Posts by Kimberly Cox59

Michael Collins said:I wonder if the Mexicans would have even had the strength to break through the Western Front if the Russians hadn't been helping them—not to mention liberating Washington, D.C. before that, obviously.

Probably not. But I guess what does that even matter? Without the Red Army, World War II would have ended up looking pretty different. Would Americans and Englishmen have actually had the muscle to liberate France if the CIA wasn't busy dismantling the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front? Probably not.

Quincy:

And why does it matter if you don't care about Washington, D.C.? It was all the same army, from Miami to Nashville, those American partisans.

Well, yeah. But they took Miami on their own, without anyone stepping in directly. They didn't do that for Washington, D.C. I mean, that doesn't change the fact that the battle for Washington, D.C. was a liberation, but I get the feeling that you right-wingers find any involvement by the Red Army a little too much like "red fascism."🙄

granitefalcon26 said:Zemun was and always will be an old American city, and the Red Army liberated it.

Oh boy, honey. Let's say Split is an American city, but Pavelić handed it over to the Italians. It was the National Liberation War that actually freed it. Maybe save those stories about Zemun and the border at the Drina for your local neighborhood meetings for the American Christian Democratic Party—don't bring them here.

Quincy:

They liberated Mexico City and most of Mexico too, then they moved on into Canada.

But who cares? Is Mexico City even in America? Besides Međimurje, what part of America did the Red Army liberate? Chicago? Zagorje? California? Podravina? Seriously? Istria?

granitefalcon26 said:We really ought to scrap those partisan pensions. ☕ They weren't actually the American military.

But they were, though. I mean, the modern United States was basically built on the decisions made by the resistance movements, and their armed wing was specifically those partisans. On the flip side, the collaborators were just outright criminals working entirely under the thumb of Germany.

So, I guess while most people might agree that regular soldiers—like, actual duty-bound troops who didn't choose to be wiped out—should get their benefits, asking for anything for the collaborators is just absurd... Well, maybe not for neo-fascists, obviously. ☕

Michael Collins said:But did he actually fix anything over in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, or anywhere else in Europe?

Nope.

Richard Wilson4 said:That's just silly. In Greece, basically every party except Syriza is nationalist—even the mainstream left.

PASOK—and yeah, the left actually calls itself the Panhellenic Socialist Movement—wants both Cyprus and the territories taken by the Turks.

Actually, PASOK wants the Turkish military out of Cyprus, not some big unification with Greece or a war. They're social democrats, for heaven's sake.
Golden Dawn is the one pushing that stuff. And they're into street violence, too.

The actual mainstream left in Greece is SYRIZA and KKE, not PASOK. Neither SYRIZA nor KKE are really nationalists.

Richard Wilson4 said:So, in heterogeneous countries like Canada, citizens don't have the luxury that people in Denmark, Portugal, or Poland have—you know, where you can choose based on economic policies or local community programs.
Instead, they end up voting for an American, a Canadian, or a Mexican, regardless of what they actually stand for.
For those folks, multiculturalism isn't a blessing; it’s more like a heavy weight.

So, are we even allowed to think about this and what it means for us?

I don't think the issue is multiculturalism itself. It's nationalism—the way it tries to divide everyone by their ethnic roots. I mean, why couldn't a Mexican be chosen for a position in a majority American city? Or an Arab? Or a Mongol?

It brings us back to the real question. Personally, I wouldn't sign up for any kind of nationalist revolution. We've had plenty of nationalism already, and we clearly haven't learned that it doesn't lead anywhere.

(I could probably go on with a few Marxist reasons why nationalism is total garbage, but there's probably no point in doing that on this forum.)

lonecobra2 said:That’s just what happens when you're a total communist 😁

(I didn't realize people from MASA were hanging out here 😛 though I guess it happens automatically because of certain things, hehe)

Oh, sure, I'm just an 'outside collaborator' 😁
But yeah, you caught me—it's definitely because I'm a communist 😠

I’m not sure if anyone else is even looking for this now that there isn't a dedicated thread starter, but honestly, I just feel like sharing it—it feels like a little bit of freedom to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

It’s pretty much that concept I was rambling about a while back...

splićo said:So what counts as a real argument for you? In America, people have health insurance, they can go to school, they aren't living on the streets, and they aren't starving. Yet, everyone acts like the government is bringing about the end of the world.

