ancap
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by ancap on Nov 6, 2012 15:26:31 GMT -5
An anarcho-capitalist society would essentially be the only (non-communist) society in which communes could exist. In an ancap society, communists would be free to have their own communes so long as they aren't forcing other people to be a part of it. The only people who would live on communes would be people who voluntarily agree to.
I don't think there's anything wrong with communist societies as long as they aren't being forced on other people. Perhaps communes would even flourish under an ancap society, as if communist societies really did work better than capitalist ones, I imagine more people would want to live under communism than under capitalism. Why don't communists agree?
|
|
|
Post by dropout on Nov 7, 2012 7:04:30 GMT -5
Hi there ancap ;D I think one dominating presumption that your arguments relies on is that the populous must decide a single mould to work under (ie. capitalism, communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.). However, it could easily be possible to have no majority system ruling, and it is perhaps because we come from such monocultured societies (at least I am assuming you too live under a capitalist regime) that we presume this is the only way. A similar presumption, which might present a logical example, would be that a country requires a dominant language. However throughout Africa, language is often a mix of imperialist languages and native tongues - in South Africa, there are around a dozen languages each with a somewhat equal dominance of the country. Perhaps one reason why anarcho-communist disagree so vehemently with anarcho-capitalists is because they really are opposing beliefs, and this has created a lot of global tension between believers of either ideology. Communism relies on group benefit, while capitalism is centred on the individual and their ability to strive for capital (although I think that's truly broken down in our modern situation). I think my last words on the matter would be I don't really understand either the rationality of either perspective - I look at capitalism and see it's innevitable and inescapable ability to corrupt and can't see it meshed with anarchy running any less miserably for everyone but the greediest. Communism on the other hand is oppressive in nature because it relies on the belief everyone needs the same things. I can't actually see either theory working out in reality, but that is certainly my personal opinion, and others are more than welcome to their personal opinion
|
|
dumb
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by dumb on Nov 8, 2012 12:09:15 GMT -5
As an anarcho-Marxist, I oppose anarcho-capitalism because the latter is an unsustainable state of affairs; it's like trying to lose weight while living off of doughnuts. Either obesity sets in, or the doughnuts go away. Likewise, you can either have anarchism, or you can have capitalism.
Under capitalism, those whom we call "capitalists" compete against one another to maximize profits, to maximize expansion and market share. These requires resources, acquired at as low a cost as possible. Because of this, "anarcho-capitalism" would lead to one of two things: either the capitalist enterprises subvert and eliminate anarchism by seizing control of resources, or - failing to do so - the capitalist enterprises crumble.
What it all comes down to is that anarchism opposes class society, while capitalism is class society.
|
|