Anthem • Why anarcho-capitalism, isn't

Anthem • Why anarcho-capitalism, isn't

thewaterwillcome reblogged the-capitalist:
Why anarcho-capitalism, isn't
the-capitalist:

anticapitalist:

the-capitalist:

anticapitalist:

thewaterwillcome:

anarchistreview:

autumn-and-gomorrah:

If anarchism’s goal is a society free of hierarchy, how can you then set up an economic system that thrives on class-based oppression? In capitalism, there will always be an upper class and a lower class, and therefore it defeats the point of anarchism.
I like you. How do I not know you?
If anarchism’s goal is a society free of force and government, how can you set up an economic system that forbids individuals from producing, purchasing/selling, and accumulating capital in a way they choose. Forcing individuals to live according to your ideological fantasy is a characteristic of the state and therefore defeats the point of anarchism.
Yeah I mean seriously, making slavery “illegal” restricts the right of people to purchase other people. They earned the money to buy that property and thus they can enslave people!

/sarcasm

In all seriousness, allowing people to enslave others by restricting their access to capital and the means of production is the equivalent of slavery. You cannot call a society free if slavery is a part of it.

Also, a hierarchical system of management is just like the state.
Anyone ever find it strange when socialists equate working for payment by choice to enslavement which is the use of force to exploit people without pay, without benefits, without choice?

Being that the management does not have control over your choices or what you do with your life unlike the state which can, at its will, choose to take away your rights, freedoms, and livelihood. Whereas management has no such power. It can fire you for you not doing a good enough job, or for your mistakes, or for your incompetence. It can reward you for your effort, your competence, and your contributions. But management of a company cannot physically walk into your house, handcuff you, and throw you in a prison cell for not paying them taxes. They can neither enforce you to work there, nor can they tell you how to live your life.

The attempt to equate management with state is one of the most absurd statements detatched from reality I’ve seen in awhile.

Evading the difference between production and looting, they called the businessman a robber. Evading the difference between freedom and compulsion, they called him a slave driver. Evading the difference between reward and terror, they called him an exploiter. Evading the difference between pay checks and guns, they called him an autocrat. Evading the difference between trade and force, they called him a tyrant. The most crucial issue they had to evade was the difference between the earned and the unearned.
What you’re not getting is that in socialism you still have to earn a living. It’s just that the workers are allowed to control the fruits of their labors. They get the right to their own labor. The arbitrary owner of capital does not get the right to manipulate someone else’s labor. Regardless of the value of the product or service that the worker is creating, the owner of capital stills get to control how much the worker is getting paid. Since money is an objective representation of one’s labor, letting someone else manipulate the value of someone else’s labor so that they can increase the value of their labor makes no sense.
”Manipulate someone else’s labor” is a theme here. But the question is: How does ont manipulate someone else’s labor, or moreso, the value of an individuals labor? In fact, you also have to question how one judges the value of someone’s labor, which means you have to discover what is important for your company top to bottom, what skills are required to meet each position, and what value each laborer is determined on how valuable they are on the market.

My issue with socialism is that it distorts value for a false form of equality. Since every individual has different skills, different intelligence levels, difference experience…not everyone can be equal. The assumption on socialism is made that everyone that is not a day laborer, or unskilled worker is essentially manipulating, controlled, and enslaving them. I dare not say this does not happen because it does. However, it is clear that the value of a manager who went to school for years to learn the necessary skills and spent time gaining the experience to reach that level has more value than a laborer who has not gone to school, nor learned the necessary skills to reach higher. What socialism seeks to do is bring the manager down to the unskilled laborer to enforce a false notion of equality. It seeks to collectivze individuals as one group in order to create a “equal” share of the production and capital without: A) Understanding where capital comes from. B) How capital is produced. C) Where the means of production come from. D) Difference between the earned and unearned.

In the issue with businesses, the question has to be asked: How does a collectivized group of laborers determine who gets what part of the pie? Since there is no hierarchy of value, everyone gets an equal share. But what happens when the amount of capital decreases? What happens when one needs rises over another’s value as a laborer? What happens when one laborer has more value, produces more for the group, but forced to only get his slice of the share that is produced? Why does the individual who earns his capital through his production enslaved to others who may have not earned their share?

What socialism seeks to do is grant the unearned to those who have not earned it. It seeks to destroy individualism and individual production with collectivism and enforced equality, whether through state or vote. Now, it may not directly seek to do so, but by every action a socialist does, by every word they say, they want a unification of people rather than individuals. The obvious that a majority collectivized and unified is much stronger than an individual wishing to produce and live on his own effort.

What happens to that individual in a socialist world?

A laborer has a right to his own labor. In fact, he is the only one who can have a right to his own labor. When one goes out for a job, and accepts a job, he is choosing to use his labor in order to make a profit to live. The company and the laborer agree, by contract, the wage he is valued at, the hours he can work, and the position that he is needed in. A company does not, by force, tell you to work for them. If you feel forced to work with them because there is nothing else out there for you, that is not called enslavement. That is called perception and, most must note, a wrong perception. What a socialist worker seeks is the unearned, or more importantly, to be valued more than he is worth as a laborer because he needs it.