouldn't have developed if this was not the case.

[rouchambeau]

It's only tangently related but...

Foucault has a really decent essay on the rise of government in the modern era. It's called "Governmentality".