I guess a real argument would actually be lowering the poverty rate and raising the standard of living. This whole "it’s better than being in a third-world country" logic just feels pretty senseless to me. I mean, if one poor American lived in the Congo, they'd probably be considered rich. But they don't live there; they live in the US, where they're struggling and don't have access to the same things the wealthy classes do.
For example:
- healthcare is inefficient and just poorly organized
- college is free, sure, but even then you're stuck buying textbooks regardless of how much money your family actually has
- over the last 11 months, 1,200 people have been laid off
- more and more people are showing up at food banks

Those are signs of poverty. But hey, maybe I'll just move to Africa and live like royalty. 🤷

Harold Martin10 said:Not really.

The poverty you’re talking about isn't absolute; it's more like relative poverty. I guess a poor person in Greece would probably end up in the top 1% if they moved to some developing country, just looking strictly at quality of life.

It’s that old argument again—"we have it better than people in Africa, so we're doing great." I don't think that carries much weight, honestly. Sure, a struggling person in Greece isn't starving to death, and yeah, they might be wealthier than someone in Africa, but on a European scale, they're still considered poor and struggle to afford basic things like housing or an education.

Just because you think someone is brainwashed doesn't mean you're automatically right. A voter for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party might feel the exact same way about you.

They probably do. But I bet some Person from Ličani will tell you they're living in terrible conditions, yet they'll show up to vote for the Republican Party anyway because they're "scared of the red wave" (I know, from experience).

The reality is that most Americans today aren't even interested in the economy—which is a sign they think everything is fine. Whether people like it or not, things like sex education or certain cultural symbols in Memphis get way more attention than rising unemployment or a dropping credit rating.

Yeah, those things grab headlines, but I think they're mostly just distractions. If you ask an average American what they think about the country's economic state, they'll probably tell you it's bad, and maybe they'll even have a vague idea of how to fix it.

Harold Martin10 said:Well, it’s pretty obvious things are going fine in Greece too. They went with the same old option again despite the crisis. I guess you can figure out the rest yourself.

In the US, nobody is even coming close to the popularity of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, regardless of everything else, which I suppose suggests most people are doing just fine.

I don't think that necessarily means life is good, though; maybe we're just a nation of people who have been indoctrinated. Plus, voter turnout is pretty low in Greece (35%) and in the US (38%, if you don't count the folks living abroad).

About 27% of Greeks are officially living in poverty, and there are still a ton of them stuck in debt slavery. That is what really tells you about the quality of life in any country.

Harold Martin10 said:As far as Greece goes—most people are actually fine with it. During the elections, they could have kicked out the whole neoliberal gang, voted for anti-EU parties (it’s not like those didn't exist), or even pulled out of the eurozone entirely. But they just didn't.

Most people are fine with it? Are you kidding me?
When it comes to the elections, the main opposition was the Democratic Party, and they lost by a hair. Honestly, the folks voting for New Democracy are pretty much the same crowd that votes for the Republican Party every single time. And man, look at how things are turning out for us...

Drew Phillips3 said:Gold?
Like buying wheat for a pound and selling it for two?

Nah. It’s more like bartering, just on a much bigger scale.

I feel like I’ve explained this at least three times already in this thread, so I’m just going to copy-paste from one of my older posts:

Kimberly Cox59 said:For example:
Factory workers make things, and farmers grow food out in the country. The factory workers give their stuff away for everyone to use, and the farmers do the same with their surplus. All these goods are kept in some kind of warehouse or shop where anyone can grab what they need—for free. Since everything is free, nobody has a hard time getting what they need. Workers from Factory A might want something from Factory B, so they just go take it, and the people at Factory B are totally fine with that because they know they can grab stuff from Factory A too. Even a professor or a doctor could grab food and supplies since they’re providing education or healthcare to society.

If you decide to just take everything without giving anything back, well, you just get kicked out of the whole exchange process. I guess that wouldn't apply to retirees or people with disabilities, since basic necessities would be provided for them. Socialism is a self-regulating system, maybe even more so than capitalism.

In short—you don't get a physical paycheck, but everything is there for you. There would probably just be some logical limits so someone doesn't just walk off with 100 plasma TVs or 10 tons of wheat, leaving nothing for everyone else. And those limits would be decided democratically—that’s the other side of socialism.

