What?

My error on your stated gender aside, you don't know what capitalism is.  You can't define it in a coherent way.  If you could, I'd have something to work with.  In it's simplist form, capitalism is defined as private possession and control of the means of production.  It's really much more complex than that, and forms naturally from a known set of naturally arising default rules of humanity; but you have to start somewhere.  But capitalism isn't a political system.  Despite claims to the contrary, capitalism existed even in the Soviet Union at all times.  And I can prove that.  There is really no way to avoid it completely.


Who are you talking to here?  If you are still talking to me, I don't see 'reds' anywhere.  I've never even met a true communist that I'm aware of.  Forums on the Interent are the only places I've ever had conversations along these lines, and I've lived in Chicago and California. 

Specificly, any social structure is stable to Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number) but this has more to do with the fact that members share values and futher tend to value those relationships.  Beyond Dumbar's Number, only certain types of societies are stable, and all of them are either dependent upon human nature or maintained by the threat of force.  There is literally nothing in between that is stable beyond 3 generations.

BTW, if you have ever heard the statistic that many unions put out about how a part-time employee at Wal-mart is so much more likely to be collecting welfare or some other government aid while working than, say, Target.  (often referred to as the 'working poor')  The legal assistance benefit is the reason why; because in many states (particularly California) a single mother is eligible for a great deal of government aid at a much higher annual salary than, say, your unemployed white male under 40.  The legal aid department was very good at identifying aid programs for which these part-time single mom's qualfied for.  It's not that the part-time single mom's who worked at Target didn't qualfiy, they just didn't know to apply.  My wife never qualfied for any of that crap because she was married, I was working full time, and she's white; but she did know a few cashiers who were able to get something along those lines even in Kentucky due to the help of legal aid.  My wife wouldn't have wanted a handout anyway, but learning about that perk and how it's commonly used greatly affected my perspectives regarding Walmart and the trustworthyness of the propaganda that spewed forth from my union.  That revelation might have been the turning point for me; as I was once a Democrat so blue that I was a county delegate to the Demcratic Party's state convention.

Hell, as a still younger man, I was a card carrying Green!

If you are not a communist at 20, then you have no heart; if you are still a communist at 40 then you have no sense.

When did I call you an unsupported "name"?


I haven't been.  I generally give your side every opprotunity to argue your case, but that doesn't happen.  Most of the time; when the claimant doesn't simply assume that the superiority of his position is 'self evident' s/he resorts to 'feelings' of 'fairness'.  Make an argument.  But it has to be your own argument, not just a hotlink to some published somebody.  If you feel said somebody makes a good point, restate that point in your own language.  If you can't, then you didn't understand the point to begin with.


I don't agree that what usually happens "when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position" is a fault of capitalism, in practice or in theory.  Therein lies your problem, not everyone agrees with your worldview.  If you want to found a communist collective in the middle of a anarcho-capitalist utopia, you can.  No true anarcho-capitalists would prevent it.  They may not trade with you either, but that's a different issue.  However, your position (anarcho-communism) does not permit a dissenting sub-culture to exist.  The very premises that such a worldview is founded upon cannot ever achieve it's end goal without completely destroying competing worldviews, as the random 'capitalist' would take advantage or undermine the social structure of the communist non-state (a contradiction unto itself).  Ultimately, communism requires a state to enforce the worldview upon the people, because there will always be those who disagree.  


All life is poitics.


Son, you really don't know me, and you are not guessing well either.


My wife graduated from college with a BS in MicroBiology.  Got a job within her field doing product testing at P&G.  Worked there for 6 years, never earned more than $12.50 per hour and hated her job.  After she had our first child, she quit P&G; taking a part time job about a year later as a cashier at WalMart.  She worked there for 4 years, loved that job making $7.75.  She was offered health care coverage, even though she was only part time, as well as other less common perks such as a great employee discount on damn near everything, and a legal assistance benefit.  The discount was so good, the company had to safeguard who all got the discount cards, mine had a photo id on it so that no one else could use it.  My wife was not eligible for health care coverage at P&G because I already had a family coverage plan, and they never offerered legal assistance.

At the time, I was a full on 'drink the cool aid' unionist, and she applied to WalMart, in part, to yank my chain.  She even noted during her interview that she was married to a 'salt' union orgainizer in the construction trades. (I can't remember why that even came up)  It didn't even matter, she got the job without issues.  She was, quite literally, the smartest person in the store anytime she was there.   She was offered management after 9 months, but didn't want full time work.  She only quit that job because the demands of increasing motherhood and homeschooling took precidence, and considering that I have made over $100K every year for nearly a decade now, we really didn't need the (by then) $8.50 an hour cashier's work.

I know from second hand experience that, although WalMart certainly isn't the greatest employer ever, it's nothing like what it's often portrayed as in union propaganda.  I may not have a 'global' perspective, but I certainly do have a 'local' one.  From where I've been standing, your worldview makes no sense.

Amen, brother.  I'll show this one to my kids later.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

This is strangely appropriate.

