Why are anarcho communists and anarcho capitalists attracted to each other? I swear to god, it seems everyone I know how is connected to either of those ideologies is both A. Trans and B. In some sort of "the most opposite things imaginable attract" relationship with their oppsite
We aren't, we hate each other more than we hate tankies or reactionaries respectively. Most of the internet are trannies, irl trannies are rare even among anarchists, marxists, etc. Turn your computer off and go outside,
False premise. You may know some couple, but I've never heard of it. And besides, ideologies drift for those who are open minded enough and enjoy researching.
Reversed premise. Most trannies are on the internet
Now I just want to convert you both. Stop being a capitalist. You cannot rid yourself of the state and retain capital. So every scheme of that camp comes off as disingenuous or plain stupid.
I'm not convinced. The girl in the photo runs her own dog grooming business and buys groceries at a food co-op. I kept trying to explain that she is, in practice, the best capitalist I know.
She had to really love you if she didn't kicked you to ass.
I didn't mean to imply as such, but in the case of her dog grooming business, she is leveraging her privately owned economic resources and makes self-interested decisions about which clients she takes on, how much she charges, etc.
Tumblr go home
At such a micro level it's irrelevant. Call me when it grows to the point of being a monopoly in your area and she supports politicians who promise to cut the minimum wage out so her employees can work for less.
But do you convince her about the finer points of nonintervention in foreign affairs?
sorry girls, the only one I love is the Social Revolution
Even sans monopoly, her business ignores many regulations in order to do business more smoothly.
It seems you and I agree on the malignancy of government.
It's one of the few things we agree on. That and a hatred of Monsanto.
Oh wait, you're saying the monopoly happens before the gov't intercedes. I guess that's where we disagree. Could you show me a monopoly that occurred without gov't meddling?
I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense really user. I'm a girl (male) myself.
Maybe these situations just stand out mostly because the opposites attract thing makes them more vivid.
Capitalism implies a majority of wage-workers. A majority of wage-workers implies a majority of people who don't own any capital. A majority of people who don't own any capital implies a state to keep them in line.
1) Government and high business intertwining is a feature of capitalism, not a bug 2) Standard Oil, US Steel. Both broken up by the government after a huge populist push, resulting in anti-trust laws. Anyway, what mechanism do you think there is to prevent catastrophe by monopoly? What about the so-called natural monopolies? Would you consider building four sets of water pipes for different companies a smart use of resources? 3) Capitalism is underlined by absentee ownership rights backed up by a set of laws guaranteed by a state monopoly on violence. Ancapistan would just be a power struggle between the groups most capable of organised violence - a regression to warlordism. If there is nobody to enforce contracts, they don't exist.
Like teeth cleaning without a dental license? First old dog she ruins the gums of she can get su-u-u-ed.
Without a minimum wage, what is the incentive to pay workers a livable wage?
I really think Monsanto is responsible for a whole lot of ills in this world. Loath them.
Governments are a monopoly. Or they used to be, now they're just the smiley face we're supposed to watch and complain about while the rich run the place.
reproduction of labour read Marx
?? The labor always goes to the worker willing to work for the least.
And this worker must be alive if he's to do any labour, hence the livable wage.
not to mention that the (national) bourg would actually like the other members of his class to pay more wages, since then the labourers have spending power to buy his products. this is a key part of intra-class conflict in the bourgeois class.
is right, the capitalists have to pay workers enough to survive *and* reproduce (i.e. enough to feed children, and wife if she isn't working). Because capitalists require a supply of labour, and the only ones that can provide it are workers who reproduce.
Not to be obtuse, but I fail to see how that is implied from private ownership of capital goods and free markets. It certainly doesn't hold true for an independent freelancer.
Thanks for pointing this out; I'd been falsely touting the "monopolies don't arise without gov't intervention" proposition for quite some time. I think I lifted it from an Ayn Rand novel many years ago (though I'm not an Objectivist and dislike Rand), substantiated by a bunch of supporting examples over the years. But all it takes is a single contradiction to falsify such a broad statement, and you have provided it. In the past 20 minutes, I've read a detailed timeline on Rockefeller's rise from 10% to 90% market share in an entirely voluntary manner; I'd always thought he had made deals with transportation authorities to undercut the market. Rather, he provided a better product, cheaper. Fantastic, what a boon to the rest of society!
As in, prices unbound by the cost of production? Standard Oil achieved their market share with competitive pricing; if they stopped being competitive, the competitors would return (presuming their monopoly had not become codified by gov't regulations).
