You're adding fatalism to the equation. By that point of view anything can happen on any economic system. However within Capitalism those values may float for no catastrophic events.

You see... people tend to look to the immediate; "I earn X"  / "It costs Y". Pretty often you listen politicians bullshit-loading people with arguments such as "I rather raise the taxes than lower the wages" or vice-versa. Well, that's baloney! Regardless what they do on such it renders the same; you end up with less money available for yourself.
Adding to the Capitalist monetary system and the politicians have yet another way to raise taxes and lower wages without people even notice it: Print more currency and generate inflation. Well... people will notice, when they figure out everything get more expensive and the money they wage is barely enough for a kg of rice or potatoes, but for their immediate view the politician has nothing to do with it, as he didn't either lowered the wages or raised the taxes.

Some groups are irrational, like team supporters. They just like the colors... probably... or the father was of that team, or the best friend. But there's no rational/philosophical grounds about that. I don't say is that irrational groups aren't ok...
OTH, yes, the group has to change for its members to change, at least if such change requires core modifications. If you don't manage to do the change in a group level individuals from such group will simply ignore you - no matter how right or wrong you may be.

As for Capitalism, it's not "just trade between two or more people", for that many other economic theories can apply, specially because all of them are designed exactly to conduct trade between people.
The differences are set on other grounds; i.e. Communism and Socialism decides you shouldn't keep what you don't need if some else needs it, Capitalism has a straight view on property, you "own" and it's "yours", regardless if you need it or not, Distributism sets limits to property, you can own with some surplus but not accumulate as in Capitalism, ancient American indigenous people totally lacked the sense of property, you belong to the land not the land to you. Who's wrong, who's right... hard to tell.
Anyway, Capitalism is more than just a "free market" or A trading with B, Capitalism per definition is an economy based on the strength of the capital. We can say however that free market is the major improvement from Capitalism's predecessor, Mercantilism, by causing the guilds to become extinct.

Groups DO interact with groups and individuals. Wars are exactly the proof of such, group leaders disagreed and their groups goes after them against each other. Reason why it turns easier when a group has a known leader, you just need to change the leader's view for change almost everybody within it - at this point you'll have dissidents; people for which one of the main reasons to be in the group was exactly the one that changed.

Never underestimate the power of groups... they're the reason we've a society in the first place.

...or a group whose philosophy matches your own... if we were talking about rational groups, which not all of them are.
I understand your point, yet you're putting it to black & white, be individual vs be in group... there's a gray-scale in between of those two extremes.
At some point you may find the individual unwilling to change, even if the change is reasonable, if it could put his place in a particular group at stake, or vice-versa. Not all groups are the same or aim for the same. Like the poster on X-Files said «I want to believe», pretty often people just «want to believe»... even if the belief is totally senseless.

It's the other way around... you don't "pull persons out of the group", instead they join themselves groups and, depending on the kind of the group, abide by its rules (strangely on some groups, as religious ones, they tend to not "abide by their rules" but instead acting dualistic being very intransigent for others to abide the god or gods given rules - even those outside the group - whereas themselves believe to have a sort of "god's chump discount").

You see, the "group mind" is way too complex to be a simply put in and pull out... and groups themselves can come in all flavors and colors. Humanity is weird... like you said, as when people switch off the brain to call out the name of the geographical accident where they, by totally random reasons, happened to born.

@Gluskab;

Being a social animal, humans want to fit in to something; a "society" and its spheres of identity. Starting with your family to your country, to your race, to your religion to whatever one can "hold in to" to grab his "identity". Depending on the group you choose or by accident decided to join for this purpose you get the "group mind", a set of rules you learn to not contest at the expense of be expelled of such group and therefore lose your group identity or be considered as an outcast by your group. This is what sets the group mind.
Depending on the group, the reasons can be various and either rational, accidental or plainly irrational, jersey colors on sports, place of birth on nationalism and patriotism... still and even if you don't contest, it doesn't mean you think about it an agreed, to many of them you just accept by a single reason; you don't even bother to think about it.

