• OlgaAbi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    that’s why unregulated capitalism (like in amcapistan or a minarchy) would be better, unions would actually be as powerfull as corporations

    • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      No lol, the factory owner would just pay his private security a premium to kick your fucking teeth in if you don’t work. You actually think unregulated capitalism is BETTER???

      The whole point of a state is to mitigate the worst of class conflict, remove that and the class with greater resources (the one ruling before the removal of the state) wins the conflict.

      The removal of a state doesn’t make unions more powerful it makes the owning class more able to destroy them. An anarcho-capitalist experiment either ends in slavery or revolution.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Capitalism can’t function without a State, in a “minarchist” or “ancap” situation there would be some intermediary group with a monopoly on violence to suppress workers and hash out deals between business owners. Moreover, we exist in a world largely dominated by US Imperialism, we can’t just swap to minarchism or ancapism by gathering the infinity stones.

      Whatever system we transition to must come from where it once was, even revolutionary societies have to deal with the holdovers from the previous Mode of Production. That’s why the Soviets had the NEP, in fact, they couldn’t just snap their fingers and institute what they wanted. It was a big deal when they managed to collectivize.

      How do you personally reckon we can make it to your prefered organization of society, from where we are now? Genuinely curious.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not by a long shot. Remove the guardrails and the (theoretically) neutral party that enforces them, the state, and violence abounds. Whoever has more guns will call the shots. After enough time and consolidation, any big group will become its own state. If you don’t think that’d happen, just take a look at EVE Online and how the biggest player run corps work.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Uh huh. And how would you guarantee it stays freely unregulated by any one party. With a regulator perhaps?

    • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      What? The only thing stopping the oligarch from buying an army and enslaving everyone who can’t fight back is the fact that the government has a bigger army to stop them before they have time to even think about it. Monopolies of violence. It’s not that hard to figure this out.

      The only reason why “ownership” even exists is because the government’s army serves as a threat to anyone who even thinks about disrespecting it. Without is, nothing is stopping someone who can exert more violence than you from stealing everything you thought you owned.