Your question presupposes a central planner who is deciding on the number of pipes to build. A better thought experiment is to consider modern tech industries which emerged and developed faster than the gov't could keep up with. For example, high speed internet. The maximum number of competitors servicing an area is correlated to the number of variations of service available, e.g. DSL, cable, satellite, fiber. So even in the techiest cities, you've usually get 3 companies to choose from, and in rural areas, 1 (satellite). Each one provides its own infrastructure, built by the company, and pricing model. Relating to your example, I would imagine a full privatization of water would result in 2 types of water delivery: drinkable water and recycled water, each with its own infrastructure, which is built and connected by the companies themselves or their subcontractors.
This is game theory; suffice to say, I disagree that the constituents of the various jurisdictions (there would be no "Ancapistan") would find it beneficial to engage in that sort of anti-cooperative competition.
Large-scale production is much more productive than craftsmanship ("independent freelancer"). As a consequence, it is much more profitable. As a consequence, large-scale production tends to eliminate craftsmanship (actually, it already has for the most part).
They’re both childish utopians desperatly clinging to an unrealizable vision for humans. They are unabiguously the two most incorrect ideologies a person could subscribe to.
certainly, if you don't mind the negatives of arbitrary pricing or control over, well, everything being placed in single set of hands. money is ultimately an abstraction of power, especially without political oversight. competitors might return, but how do you think cartels form in the first place? if the initial cost of investment is prohibitive, it could well be rational for a monopoly or a cartel to charge exorbitant prices. if the product being aggressively monopolised is land, food or drink - well, it's not going to end happily. This is what I mean by monopoly catastrophe. How? Company A builds a set of pipes and charges exorbitant prices, Company B builds a competing set of pipes (how this works with ancap-style land ownership is another question), Company C builds another set of pipes to break the cartel and so on and so on and so on. no, just the realist school of international politics applied to a similar state of lawlessness, albiet at a smaller scale. national politics 'solved' the lawlessness problem with the overarching state structure. so why didn't this happen historically? why did the warlords take over? how do you prevent the warlords from rebuilding coercive state power?
Yes but that doesn't hold true for all industries. Local farmer's markets and co-ops are one example, service industries are another. There is market share in some sectors which are unreachable by factory production outlets, where consumers are willing to pay more for quality over quantity.
It is implied by the grammar of your question: "Would you consider building…" but it's not for you or me to consider; it is for consumers and producers to figure out, based on the needs of the former and the resources of the latter.
Why didn't this happen with internet service providers? Why does one company always end up dominating e.g. cable internet in a given area? Why aren't they at war with DSL providers? Why does the price per megabyte of service delivery trend downward? The invisible hand of the market is at work.
We were discussing a fantasy AnCap scenario, so I'm not sure what you mean by "why didn't this happen". In the fantasy scenario, corporations derive their power by the voluntary patronage of individual people. Look at the most powerful companies that exist today, for example Microsoft. Their largest competitor by market share is Linux. There is even an almost religious adherence to one company or the other by the individual consumers. So of course, Linux and Microsoft should be at war, right? But no! They both built compatibility layers into their own products to run the other's software (WSL and WINE, respectively)! This was not done out of altruism; it was done for their benefit of their own userbases. Cooperation via free market, not war.
no you ancap "Would you consider [x] a smart use of resources?" is what I asked don't know, but I suspect a cartel all ancap scenarios are fantasy well under the present system microsoft cannot hire a PMC/mafia to shoot all Linux devs also this is a terrible example since Microsoft is a company and Linux a set of operating systems, apples and orangutans
It doesn't matter. The point still holds: capitalism implies a majority of wage-workers.
not to mention linux is the worst possible example you could use, coding opensource is literally communism open source devs working against the logic of market mechanisms is hardly proof of efficency of competition on the free market
What use is it to lie when your quote is right in front of us:
are you familiar with how language works? whereabouts on the spectrum are you? the 'consider' refers to different things in these two sentences. this changes the meaning of the sentence. maybe for clarity I could've written 'consider THE building of' for clarity but still so 5 redundant sets of infrastructure? is that optimal in the case of 6 companies competing on their own pipelines? behold the efficency of the free market. why not? it's simply an illustrative example. let's make it a little easier to understand: say there is a guy (1) who wants to build a competitor for M$ Windows. Billgates-05 finds out about his plan and chooses to eliminate him to avoid competition. He hires a hitman. Linus is dead. You killed him. Maybe 3 more heads grow but in the meantime M$ is making more money. it was the profitable decision. Billgates-05 is glad. Linux isn't a company. Linux kernel is opensource. The Linux foundation isn't directly in competition with M$ as a company. You should be familiar with all the anticompetitive things M$ has done over the years. Why didn't you use Apple as a counterpart to M$? much more alike How about we go back to coercive power instead of playing with these inane examples? How do you solve the problem of the group with the most guns taking over? Indeed, writing software to be used, modified and replicated at will for free. Some people write open source because they like it as well. Literally liberated labour. Am familiar.
