No, it isn't. capitalism is nothing but a trading sistem. Or do you wish to trade some milk from your cows for some bread? Capitalism is nothing but an easier way to acquire goods. And currency doesn't depend on the state to exist. Bitcoin is here to prove it. Voluntary trades is capitalism. The thing you are trading for doesn't depend on government/state. Being an anarchist and also a capitalist is not a contradiction. If I produce something and I want to trade for something I do not produce/have, how does that depend on the state? Or do you want a centralized producer/distributor of every single thing we have as a civilization?
@@viniciusbp2704 Capitalism can't exist without a state with a monopoly of force to enforce private property rights. So yes, it is a contradiction. Period. That you can't understand why capitalism is inherently hierarchical is simply beyond my comprehension. I am entirely too high for that now.
@MooseknucklerAlly actually it isn't. Anarchy, etymologically speaking, is the absence of power, power understood as a coercive force. Anarchocapitalism is therefore the unleashing of the lust for property and the unhindered drive to accumulate wealth, by whatever means necessary. Anarchocapitalists can screw around with their theoretical models all they want, but if anyone even remotely related to them gets to a position to influence something, I'm gonna need more ammo.
Ther'es a difference between anti statism n anarchism. Private Property IS social control. Capitalist business's are hierarchical in a way that is contradictory to anarchy. Collectivism doesn't work on a large scale, but NOTHING works on a large scale.That's why we want a decentralized society.Historically anarchism has been an inherently anti capitalist movement.We would appreciate if you refrained from appropriating the term anarchism.You are untitled to your beliefs,but they are not anarchy.
The economy is the stock market. In that they're not going to give any bailouts unless the stock market crashes this month. so now for people not to starve in the next 2 months the stock market needs to crash but only for three weeks. I'm a macroeconomist now.
The end of this song has nothing to do with "voting responsibly". In essence, this song says that your vote doesn't matter at all. "Power still calls all the shots. Even if democracy breaks loose, they'll just make the economy scream until we vote "responsibly"." The message behind these words is that we are living in the illusion that we have any control over our lives at all, that what we think or say matters, or that our government had any intention of ever listening to the voters. Power still calls all the shots. Power. We, the common man, do not have power. We have delusion that "you and me participate meaningfully in the process of running our own lives".
A few people who buy nothing end up destroying all those who depend on buying everything. Their ability to take away your home life wants needs because your town your county your state didn't vote the way they wanted?
@embersai So what if the founding documents prioritize profits? If the individuals are capable of existing in an anarchistic society they better reasonable enough to understand their purchasing power. To say that any corporations would dominate an industry or price fix and the expense of individuals is to say that those individuals are incapable of existing without a regulatory power to protect them. Anarchy naturally begets a capitalist system without the road to corporatism we see now.
@embersai How is that? If corporations are the voluntary cooperation of free individuals in conflict with a political ideology of absolute freedom of choice. One of the most inherent rights in a free society is the right to collectively organize. The only reason corporations become powerful is because consumers find their product worthy enough for preference. Consumers are in control and grant them whatever authority they want. Regulations limit freedom for and give benefit to some. It's a wash
@embersai It's irrelevant whether or not I 'believe' as we are discussing concepts and not reality. I think if I were to establish myself in a particular political ideology I would maintain a level of consistency about it. Anarchy places a lot of faith in individuals and corporations are just collections of individuals freely organizing. It's inherent to being free. Anarchist theory posts no central authority on which to delegate rules. Mores take their place.
@paulbess So Anarchy=absence of power. Capitalism=one class using wealth to create more wealth on the backs of labor. I call that power, or as you put it coercive force. So I would say that etymologically speaking it is a contradiction of terms. I believe the word they are looking for is libertarianism, at least that is what it is called in the US. And if they ever get close to power, I''ll stand with you...
pure individualism is contrary to historical fact. And, in reality, the only lasting anarchy to ever exist (ie, forager society) was absolutely collectivist. ... i know i know, "more people.." right? Ya, nice methodological individualism there buddy.
@embersai You showed me nothing, you just said that some would and some wouldn't. I didn't put words in your mouth either, I'm just exploring your line of reasoning. You just made the claim that regulation is net freedom-increasing which contradicts the heart of anarchist theory. You either believe in reducing freedom by way of government regulation or you believe in the absence of limits on freedom relative to a respect for personal rights. Which is it?
@embersai If people are thought to be able to exist cohesively in an anarchistic society without fucking over other people, why can't organizations of the very same people act accordingly? Your views contradict themselves, likely because you have an emotional attachment to them.
Free-market anarchism, free from government regulation and corporation's manipulation, is the way to go in my opinion. Rothbard kicks ass. But so does Propagandhi, even though I don't agree with most of their views. At least appreciate the music man.
Anarchism/socialism/direct democracy or w/e else you want to label it calls for the abolition of capitalism; corporations would be dissolved and would no longer exist. You missed that critical step in your reasoning there. What you're talking about is basically what we already have in place.
eat the rich to feed the poor
Anarchocapitalism is a contradiction of terms.
Yup!
Submit!
No, it isn't.
capitalism is nothing but a trading sistem. Or do you wish to trade some milk from your cows for some bread?
Capitalism is nothing but an easier way to acquire goods. And currency doesn't depend on the state to exist. Bitcoin is here to prove it.