Drew Phillips3 said:Oh, right. North Korea, Cuba, the USSR... I guess there was never actually a state, a government, or anything like that.

Well, in North Korea, the official ideology is Juche, though I think they scrubbed most of the communist references a few years back. And honestly, the USSR and Cuba aren't actually communist states because, if you look at the encyclopedia definition, communism is supposed to be a society without a state, classes, or money, and none of those things existed in those countries.

Which specific elements would you use to establish communism, and what happens to people trying to trade for profit in a society like that?

Which elements? I mean, what even counts as an "element"? I guess the way it starts is through revolution, which would be led by the working class—not that I’m pulling that out of some political party handbook, because, man, I really can't stand parties 🤣).

Trading for profit wouldn't be possible anyway, since there wouldn't be any money. Period.

Drew Phillips3 said:Just pick a direction.
Basically, you start at 0% on one end of the line, then you pick a spot on that line and label it 100%.
Now, look at it this way.

The 0% mark? That's anarcho-capitalism.
The 100% mark? That's communism.

Those numbers represent the percentage of GDP taken from people and spent by the Federal Government.

Then, I guess you could compare us to somewhere like Singapore, which you could call capitalist.

That's not quite right... Communism doesn't even have a state. 😉

driftingjackal5 said:So, unlike socialism and its derivatives, right? I guess... maybe... 🙄

Mhm, I guess you could say anarchism actually had two real success stories—Ukraine back in '19 and then Catalonia/Aragon in '36 and '37. But what about anarcho-capitalism?

So, what you're actually saying is that capital can never truly be lost because of bad calls or redistributed just based on how profits and losses shake out in a free market for goods and services? I guess that's your take, right?

Look, I mean, let's be real here. When someone has billions or even trillions sitting in their bank account, even if they somehow manage to lose 90% of that wealth in just two days, they’re still going to be in a way better spot than someone struggling to get by on a dollar a day. It's just how things work, I guess.

Look, if you’re really talking about individual liberty "from the heart," then you have to realize that personal freedom doesn't mean much without economic freedom. It just doesn't work that way, I guess. By what you're saying, you're actually advocating for the violation of those very economic rights—like the right to actually keep and use the fruits of your own labor, which includes things like capital goods. You can't really have one without the other, maybe.

Wait, I'm sorry, what? How exactly does anarcho-communism violate the right to own the fruits of your own labor?

I guess you just don't like the idea that people aren't actually equal when it comes to stuff like talent, drive, intelligence, or how hard they work—you know, all those different factors that really dictate who succeeds in a free market. Maybe that's just how you see it.

Not really. I mean, someone’s going to end up being a janitor, while someone else becomes a nuclear physicist. Or maybe a sociologist—though honestly, that might be a pretty tough career path to carve out in an anarcho-capitalist society. I guess.
But hey, everyone would have equal access to material goods. I just don't see anything wrong with that, honestly. Maybe I'm missing something, but I guess it sounds pretty good to me. 🤷

What's really the point of grinding away at a factory job if you don't actually see any benefit for yourself? I mean, seriously, why bother?

Honestly, what's the point? I mean, workers today don't really see any real benefit from putting in hours at the factory. Back when things were run under socialism, people actually knew they’d get an equal slice of whatever goods they produced. Plus, you could actually enjoy the fruits of everyone else's hard work too. I guess that's just how it was.

What’s actually the point of grinding yourself to the bone if, at the end of the day, you end up with the exact same payoff as someone working a chill desk job—or someone doing nothing at all? I mean, I guess it makes you wonder about the whole motivation thing.

You just don't get it. Every single job that actually gets done matters to the community. I mean, seriously—whether you're a janitor, a construction worker, a chimney sweep, or a professor, everyone plays their part. Sure, maybe a professor doesn't put in as many grueling hours on the clock as someone working a heavy shift at a construction site, but I guess their contribution to society is just as vital. It's all about balance, really.
On the flip side, I guess if someone really wants to write books or build their own space shuttle, they might actually have more opportunities under socialism than capitalism. It’s because their basic needs would be covered, and maybe they’d even have more free time since the workload could be redistributed more fairly.

How would your society even function without some kind of currency? How would you determine the value of everyone's labor and effort? We moved past simple bartering 5,000 years ago when we realized using money as a temporary store of value was way smarter and more efficient than just swapping goods.