I've to say that whether I don't like Anarchy nor it would be a fairy tales World, I do agree to the excess of regulation.
But also society tends to misunderstand and steer up laws and rules, easily sells itself to pure fascism out of the void fascist promise; «give me your freedom, I'll give you security»... yeah right! As Benjamin Franklin wrote «Those willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both».

Actually it does, an individual alone doesn't have the strength of a collective body. Other than that you've the group and mob mind. An individual may act one way when alone and the same individual may act in a totally different way within a group and yet another within a mob.

@左:

Mafia doesn't run societies, it's the other way around; Mafia is a private business resembling the Governments... the only reason why Governments don't like Mafia is because they don't get quite along with concurrence.

What's aggression and what's self defense just depends on which side of the barricade you're.

Again, Anarchy can co-exist with any economic form, as it doesn't have one. Anarchy doesn't oppose anything there.

I second most of ffe, including that I'd still prefer capitalism to the known alternatives, thus the need for "parts" of others ideologies.

@bitcoin2cash,

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.
A trades a bike with B... A can trade a bike with B on every circumstance in any given economic model. You forget for an instance, by your initial post, "the value of the 500 bucks".

OK, say that I've the bike and accept those 500 bucks, because I'm up to buy a skate for 250 later on. Now... what are or how much worth 500 bucks? In the current status of capitalism, they're just printed paper issued by a private bank, the FED, not indexed to anything at all (In God we trust... and we better because on the notes you're wasting your time). Back on Mercantilism, trade was ruled by bullion; silver, gold...; now it's ruled by worthless paper.
Back on our business, I said I want to buy a skate for 250, but... my bad... I let it pass one month and now they sale for 550. As you see, by holding worthless paper the values float without much control as you can never redeem such paper for nothing.

To the end, in Anarchy, the Capitalism we've at the moment couldn't exist. Without a government to hold the currency value, and anyone able to print how much he pleases, it would be zeroed.

NOTE: Bitcoin is a form of electronic bullion, as it has its own way to control its issue, btw.

For some refreshment, here's God calling Bill Gates to complaint out of Windows:

Two different concepts; you're talking of Anarchy on the citizen level, whereas the existent one is on global level. Countries co-exist in Anarchy to each others (to some degree... there's submission either), but citizens doesn't.
This is a matter of practice, actually, Anarchy can exist in very small groups - there're just 200 something countries -, but can't on societies with millions of individuals.


Wrong! They're both violent and coercive, they just want to impose different views. That baloney of "pacific people that's pushed to war" makes no sense at all!


Nope, but that being Anarchy you are just you, not able to speak for anyone else of the same "party".

Now I've to say you totally lack the sense of Capitalism! What you described is the free market feature as if it was the whole. Your definition is as valid to Capitalism, as it is to Mercantilism, as to basically any other economic system.
Capitalism is defined by the "strength of the Capital", it outdated Mercantilism as it can gather more Capital strength to carry on with ventures that would be limited otherwise.

The chain of unfairness, which Marx addressed with his invented "struggle of classes" (this is what I call the biggest fallacy still in practice, "classes" have different goals, people just fight for common goals... means that the real "struggle" is within each "class" with its pairs, not between "classes" - this would be subject to another issue), is how the wealth ended up distributed. Your "attenuators" are due Socialist, Distributist, Ecologist and other practices put into Capitalism, otherwise, for Capitalism as it is, is a bunch of baloney!
In fact the Capitalism makes the Capital the primary element, each venture must respond primarily upon the strength of the capital put to it (means be profitable to whoever put the money into it) and just then to other considerations, being labor one of the weakest link in Capitalism...
If up to here it sounds somewhat ok, Capitalism by taken stock holders as the primary element of the equation, wide-opens the door to speculation and everything that comes with it; like inflation, deflation, fractional reserve, debt, etc. To be "safe" Capitalism has to be always growing, if at some moment it recesses the capital vanishes and once such happens... you get yourself a crisis and need to be bailed out or get bankrupt. As nothing can grow to infinite, Capitalism suffers one thing called "cyclic crisis".
To deal with this issue it has been created the IMF, to bail out bankrupt states. Allowing States to bankrupt, depending on where or how strong it's its influence, may cause a domino effect creating economic havoc and crisis spread.
Still the issue with IMF is that it relies on some states to be wealthy in order to relief and loan to others. As this is also impossible the solution was to create Central Banks. Central Banks can generate wealth out of "nothing" and their scam can run for quite a long time (up to centuries) - still not forever.