Voluntary trades is capitalism. The thing you are trading for doesn't depend on government/state.
Being an anarchist and also a capitalist is not a contradiction. If I produce something and I want to trade for something I do not produce/have, how does that depend on the state?
Or do you want a centralized producer/distributor of every single thing we have as a civilization?
Trading humans would undeniably be the outcome of that resulting in a slave trade. Anarchism would not work and allow people to be free. Sorry to say.
@@viniciusbp2704
Capitalism can't exist without a state with a monopoly of force to enforce private property rights.
So yes, it is a contradiction. Period. That you can't understand why capitalism is inherently hierarchical is simply beyond my comprehension. I am entirely too high for that now.
12/12/12 lets start a revolution
So true man . . .
@MooseknucklerAlly actually it isn't. Anarchy, etymologically speaking, is the absence of power, power understood as a coercive force. Anarchocapitalism is therefore the unleashing of the lust for property and the unhindered drive to accumulate wealth, by whatever means necessary. Anarchocapitalists can screw around with their theoretical models all they want, but if anyone even remotely related to them gets to a position to influence something, I'm gonna need more ammo.
Ther'es a difference between anti statism n anarchism. Private Property IS social control. Capitalist business's are hierarchical in a way that is contradictory to anarchy. Collectivism doesn't work on a large scale, but NOTHING works on a large scale.That's why we want a decentralized society.Historically anarchism has been an inherently anti capitalist movement.We would appreciate if you refrained from appropriating the term anarchism.You are untitled to your beliefs,but they are not anarchy.
The economy is the stock market. In that they're not going to give any bailouts unless the stock market crashes this month. so now for people not to starve in the next 2 months the stock market needs to crash but only for three weeks. I'm a macroeconomist now.
@MooseknucklerAlly Only if you have never taken a course in modern political thought.
Yea , it's so bad . Governments and the people too... so bad. Not one good, not one. God help us.
+Tylox1 Why are you trying to comment this on a music video that ends asking about voting responsibly?
The end of this song has nothing to do with "voting responsibly". In essence, this song says that your vote doesn't matter at all.
"Power still calls all the shots. Even if democracy breaks loose, they'll just make the economy scream until we vote "responsibly"."
The message behind these words is that we are living in the illusion that we have any control over our lives at all, that what we think or say matters, or that our government had any intention of ever listening to the voters. Power still calls all the shots.
Power.
We, the common man, do not have power. We have delusion that "you and me participate meaningfully in the process of running our own lives".
A few people who buy nothing end up destroying all those who depend on buying everything. Their ability to take away your home life wants needs because your town your county your state didn't vote the way they wanted?
So how did it go?
@embersai So what if the founding documents prioritize profits? If the individuals are capable of existing in an anarchistic society they better reasonable enough to understand their purchasing power. To say that any corporations would dominate an industry or price fix and the expense of individuals is to say that those individuals are incapable of existing without a regulatory power to protect them. Anarchy naturally begets a capitalist system without the road to corporatism we see now.
@embersai How is that? If corporations are the voluntary cooperation of free individuals in conflict with a political ideology of absolute freedom of choice. One of the most inherent rights in a free society is the right to collectively organize. The only reason corporations become powerful is because consumers find their product worthy enough for preference. Consumers are in control and grant them whatever authority they want. Regulations limit freedom for and give benefit to some. It's a wash
@embersai It's irrelevant whether or not I 'believe' as we are discussing concepts and not reality. I think if I were to establish myself in a particular political ideology I would maintain a level of consistency about it. Anarchy places a lot of faith in individuals and corporations are just collections of individuals freely organizing. It's inherent to being free. Anarchist theory posts no central authority on which to delegate rules. Mores take their place.
@paulbess So Anarchy=absence of power. Capitalism=one class using wealth to create more wealth on the backs of labor. I call that power, or as you put it coercive force. So I would say that etymologically speaking it is a contradiction of terms. I believe the word they are looking for is libertarianism, at least that is what it is called in the US.
And if they ever get close to power, I''ll stand with you...
Smash the State
pure individualism is contrary to historical fact. And, in reality, the only lasting anarchy to ever exist (ie, forager society) was absolutely collectivist.
... i know i know, "more people.." right? Ya, nice methodological individualism there buddy.
@embersai You showed me nothing, you just said that some would and some wouldn't. I didn't put words in your mouth either, I'm just exploring your line of reasoning. You just made the claim that regulation is net freedom-increasing which contradicts the heart of anarchist theory. You either believe in reducing freedom by way of government regulation or you believe in the absence of limits on freedom relative to a respect for personal rights. Which is it?
This is called "economic liberalism" and has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
@embersai If people are thought to be able to exist cohesively in an anarchistic society without fucking over other people, why can't organizations of the very same people act accordingly? Your views contradict themselves, likely because you have an emotional attachment to them.
Free-market anarchism, free from government regulation and corporation's manipulation, is the way to go in my opinion. Rothbard kicks ass. But so does Propagandhi, even though I don't agree with most of their views. At least appreciate the music man.
Anarchism/socialism/direct democracy or w/e else you want to label it calls for the abolition of capitalism; corporations would be dissolved and would no longer exist. You missed that critical step in your reasoning there. What you're talking about is basically what we already have in place.
Until most of us vote to take everything from you - all democratic like.