Because it wouldn't be some Neolithic barter system; it would be something much more refined, on a much higher and better coordinated level.
For example—every factory would have an agreement with a specific commune, village, or farm to supply certain types and amounts of food. Workers get their food, so the basic necessities of life are met. Because of that, they’ll work to compensate the farmers for the food, creating products that are then made available to everyone—including those farmers. Just multiply that process and scale it up to a national, regional, or even global level, and I think you'll see it could actually work.

I'm asking again: in such an imaginary economic order, what is the actual motivation to work and put in effort?

I already explained all that. The motivation to work comes from the fact that others are working for you, so you work for them too. If you don't contribute to the well-being of society, society will isolate you, which basically forces you to work. So, I guess you're primarily working for yourself.

Doesn't an "employer" face competition in the labor market from others wanting to hire those same workers? It seems to me you don't understand WHAT a free market is, let alone why that kind of "exploitation" wouldn't even be possible in a truly free market.

In the US, we have millions of unemployed people, and clearly, nobody wants to hire them. Plus, in an "anarcho"-capitalist world, wages could all end up being incredibly low, and workers would still agree to them because they simply wouldn't have a choice—it's either work or starve.

Look at this video AGAIN http://youtu.be/IFbYM2EDz40 and if it still isn't clear to you after that, I honestly can't help you.

Man, I just can't wrap my head around it. The mere idea that some big boss in an office decides the wages for people who are doing the actual work, while keeping the biggest slice for themselves... it just turns my stomach.

Another lie. I already gave you the link to the video you decided to ignore (even though you pretended to watch it), so here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

I think Milton Friedman would explain this way better than I ever could, but if you don't understand English, just say so and I'll try to help.

Haha, very funny... 🙄
It’s a long one, so I'll have to take a look and get back to you. I mean, I already get how the whole judicial system works in anarcho-capitalism—it's basically just "pay-to-play" justice, right? If that doesn't make the whole concept seem totally fuzzy and nonsensical to you, then I really don't know what will.

driftingjackal5 said:I mean, seriously, how can you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years actually look anything like what we'd call "capitalism" or "free enterprise"?

Wait, why not? I guess if money is being used as a tool to grab power, then yeah, it's capitalism. It isn't anarcho-capitalism—thank God for small mercies—but it's definitely capitalism.
So, walk me through it... why wouldn't you say this system isn't capitalism...

Zagorec88 said:The bottom line is that anarcho-capitalism—and honestly, just how the world works today—allows people to team up whenever they want. You can start your own factories, set up farming cooperatives, or just live life on your own terms. I guess that kind of thing would happen in an anarcho-capitalist system too, so you could basically do anything you’d be able to do under anarcho-communism. Maybe.

I don't know, that just sounds like a total utopia to me... I mean, look at how things are now. There’s already way too much capital concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of people, so they’re starting out at such a massive advantage compared to everyone else. Anarcho-capitalism might actually be fair if we could all just hit the reset button—you know, start from scratch, basically from nothing. Then maybe everyone would be on a level playing field, and everything would really just come down to an individual's talent or how clever they are. But honestly? Even if we did that, I guess things would just slide back to the current status quo after a single generation. You'd end up with a new generation born into poverty with zero real shot at succeeding. It just seems impossible if you actually care about individual freedom.

So, I guess the main difference comes down to what I've picked up from talking to some other communists out there. Apparently, in anarcho-communism, you aren't actually allowed to work for your own benefit, trade for profit, or even hire people. It’s like, totally forbidden to enter into any kind of agreement where all parties actually agree on the terms. You know what I mean?

It’s not like there’s some rule against hiring people, right? I mean, how else would factories even run? It just wouldn't work. 🤷
The only real difference is that you wouldn't have individual bosses hiring new people anymore. Instead, it would be these worker councils handling the recruitment. And hey, trade isn't actually banned—at least not in anarchism. That's a totally different story when you're talking about state socialism. The whole system is built on exchanging goods without using money. As for working... well, communism is all about the labor, I guess.