Put to the very end, in Capitalism you don't need to look for scammers, Capitalism is a scam by itself.

Fallacy! Voluntarism implies "do if you want". If you don't... well... too bad.


At the very same time allows none... What you say is that within the erratic anarchist society some groups will organize according to Capitalism, others according to Socialism, other according to something else... And yes, there will be groups, humans ARE NOT lone wolves, we're a sort of monkey and act according to our nature! At some point thus the interests of those groups will collide and they will enter at war. Hey! Go figure! Your vision of anarchy is what the world is already if you wide a bit your sight to the global spectrum.


Again, that's YOU... but YOU in Anarchy are just one member, not a fair representative of anything, due to the kind of (lack of) rule, but yourown.


Deny reality doesn't change it. Sorry...


For what concerns me and as long as you don't cross my space be at will to do whatever you want. However, in this World of Anarchy, I can't say my vision resembles everyone's vision.

The ultimate question over Anarchy is exactly that... "is doesn't appeal you". No matter what FAQs are or not written they represent the vision of one claimed to be Anarchist without any value whatsoever to the whole "Anarchist community", taken under such seams everyone does as he pleases and everybody pleases differently.

Playing semantics are we... anyway, by your words you ended up stating exactly the core of Anarchy and what it is all about; the worse of Capitalism and extreme individualism.
For the record, nobody owns you nothing also... but probably, because we're a social sort of animal people care about people. Go figure! How silly of them when they could just lay down and die or watch you die.  

Luckily for the human species, Anarchy has 0% chances of survival. You see... the lack of hierarchy makes it the most easy target and sitting duck on the planet, standing no chance whatsoever against even quite small organized armies. Organization is the core of success - even for hunting by the way, taken we're, in the relation speed/strength/size, the weakest and slowest animal around and more up to be a pray than a hunter; unless we use our advantage: Organization and Strategy, that's why we have brains...

Dooood, "cash" has no value whatsoever, it's just a way to set a "neutral value" which can be traded for anything you need. On the bitcoin2cash example, what if I've the bread but don't like fish? We wouldn't be trading... if no "neutral value" can be set - like cash - than either I wouldn't be giving my bread over your stinky fish or your will riot over the need of bread and try to rip it off from me.
Put "cash" as neutral, you trade your fish with anyone up to it, I receive the "cash" and go buy meat from somebody else.

To the end, anything basically is more valuable then than cash, cash is a mean not an end - unless you're a coin collector or something.

Also you do trade for need, not quite voluntarily. You need one thing and have something that person having the thing you need needs... All around one word: NEED.

As for people complaint on prices... don't bother, you could give it for free and they would still complaint. Complaint is an odd feature of the human nature, 90% of it you forget right away. Like in couples, most of weddings they spent the time complaining of each other and still keep together the whole life.

It's not me who's denying "anarchism rules", it's you who are creating them in an (poor) attempt to make it look nicer. Call it "Minimalistic State" or something else, because as long as you call your "thing" Anarchy and at the very same time you try to sell rules for it, it's a bogus Anarchy.