The withholding of capital (in this case, the growing forest and the land it grows upon) is using it.  In one sense, it's savings.  In another sense, the growing forest itself is capital at work.  Seriously, you guys don't understand what you are speaking about.

Says you.

Bullshit.  I am not a slave to my employer.  If anything, I am a slave to my government to the same percentage that they take my income in taxes.

More bullshit.  I'm presently a member in two different unions, and own stock in both the company that I work for and several other companies.  You are not prevented from doing the same.


Maybe, maybe not.  The key word is defense.  You don't agree with my views on property and rights; fine, don't work for me.  If yo utry to take my stuff because you think you have the right, expect a vigorous, and perhaps violent, defense.  This would not be different in any socity, no matter how primitive or "ideal" in your view.  What belongs to them, belongs to them.  You can choose to work for them, under their rules, or not.
"Liberated" capital?  Theft is worse.


Derp, Derp.  Some are simply deluded.

Well, that's also true enough.

They were wrong and provablely so.  While it's true that every society that formed writing also developed commodity money systems, the development of money was always a concurrent development with the rise and growth of the barter economy.  Commodity money just made such barter arrangments more efficient and easier to negotiate.  Barter most certainly did exist in the past, and most certainly still exists pretty much everywhere today; most people don't recognize it as such.  Construction workers do it regularly, as they will oftern trade hours.  For example, a plumber might need his house repainted and the painter needs his toilet replaced.  The only money that moves is in the purchase of the paint and toilet from outside suppliers.

I'm lucky to be able to spell anything correctly.  That has zero bearing on my accuracy.


Autarky is a german word.  It's meaning in English is "self-sufficient", but considering that you regularly used both terms, in English, together to describe your ideal community, I was curious if it had some othermeaning for which I am unaware.  Otherwise you are fond of redundancy, which would imply that you were quite young.


Heh.  Girls and their ideas. 

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4059

You really don't have a supporting argument here, do you?

Okay.

Indeed, they do 'eat themselves'.  Eventually.  Neither of us are likely to live to see that day, however.  And if you do, you won't really enjoy the fall.  Be careful what you wish for; as someone else has already noted, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself (after decades of "eating itself") and during the 90's the average life expectancy of a Russian male fell by 2 decades.  Said another way, a whole lot of people died, and a whole lot more people suffered for a long time.  The most likely to prosper either had huge families with access to arable land for which to grow food for their extended families, had longstanding ties in the mafia or other criminal trade organizations or both.  The Swiss, quite literally, are too numerous in this modern age to be able to grow enough food to feed their own population.  The Russians could do it, and the US might still be able to do it; but nearly all of Europe will not be able to do it.  Maybe the Greeks and Spanish.  If what you think you want comes to pass, many of you will resort to cannibalism before you get to your stable matriarchy.



Says the matriarchial anarchist looking for others like herself!

PERMIES.COM

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2013/06/communities-that-abide-preamble.html

Another good post from Dmitry Orlov.  Yes, he's as much a 'progressive' as he (counter-)attacks in this article, and he has many questionable 'facts' in here, but it's a great read.  There's also this little tidbit...

"This is why every successful community I've looked at knows how to exclude (shun, expel) people. Every successful community jealously safeguards its separateness from the surrounding society. This is critical to their survival and for achieving much better outcomes for their members than the surrounding society. In my understanding, these practices must also extend to the family, the extended family being a microcosm of community.
 (...)  As far as the labels of “patriarchy” and “matriarchy” are concerned, the winning label for me is, of course, anarchy—a well-organized, copacetic one. And, sure enough, most of the successful communities I have looked at are, in fact, anarchic in the structure of their self-governance. But most important is their separatism. Their value systems are their own—not yours. Do you wish to “improve” these communities, bringing them more in line with your own value system? Well, there is a word for that sort of activity: persecution.

The women who took offense and spoke up after my talk zeroed in on some specific areas, indicating that the communities I chose as examples of success are in fact intolerable by their standards. Some of these communities do not offer birth control to women, and/or resort to corporal punishment to discipline children, and/or do not give women equal rights, and so on. It's a good thing I didn't include any communities that practice polygamy or infanticide, or I would have probably caused a riot (there probably are some polygamous communities that I would consider successful; not sure about infanticide). I did include one group (the Roma) who practice arranged marriage. All of these deviations from the current American politically correct norm are problematic for those who allow themselves to regard others through the lens of their own value system (a common failing). But is that even a valid approach? My approach is to study these communities as if they were a different (sub-)species of hominid. After all, none of you will ever be allowed to interbreed with any of them. Do lions practice polygamy? Yes. Do males kill cubs sired by other males. Yes they do. Does this make them worth emulating? Probably not, but they are still worthy of study, because they are what evolution wrought, and were it not for poaching and habitat destruction (a.k.a. persecution), they'd probably still be a success story. Similarly with human communities that achieve significantly better results than the rest: you may not like them, but then who do you think you are anyway?"

Emphasis is mine.