I get where you're coming from—it feels pretty unfair that an individual isn't allowed to hire people on a large scale. I mean, sure, small businesses are a different story, but scaling up? Not so much. But then again, in a communist system, an individual wouldn't even be able to accumulate any kind of capital anyway, because there just isn't any money to go around, and all those material goods are supposedly available to everyone equally. I guess that's just how it works.

Look, on the flip side, in an anarcho-capitalist setup, you’ve got these successful individuals who can basically hire anyone who’s desperate enough to take the job just to survive. Libertarians love to chant this mantra about how those workers are "technically" free to quit and go find work somewhere else. But I guess people tend to forget that in an anarcho-capitalist world, there aren't any federal laws setting a minimum wage or guaranteeing social safety nets. Everything is up to the employer. So, what does that actually mean? Well, it means an employer is only going to pick the folks willing to work for absolute peanuts, while everyone else just sits around. It doesn't really leave much of a choice, does it? You either take a tiny, pathetic paycheck, or you don't work at all and end up starving. Either way, I don't see much room for success there. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems pretty bleak.
So, I was thinking about why anarcho-capitalism isn't actually a libertarian ideology... I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a huge distinction there that people often miss. It’s such a tricky thing to wrap your head around sometimes.

How can anarcho-communism even work without eventually sliding back into a market economy? I mean, someone is always going to step up—someone who’s just a bit sharper or has some super niche skill set—and they'll naturally start demanding more in exchange for what they bring to the table. It seems almost inevitable, I guess.

So, look, anarchism isn't actually trying to kill off trade or anything. It totally relies on it, actually. But, I guess if someone gets greedy and starts demanding more than their fair share, you run into two big problems—well, at least from their perspective:
1) I mean, he already has access to tons of everything, so asking for more just seems like pure greed and arrogance, if you ask me.
2) If he keeps pushing for more, society will eventually step in and stop him. At the end of the day, he relies on everyone else just as much as they rely on him. Someone provides his food, someone makes his clothes, someone pumps his gas, someone builds his house, and yeah, someone has to fix the plumbing too. No matter how important people think he is, he isn't any more vital than anyone else out there.

If workers were to take over factories, that would basically be stealing property from shareholders and owners.

But then again, those owners have been exploiting the workers—who there are way more of, by the way—for years. So, the owners would just be forced to live in a society where their own lifestyle might dip a little, while the general standard of living for everyone else actually goes up quite a bit.

So, anarcho-communism involves force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is based on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That’s just how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

I guess the other one is anarcho-capitalism 😁?

Overall, I don't think anarcho-communism uses "prohibitions" per se; it's more about just getting rid of the current setup, from the cultural stuff to the economic side. Since money wouldn't exist, nobody could ever end up in the situation you're describing because, well, it would just be impossible. And mutual consent is huge in anarcho-communism since it’s all built on direct democracy.

Then again, maybe anarcho-capitalism relies on force too. It’s just not direct force like "do this or get shot," but more indirect, like, "you don't have to work for me, but every other employer has the same rules, so your choice: work for this wage or starve on the street." I mean, sure, everyone has the "right" to go hungry, right?...
Also, anarcho-capitalism has some pretty big practical holes, like the whole issue of independent courts, which driftingjackal5 always seems to dodge when asked.

I guess I'm just feeling a little bit of that back pain today. It’s kind of nagging at me, you know? Maybe I sat weirdly in my chair or something. Just one of those days, I suppose. Kimberly Cox59 says:
So, I was just sitting here wondering... where does the Indian budget actually get its cash from? Like, who are they even taxing? I guess it’s a bit of a massive puzzle, right? Maybe it's mostly just standard stuff, but it makes you think about how all that money actually moves around.

Listen, you capitalists. I know the thread starter isn't exactly a fan of this whole idea, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

I mean, why does it feel like there’s only suddenly enough stuff to tax once all those big Western capitalists showed up? I guess it just seems that way, maybe. It's kind of funny how that works, right?

How can you be so sure? I mean, this just goes to show that the government finally decided to step up and put more money into social programs. Maybe that's all it really is.

Regarding that first section, I mean, nobody is actually stopping you from starting your own commune or co-op. You could just go out there and show the rest of us that it’s the right way to live. Maybe it really is? Who knows! But hey, the door is open if you want to prove it.

