Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

What do you mean by capitalism? The sort of more formal idea that ownership of an asset entitles one to the production from that asset? Or the more informal (but widespread) general cluster of ideas around free markets and all that jazz.

I don’t really see how the former could work really well in anarchy. Like hypothetically say you “owned” a workshop that could make something useful for the community, they would probably collectively agree that… they should just walk in and start using it. What next?

On the other hand, it seems to me that the general idea of markets could be used. Like, if there was a community workshop, but you were unusually good at making shoes, and had a workstation at that workshop, presumably nothing would prevent you from trading your shoes to other people. The economic value doesn’t really come from the asset of the workstation in that case, though, it comes from your abilities, right?

View on HN

It's common to equate capitalism (which is the economic reality) with free market (or economic liberalism, which is the underlying ideology, and never completely true in practice). Typical definition of capitalism is that it is a system where (a) significant amount of capital is privately owned and (b) significant amount of labor is traded in a free market (in other words, labor is a commodity).

It is this first bit; specifically the part where enough of the capital is privately owned that there's a significant class of people who have no choice but paying most of the wealth that they produce as rent to the owners. That's the power imbalance that unavoidably created a hierarchy, and why left anarchists deem capitalism incompatible with the core tenets of anarchism.

Free markets are a different story, since they do not require capital to be privately owned to exist and function. Left-wing free-market anarchism is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

True, but you could also argue that limiting the condition (b) rather than (a) is also a way to address the power imbalance. Things like social programs, basic income, unions and cooperatives try to address (b) instead of (a).

Sure, and that's how you end up with authoritarian strains of socialism.

I don't think it's necessarily true, I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me.

I also think there is a value difference between socialism and democracy (decisions are made society-wide, by equal citizens participation) on one side and conservativism and authoritarianism on the other (decisions are made society-wide, by selected authorities/elites), even though from a liberal viewpoint (decisions are made individually by affected individuals where possible) they might seem similar (because in both the decisions are made society-wide). Measures against (a) or (b) can be designed and implemented both in democratic or authoritarian way.

And in fact, basic income is on the liberal-socialist, aka "anarchist", spectrum rather than on socialist-conservative, aka "communist", spectrum. (Both spectra offer different solutions than the current liberal-conservative, aka "capitalist", spectrum.)

> I mean making sure that private capital doesn't exist seems also pretty authoritarian to me.

Not really. It's really the other way around - the existence of private capital requires the state to enforce it. The only thing that makes, say, a privately owned factory actually "owned" is the fact that the owner can get the police to evict anyone trying to use it without the authorization, and drag any such miscreants to the courts. If society simply refuses to recognize private ownership of capital, and, as a consequence, refuses to enforce ownership claims, how is that authoritarian? There's strictly less use of force involved.

I would also argue that "democratic" and "authoritarian" are not actually opposites - it's entirely possible for a democratic majority to use authoritarian measures to keep the minority in check.

I agree that it is common (I listed it as the second option for that reason), but I think it is not very precise, which is why I brought it up.

In particular — humans tend to cooperate, know we work better when we specialize, and have a natural sense of fairness (sometimes inaccurate!) so I can definitely see trade and markets happening under basically any system. I mean it has proven impossible to stop trade, if it isn’t in the open you’ll immediately get black markets.

But I can’t see a community collectively and voluntarily agreeing to respect property claims if they grow to the point that they are inconvenient.

I think actually the inverse is true; that market socialist systems would quickly evolve into capitalist systems. The main reason is that the capitalist benefits from what economists call the free rider problem, while communal projects don't get the same benefits. And there is no way to prevent some enterprising individual from capitalising on it and outcompeting all of the socialist firms without an enforcement mechanism such as the state to punish them when they do so.

I think you're misunderstanding what anarchy is supposed to look like.

How does one capitalize in an anarchist society divorced from capitalism? As in, what does capital mean? What does it mean to profit?

How can one "outcompete" a "socialist firm"? When there is no money or private property, every firm belongs to everyone who wants it.

Why is a state necessary to punish hierarchies? Presumably in an anarchist world, people have learned to distrust and dislike hierarchies on principle, refuse to partake in it and join together to punish those who do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com