Yeah that's exactly it, good job. Have a nice day!
thanks you too may the free market be with you
Wrong, read Kantrovich. and since I'm nice I'll type out his response to your idiocy from my physical copy of The best use of economic resources. 1/2
Imagine thinking to yourself "sure this person supports economic policies that are making the planet uninhabitable, likes politicians who would have thrown me in jail, and thinks my fundamental beliefs about the world are retarded, but I'd still date him." Never forget that women are class traitors and counter revolutionary by nature. brought to you by nazcel gang
Love transcends all! You'll see someday, I know it 💕
Do you think the 4 other parts of the set is like a emergency/backup system. If you think so then you are wrong. It's more likely that it would be two routes with exorbitant rents/tolls to use one of them. See Thatchers privatization of Railroads or Texas privatization of the roads compared to before the privatization.
I just want to assure you that I read your posts in their entirety, and that I understood exactly the scenario and problem being solved here, even though I immediately recognized this as Marxist theory of value and knew how I would respond before finishing even the 2nd sentence.
Consider that science occurs in the context of philosophy. The science of the ancient Greeks was couched in their deductive logic e.g. intuition over experiments. When the philosophy of the Scientific Method was articulated many centuries later, experimental science made deductive science obsolete. The modern world had arrived.
In much the same way, economics occurs in the context of business. The preconditions enumerated in any given economics problem are entirely due to the business context. A real life example: President Trump was given an estime of $500M - $1B to build an embassy in Jerusalem, which was the result of a considerable amount of economic analysis. But President Trump effected a business change: he decided to renovate an existing building instead. This made all the economic analysis that went into the first estimate obsolete.
This is why it is much more important to foster a business conducive environment than to get lost in analyses which are littered with "let us assume" statements, because really, all those assumptions are bullshit.
Re-read the ISP analogy and note the correlation between product typification and amount of infrastructure.
Being a girl (male) and posting under nazi flag is truly contradiction (as you put it - the opposites attract thing). Now I don't mean it as in "haha I used word nazi" sense, just I admit I made some assumptions. Truly interesting case.
It gets even worse. I also combine that with a heavy focus on the occult and mystical.
I make zero effort in trying to deny that the (majority) of not socialists, in particular those who identify as Christians (which is basically more incompatible with not socialism than being trans tbh) hate us. The pagan types tend to be a bit more open minded, and more in touch with occult things as well.
With dedicated work, I have yet to talk to one who doesn't eventually come to realize that any of their talking points about "muh LGBT people are incompatible with not socialism" are either false, rooted in Christian (and therefore Jewish) religious laws, or coming from illogical fears of the unknown, or in several notable cases to me, repression. If I'm able to talk to them regularly they always end up coming around to my point of view. Explaining how there have been examples of trasngenderism in virtually every culture across the planet since before recorded history is just the cherry.
Also, somewhat unrelated but can't think of a better place to make this point, I've noticed that a lot of Incel types are eggs and repressors.
From my experience extreme right wingers are usually either quiet and they won't push you unless you will push them with LGBT stuff and you are ok or they just don't accept you and your points even if you talk about cooking or whatever. Then there is this obnoxious category of incels who can't stop making disgusting sexual implications, whatever and who has time and energy to listen to that but they behave same to women (females). I don't make comment on your ideology and political views, I just know if you want to push as person like you through these people, it's like going through really tight forest or often hitting wall with head. I mean, is it worth it?
That's your economics. It isn't based off of empirical data like Kantrovichs method which had real world examples in which the plan was executed. It is quiet obvious with your rhetoric that you are simply handwaving the argument away with a guise of intellectual superiority and claiming you are on the side of science. I feel that I've already met you from somewhere on this website before. Just go back to >>>/liberty/ so I don't have to deal with your pseudoscientific nonsense.
If you're the GNU-poster from Zig Forums, then yes we've talked before. =] Thanks for the conversation, have a nice day.