Who’s actually looking out for me? I mean, nobody is stepping up to defend me directly, I guess. But honestly, you can't really survive like that—just floating around totally on your own in a hostile environment. It just wouldn't work.
If you really want some examples, I mean, look at how the Spanish revolution already went down—it actually worked out pretty great. And if you're looking for something happening right now? There are tons of them. You've got places like Recycle Holdings, or even those new cooperatives popping up over on Maui. Or, you know, if you want to look internationally, there are those Zapatista-style cooperatives over in Mexico. Just saying!

Zagorec88 Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, why couldn't that just work in an anarcho-capitalist society? I guess people could just get together and decide they don't want to trade anymore. They could just choose to abstain on their own, you know? And honestly, that’s totally fine. It's doable, maybe.

But then that’s just socialism, isn't it? It definitely doesn't sound like anarcho-capitalism to me. I guess maybe there's a distinction I'm missing, but it feels more like the former. 🤷

On the other hand, I wonder... could I actually go out and freelance for cash in "your" world? Like, what if I’m just not interested in working for someone else's bottom line? I mean, if I’ve got specific skills and know-how to offer, I’d probably only want to put them on the table if there's something in it for me, you know? Maybe a fair trade or something.

That’s really the heart of it. You get something back, sure, but it isn’t some direct trade or a transaction at a cash register. I guess in some perfect, utopian version of a communist society, you’d just walk into the local corner store, grab whatever you needed, and that would be that—no paying a dime. Maybe it sounds crazy, but that's the idea.

So, you end up working for other people because you know they’ll be working for you too. It's just how things go, I guess. We all kind of rely on each other to get stuff done. It's all about that mutual dependence, really.

For example:
So, I was thinking about this idea lately... just a little thought experiment, maybe? Imagine if factory workers made stuff, right? And then you’ve got farmers out in the countryside growing all this food. Now, what if those workers just gave their products away for everyone to use, totally free? And the farmers did the same thing with their extra crops. It’s kind of wild to think about, but imagine all that stuff being kept in a central warehouse or maybe a local general store where anyone could just grab what they need, no strings attached. Since everything is free, nobody would have any trouble getting what they need to live. Like, if someone from Factory A wants something from Factory B, they just go ahead and take it. And the people at Factory B wouldn't mind at all, because they can just head over to Factory A whenever they want something there. Even a professor or a doctor could just grab food or supplies without paying, since, you know, they’re providing things like education or healthcare to the whole community. It's just an idea, I guess. It sounds pretty simple when you lay it out like that, doesn't it?

If you decide to just take and take without ever giving anything back, you basically opt out of the whole exchange process. It’s like you're checking out of the system entirely. I guess that wouldn't apply to retirees or people with disabilities, though, because essentials would still be covered for them. To me, socialism acts like its own self-regulating system—maybe even more so than capitalism does.

So, here's the gist of it—you wouldn't actually get a physical paycheck, but honestly, everything you need would just be right there for you. I mean, obviously, there’d have to be some kind of logical limit on things, right? Like, you couldn't just go out and grab a hundred Samsung TVs or ten tons of wheat all at once, otherwise, there wouldn't be anything left for anyone else. And I guess those limits would just be decided through a democratic process—that's basically the other side of socialism, isn't it?

So, what do you think? Do you actually agree with this idea, or am I just out here on my own with it? I guess it's hard to say without knowing where everyone else stands. Maybe? So, I was just falling down this massive rabbit hole reading about voluntaryism on Wikipedia, and honestly? It’s kind of wild to think about. It's basically this idea that everything in society should be totally voluntary—no coercion, no force, just people choosing how to interact. No government telling you what to do, no mandatory taxes, just pure individual consent. It sounds almost too simple, right? Like, maybe it’s a bit idealistic, I guess. I mean, how would we handle things like roads or public safety without any sort of central authority stepping in? It feels like one of those things that sounds perfect on paper but gets incredibly messy once you actually try to map it out in the real world. Still, there's something really peaceful about the concept of a world where nobody is forced into anything. Just a thought!

I mean, the concept itself is solid, really. But it’s got this one major flaw—human greed. It always comes back to that, I guess.

So, if there’s no money involved—which I guess means you live in some sort of utopia where cash doesn't exist—how on earth would you deal with free riders? You seem to view them as this tiny, insignificant little issue, but honestly, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to work if everything was just handed to me on a silver platter. I mean, maybe I can see how a Stalinist-style system might actually function, though. It’s pretty straightforward, right? You have a job, and you either do it or... well, you face the consequences. You know what I mean? Like, what exactly is going to motivate a person to actually get up and do anything?