Ah, yes.  The classic issue of children in an anarchy.  This is where Myrkul and I have had great disagreements in the past.  It's not a simple question.  If a child is born, does s/he have full rights immediately?  If so, who may excercise those rights on their behalf?  For how long, with what limits?  Under what conditions can the child assume their own rights entirely?  The standard answer is that parents have those rights in an 'escrow' of sorts, and that the child assumes those rights upon reaching an arbitrary age of maturity.  But what about those children who mature early, or those adults who will never mature completely?  What about the parents that violate the rights of their own children?  There is a huge rabbit hole here, and before this goes further, please consider whether or not another thread would be more appropriate.

Simply repeating or restating your, already circular, definition does nothing to change the issue of understanding.  We, apparently, don't see the world in remotely similar contexts.  Our worldviews are, thus, incompatible.  Without some degree of effort towards reconciliation of our worldviews, and use of language, we are almost literally speaking different languages.  Your half-assed answer above does nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of what an economy is, and thus is not a real definition.  Please try again.


First, are you a German speaker?  Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.

Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane.  I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim.  Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.


The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts.  You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.

You seem to have more in common, ideologically,  with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.  I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here.  Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy.  I really don't think you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?


First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.  He is wise enough  to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.  

Second, I wasn't asking for your recommendations.  Have you read it, or are you just throwing out  philosphophers in order to sound smart?  I ask, because he starts off with this...

"Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state
needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of
the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the
possession of it guarantees property of it."

With the condition I highlighted, 'of the day', the author is deliberately avoiding discussion of natural property rights, as that is not the state of things today and not what he is talking aobut in the essay.  That said, the basic premise of the essay is roughly correct.  Namely that the modern state requires property rights as part and parcel to it's justification for it's existance, and further requires the monopoly of the use of force, i.e. "the gun".  Not simply a gun, but all of them, and this is a root cause of the 'gun control' efforts the world over across all of human history.

You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do.  You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.

Biomech nails it on the head.  He has displayed a working knowledge of how the world really works.

Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.

A different question, Zarathusta, what about Bitcoin attracts you to this forum?

EDIT:  I noticed that you never would commit to reading a book, if I were to recommend it.  I see now that my prior choice would have been presumptive.  I might recommend a different set of books as a starting point.  I was going to recommend The Stealth of Nations by Robert Neuwirth, but perhaps The Beeman by Laurie Krebs would be more your speed.

No, it's not.  Capitalism starts with the definition of capital.  You don't even know what it is.


There is no such thing as a non-business doing community.  Even the hippy-nerds who trek out to the desert each year for Burning Man are doing business, even if they might consider the thought offensive.  Capital accumulation is a required feature for survivival.  There are no mammals that I know of that do not do it, and it's even fairly common among insects.  Stop and think about what you believe.  How did you get there, and did you consider the root principles to get there?


Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  So you believe that a gift economy isn't business?  How would anyone give a gift, without accumulating capital first?  What are they going to give, prayers and well wishes?
The Penan are hunter-gatherers.  They hunt and gather, capital accumulation by definition.  The snare is capital, so is the bow and arrow.  The gathering basket is capital.  And even if none of this were true, the Penan consider the forests that they inhabit to be their property, and thus logging to be a crime against themselves and their culture.  It's a collective form of property, certainly, but it's a very real concept of property.  Thus, by definition, the Penan consider the forest that grows their food to be their capital.


Capital is anything required to produce.  To the hunter-gatherers, the tools of same are capital, as is the lands traversed.  To the sheepherder, the sheep, the sheepdog, the grazing fields, the shearing tools, etc are capital.  To the farmer, the plow and workhorse, and the fields, are capital.  So yes, the root of the word is a "head count", but no it's not about submission of animals per se.  If you want to be a hunter-gatherer, go do it.


You make assumptions about my beliefs you cannot support.  The modern concept of capitalism isn't the natural form of same, but capitalism certainly has a natural root. 

You already need that.  You can't really mine one bitcoin, you can only mine 25 at a time.  Pool mining permits you to contribute your mining resources to a pot, but you are paid out of the pot's successes and not your own successes really.  But that is a trick of averaging, not the result of real mining effects upon the network.

That's just bullshit.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a society that did not value "capital".  You just don't know what the hell capital actually is.  There have been a number of different cultures that treated personal property in a different manner that I can think of, but none failed to "accumulate capital" and managed to survive long enough to develop writing, or at least be noticed by a culture that had already developed writing, in order to be noticed by history.  If you can name a culture that you believe satisfys your conditions, name it so that I can point out your errors of fact. Otherwise your  just another socialist troll.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

This statement is false.  Many of the modern legal/corporate structures are finely grained in their differences in specifying both the possession and control of the collectively owned and maintained capital of the company.


Only in the sense that said appropration is by force, against the will or consent of those with a prior claim to that capital.  We do have corporate structures that are specificly designed to limit corporate ownership to present and/or former members of the corporate workforce.


Can a capitalist enply non-coercive methods to maintain control of his capital?  Yes.  But the strawman you set up above should be set alight, because those are all examples of coercive methods.  Just because the cops are private thugs doesn't make it a non-coercive solution.


How are you going to afford the service robot?


Good God, where do you people come up with this crap?