You forget the subjectivity or morality; you kill a passing-by guy and get arrested / you kill an enemy at war you get yourself a medal; to the practical terms you would be doing the same; killing someone. That's how the World is, this is what morality sums up to be.
Other than subjective, morality is also subject to the time and circumstances factors, at certain age certain circumstances would justify something, at other age the changes on those circumstances may make the very same action immoral.

Violence and coercion are the only effective ways to deal with indigents; it wasn't "invented yesterday" nor "the unjustified violence of the state", it has been as so since it evolved from tribes to complex societies; where people not family related have to deal with each others, with degrees on empathy to be very lower towards general society than family and friends for obvious reasons and as eventually people will have collision of interests some ruling is needed and ways to enforce it. What really (and only) matters is to set a fair or as fair as possible rules to determine what is or isn't an indigent - as this is relative to the morality being applied.

Sorry, if you've even one rule that's already no anarchism at all.
Anarchy has no statement against(or for) scam, fraud, violence/non-violence, etc... that's what makes Anarchists (or the ones we normally call them as so) nothing but dreamers unable to be taken seriously. You always need ONE rule. It doesn't matter which actually, but it's needed.

Take for an instance why most of the World drives by the right whereas English, Asians, Australians and South-Africans by the left. Does it makes difference whether you drive by left or right? No, it's a matter of habit. However it makes difference if you try to port your habits to somewhere else, like an English driving by the left on USA or an American by the right on UK.
Anarchy is just being erratic - without government or rules or anyone to enforce them -, "YOUR Anarchy" (the only place where your two rules exists) doesn't prevail over "OTHERS' Anarchy". And despite you don't like robbers, scammers, violence and so on, it doesn't mean at all that some "OTHERS'" don't either.

Furthermore on the fallacy of Anarchy comes the "me as others" and irrational belief on some sort of "objective or supreme morality". What YOU do and what YOU think is not or may not be what OTHERS do or think. So you can't say that just because you wouldn't go stealing, robbing and murdering, others won't either... specially because by practice we know some will and you will need someway to make them stop (that's what police is for).
Also by the practice of the closest thing to Anarchy to be presented as a State ever, Communism, they had to deal with those refusing to accept a rule that makes non sense at all, in such case the wack job theories of Marx with the wacker ones of Lenin, in the most violent of ways, being the Ukrainian genocide a fair example and the to the sum 70 million assassinations by the state in USSR and currently 90 million at China.

Anarchy is also the ultimate statement of individualism and as such the worse of Capitalism - unregulated one.

But it's pointless to discuss it as any reliable source of anything, Anarchy is too unorganized to ever be able to present itself as any sort of state.

EDIT: to the end it makes as much sense as the Jehovah Witnesses' heaven...
 

Actually I did, in practical terms. That site is yet another bogus pseudo-anarchist utopia bs.

which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. -> Is it? And what if they don't want to co-op? Will call the cops on them?

As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control -> Yeah! Everybody does the same... and everybody does nothing.

For all of the anarchist BS you end up always with the same; A HUGE LOAD OF RULES, even worse than the "archists" (with government). And to very bottom a nobody understands how lack of ways to enforce such rules.
Sorry... anarchism is plain non-sense. There's nothing to understand because other than break public stuff and join protests to unleash violence, anarchists themselves can't understand or even conceive in practice their own theories. Are just a sort of political hooligans...

Ultimately Anarchists are the worse sort of... Capitalists.
"No rules" applies from rich to poor, the poor may try to rob the rich, but still the rich can hire muscle. You can't come with a "no rules" society and expect such to be even close to any sort of "utopia communism".
To the end, discuss anarchy is like discuss any other utopia, it's senseless and roundabout to a bunch of violent folks and spoiled kids in need of soccer (football if you're American) more often to play around with riot police. Nothing to take serious...

Discussing reliable alternatives to the current systems is however possible, one gaining force, is a semi or even direct Democracy. Removing the plain old and designed for societies with few to no communications at all, the "representative" (Representing who?!) party system.