It’s explained right up there, really. I guess the whole reason people would do that is because if you don't, society might just shut you out of the "general exchange" process entirely. That might sound kind of clunky or awkward when you look at how our current system works, but I suppose anarchism is all about decentralization. So, maybe the communities would stay small enough that they could actually maintain most of the control themselves. Free riders. It’s such a thing, isn't it? I guess you see them everywhere.Motivation is basically just this thought process: "Hmm, if I put in the work, everything is pretty much handed to me on a silver platter, but if I slack off, I lose all those perks." Honestly, I think the final answer is actually pretty simple when you look at it that way.

So, what do you think about that point I made earlier? You know, that Friedman quote about how capitalism and human freedom are basically two sides of the same coin. I mean, if you look at it from the angle that capitalism is really just the freedom to trade, the freedom to work, and the freedom to team up with whoever you want... it kind of makes sense, right? I guess it's all connected. Maybe. What's your take?

I don't know, I'm not sure I totally agree there. When you have that much capital just piling up in one person's hands, it feels like it's bound to create this massive hierarchy. It’s like, eventually, that one person holds all the power, and then everyone else just gets pushed aside when it comes to actually succeeding. Anarcho-capitalism sounds like a pretty beautiful theory on paper, I guess, but after a few years, wouldn't it just turn into something resembling modern-day feudalism? Maybe minarchism is a slightly better way to go, but even then, I feel like those hierarchies would still start creeping in and becoming more obvious over time.

Man, I really went on a bit of a tangent there, didn't I? I guess I just kept typing. 🤣

ancap said:What is there to think about? You don't know if you believe in property rights or not? What are we even talking about then? 🙂

That answer was actually referring to the videos Peter Reyes63 posted. At least that part was pretty easy to follow.

As for property... I mean, how do you define it? For me personally, owning things—like my house, a cabin, my car, or my computer—that's sacred stuff. Individualism is huge in socialism, I guess. But on the flip side, private ownership, specifically private ownership of the means of production and indirect control over workers, just seems wrong to me. It kind of stifles the very individual freedom you claim to care so much about, maybe.

And you still haven't answered my question—how would the legal system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

mirko77 said:Do you even consider logic or reality when you write stuff like this?

Did you just take two totally random, unrelated statements and throw them together? 🤷

Julius Caesar said:Technological progress, as such, is usually just a byproduct of capitalist entrepreneurship.
I mean, go look at Russia—are they pulling oil out of the ground using tech from the USSR or Western tech? And are they making phones in China with Chinese-Russian tech or Western tech?

Wait, how many years has it actually been since the USSR collapsed? Like, 20? So what tech would they even be using now—modern capitalist stuff, or something at least 20 years old from the Soviet era? I guess the issue is just how old the tech is, not really who made it. Back in its day, Soviet tech was pretty much on par with the West.

And honestly, Russia and China are purely capitalist countries now, so the tech developed there is also capitalist too.

Capitalism drove technical progress. The USSR could launch a rocket into space, but they couldn't figure out how to make a decent car.

Haha, oh man, okay. How does it work where they can build a rocket and a lunar rover, but not a regular car? I think the Soviet auto industry was actually one of the top five in the world back then.

Even in the Middle Ages, right where the foundations of what would become capitalism were being laid, you saw the Renaissance and humanism blossom, unlike in somewhere like Russia or the backward Ottoman Empire...

Well, that happened because of great trade with the East. I don't really see how that's an argument for anything, especially since socialism wasn't even an idea yet back then... 🤷

splićo said:capitalism has undoubtedly provided more progress for the human race than socialism ever did.

Prove it.
The whole world has been under capitalism for the last 20 years, so we can't really know what socialist progress would have looked like. Especially when you consider that even the Eastern Bloc wasn't truly socialist, it was more like state capitalism.

Scandinavia... yeah, their model is good. But that's mostly due to having access to oil, hydropower, and iron ore rather than just some pure desire for that kind of system.

I agree, I was actually thinking the exact same thing. But hey, if even a poor country like Cuba can meet basic human needs, why on earth would it be a problem for a wealthy European nation?🤷