I wasn't referring to this baby-tier lesson. Employers will pay you as little as they think they can. Henry Ford wanted them to be able to buy his cars, but here we are in a world of labor surplus, and you can see how much they don't want to provide healthcare etc.
Meh, but sage.
although i like neither ideologies, i unironically hope we get along despite our differences theres so much suffering in this world… im a weird hippy inside :(
How big is her business? Can it be compared with a multimillion dollar corporation? If not, she is not a capitalist, she is petty bourgeois at best.
It sounds like your definition of capitalism is loaded.
That's a class, capitalism is not a class lol Saged for double posting
If she 1. owns the building and 2. owns all the tools within, and 3. extracts surplus value from hired laborers, then she is a capitalist.
Yes I understand that words like "value" and "capitalist" mean different things here. It's your board, I guess I won't call her a "capitalist" since she only owns the tools she uses; the van is leased and she works alone. She would be called a capitalist in the real world though, and I'm referring to a conversation I had with her, not you kind people.
The argument has become a semantic one, but, speaking to your original point, there is a reason that capital cannot exist in a stateless society. That is because private property cannot exist without a state to enforce it. Without private property there can be no extraction of surplus value and thus no capital.
excuse me asshole, I was born a man and would rather remain that way.
although I know of one guy, friend of mine who became anarchist no labels after being ancap for the longest time. I worry though he might start adopting the liberalism that modern ancomm brings in with it. Mahkno would be furious with ancomm today.
maybe because they enjoy hatefucking? I dunno, not my position to judge. libertarian anything is usually full of hedonism.
they're hedonists who like to hate fuck?
Checks out What doesn't check out is her being ancom
all trannies are ancom, user. who knew a bourgeois individualist ideology could attract these perverse abominations
imagine such a weakling to not want a GF with a dick
What's a state?
What? They utterly despise each other, more than Idpolers and leftypol hate each other.
I think you mean mutualists. Mutualist and "anarcho" capitalists support, allegedly, free markets, so they might find some common ground.
It's easier to imagine a weakling that doesn't want a GF than a weakling who doesn't want a GF with a dick
Uh, care to explain?
1) American ISPs and internet infrastructure is a travesty and their shitty practices are an argument against markets if anything 2) you expect everyone to know everything to argue, especially something that is restricted information? if the ISPs form a cartel either outright or implicitly they'll hardly be yelling it on the rooftops. the fact that there is so little competition on the ISP market implies there are some anticompetitive forces, such as a cartel or a natural monopoly, in this case prob both of those
He's a tranny, new age nazis are disproportionately gay to a degree that makes genderqueer anarchists or tranny tankies look like a small minority.
I'm not sure about the specifics, but it has long been apparent that ISPs and related services in the USA function via local monopolies and cartels. Like the insurance industry… they draw up maps about which counties/states they're going to provide services in and the different providers each take their own areas and stay out of the other ones.
In years past the US engaged in trust-busting, merger prevention, and market protections meant to prevent and break up any kind of monopoly or cartel that might form. Now, they simply cheer it on because reasons.
>you can't prove it doesn't exist How convenient. Maybe you should take a basic class on logical argumentation, syllogisms, and fallacies.
well user, what would you consider a sufficent proof? do you think it reasonable that a person making a general argument should be able to discuss and dissect the specifics of any particular case relating to that general argument?
Sure let's get specific. A typical US ISP (cartel, right?) charges between $0.15 and $0.35 per Mbps, per month. I'm calculating using the higher, non-promotional prices.
The UK service also doesn't provide gigabit services (to any area) while the US ISP does (to many but not all areas, and expanding rapidly). There's no comparison, free market is in action, there is no cartel, and it is far superior to a regulated, utility-based system.
ok, now prove that your metrics of comparison are relevant and that your examples are comparable and that the anti-cartel regulation is an independent variable in this case
Proof of price as a relevant metric? In showing the lack of a cartel in a comparable market? Mate, you've lost the plot entirely at this point. Pic related is the best I can do, but I'd be willing to hear your explanation that the greedy bastard cartels are conspiring to deliver high quality service at great prices XD
are they? prove that they aren't actually providing poor quality service (and by all accounts, I've read they are) at much higher prices than they would in a truly competitive market
Sorry mate, the numbers don't lie. You can try to move the goalpost, but ISP doesn't have a lot of variables to control for (it's literally just electricity over a wire, and its the same equipment being used on both sides of the pond).