Is capitalism inherently statist? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14349140
Selling smuggled western goods sourced from capitalist and neocorporatist and market socialist states, right?

The DPRK has a black market, it sells Japanese and South Korean instant meals and snacks. Maybe in time that black market will also smuggle Vietnamese snacks made a market socialist environment, into the DPRK.

Basically the black market only exists as a market, because some other state out there has created a market, and smugglers have moved things from that market to another one. The black market doesn't create anything, it simply smuggles.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 05 Jan 2014 21:21, edited 1 time in total.
#14349141
Pants-of-dog wrote:In reality, there has never been a successful example of capitalism without state support.


So therefore it cannot happen !

This thread does not say if capitalism is inherently statist historically does it ?
Maybe you can start a thread to that extent.

Now is the concept of capitalism inherently statist? that's a different question isn't it ?
(the answer is no BTW )

this question requires hypotheticals if you can't do that then start a thread as above.
#14349147
taxizen wrote:Except 99% of black market and grey market trades.


There is no inherent system of protecting property rights or the NAP in those markets.

Do you consider that successful?

mum wrote:So therefore it cannot happen !

This thread does not say if capitalism is inherently statist historically does it ?
Maybe you can start a thread to that extent.

Now is the concept of capitalism inherently statist? that's a different question isn't it ?
(the answer is no BTW )

this question requires hypotheticals if you can't do that then start a thread as above.


Fine. Capitalism is not statist if and only if you confine yourself to the hypothetical and ignore the historical. Happy?

Mind you, no one has yet explained how capitalism would hypothetically function without a state.
#14349210
My original post failed to make a distinction between historical examples of capitalism and theory, so that is my fault. I was originally thinking of whether historical capitalism was inherently statist, in that it needed state power to create and uphold the capitalist mode of production.

However, the theoretical question of whether anarcho-capitalism can exist without the state is an interesting one. Has such a system ever existed? How would an anarcho-capitalist community avoid failing into warlordism or mafia rule?
#14349233
Piccolo wrote:However, the theoretical question of whether anarcho-capitalism can exist without the state is an interesting one. Has such a system ever existed? How would an anarcho-capitalist community avoid failing into warlordism or mafia rule?


Well, the ancaps would be as justified fighting against those warlords or mafia as they would against the state.

The real problem is that a stable ancap society requires that the overwhelming majority of people have to want to follow ancap perceptions of common law and accept their definitions of what theft is, so as to spontaneously follow it. Otherwise you just get Somalia/insert chaotic permanent warring in any breakdown of central authority. In only using persuasion instead of coercion to get people to accept their philosophy, they are playing on ultra ultra hard mode.
#14349280
mum wrote:So therefore it cannot happen !


Character is destiny, for the individual.

For societies history is, if not actual destiny, a pretty damned good insight into what's possible. Anybody who proposes an idea too far afield from what history shows us has some heavy lifting to do, in terms of believability. First and foremost you must 1) advance convincing historical reasons we've not already evolved stable ancap societies, and 2) within that analytical framework provide a plausible way forward towards achieving such a goal.

Thus the fact that capitalism has invariably co-evolved with the state cannot be simply dismissed. You must show how a society you envisage could plausibly emerge from the wreckage of liberal capitalism. In my opinion you have failed to do so.
#14349899
If we go by history then it is impossible to have a state which is not murderous and and opprosive.


That is correct, the state has the monopoly on force, that is why it is a state as said before, that is why it can enforce the morals,rules and norms of a given society and create order and organisation within the society. In sense state exist solely to opress the unwilling, who do not follow the norms of a society, in that sense ofcourse it is opressive.
#14350082
POD are you happy to support a system that is murderous and oppressive? Since these features have always been part of the state and you ssupport the state.....
#14350097
mum wrote:POD are you happy to support a system that is murderous and oppressive? Since these features have always been part of the state and you ssupport the state.....


I could point out that capitalism has also been murderous and oppressive. I could also point out that you seem to support capitalism. Thus, I could ask you the same question. But I won't because it's irrelevant.

Back on topic, you have not yet explained how capitalism would hypothetically function without a state.
#14350100
You are avoiding a question that uses the same logic that you use.

Please answer the question
#14350109
mum wrote:You are avoiding a question that uses the same logic that you use.

Please answer the question


As soon as you explain how it is relevant to the topic. The thread is not about what you think my logic is. It is about the relationship between capital and the state.
#14350112
humour me
#14350115
mum wrote:humour me


Why should I help you commit a rule 15 violation?

Nunt wrote:If we go by history then it is impossible to have a state which is not murderous and and oppressive.


That is true. All states have, to one degree or another, been murderous and oppressive. Much of the time, it has been so in order to support the power of capital.
#14350117
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is true. All states have, to one degree or another, been murderous and oppressive. Much of the time, it has been so in order to support the power of capital.

This "capital" of which you speak is it money or tools? That word usually just means money put towards investment or it means relatively non-perishable goods, particularly when used to enhance productivity, such as tools but you use it like it has a mind of its own, like its some sort of angry god. Is it capital you hate really or something else?
#14350120
taxizen wrote:This "capital" of which you speak is it money or tools? That word usually just means money put towards investment or it means relatively non-perishable goods, particularly when used to enhance productivity, such as tools but you use it like it has a mind of its own, like its some sort of angry god. Is it capital you hate really or something else?


I am sorry. I forgot that some forum participants may not be familiar with certain jargon.

By "capital", I meant the system of capitalism and the people who seek to maintain it because it makes them wealthy and powerful.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]

Israel removed 10,000 Israeli families from Gaz[…]

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]