That’s interesting. Could this flavor simply be collectivism?
[/quote]
Certainly on the surface. I think it goes deeper than that though. Has anybody done a psychologocal analysis of a leftist?
Certainly on the surface. I think it goes deeper than that though. Has anybody done a psychologocal analysis of a leftist?
[/quote]
The unibomber did.
OK, in your (supposedly non-conflated) understanding (definition) of capitalism, who/what would stop you from voluntarily choosing communism, animalism, and/or door-knob fetishism provided that you leave all voluntary non-participants alone?
Z.
I realy do not like when people take each sentence and take it out of context and reply to it. It realy is difficult to formulate a response to such a disjointed attempt at an argument. It ends up dissecting in to several different conversations.
The basic definition of anarchism that is also commonly accepted is that it is a social-political system that is without a government. People can take other social-political theories that do actually require a form of government or centralization or non -voluntarism and paint it up how they like by combining it with the term anarchism. But realy you cannot have in practice a national social-political system of communism that is voluntary. This is not only due to the fact that not everyone will agree to share. If you do manage to convince a small area to conform to communism and it happens to not have a government you cannot take the system of anarchism and add it to your collectivist system and say it is anarchist-communism. If you remove government you are left with a free market, the natural political and social state of multiple parties is free market anarchism. So therefore anarchism is in fact anarcho-capitalism. The term anarcho-capitalism was just a buzz word realy.
So, you are a free market capitalist that prefers the state’s non-existence, then? Since your definition of capitalism necessitates the state, why not do yourself a favor and simply exclude the state from your definition?
After all, even by your definition, you seem to agree with (or at least fail to launch a reasonble objection to) every aspect of capitalism except for the state part which, you insist must be included. You’d save yourself, and others here, pages after pages of confusion.
Or, is the ‘state’ part an inextricalble component of capitalism’s definition? If so,why must that always be the case, and who says? Finally, isn’t this really your only point?
Z.
Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism. In a free market it is likely that individuals will engage in social political systems that you could call communism. But then i would not call that anarchist-communism. Anarcho-capitalism is called such because anarchy had been dissected by the marxists and then we had people coming forward with anarchist-socialism, anarchist-collectivism (have you seen that wikipedia page with every social-political theory you can thing of + anarchy listed?) etc. So as to not confuse and give people a clear understanding of the theories and philosophies the term anarcho-capitalism was developed. But from what i can see anarchy in its basic sense of the use of the word, is the same as anarcho-capitalism.
Nation in this sense is purely used in a term to describe a specific region, like a town or a city. It is not used in the political nationalist use of the word.
I was not intending to create a dichotomy, free market is voluntary interactions in its’ most basic form.
What kind of a market is capitalism, then, if not free? Or, in what ways is capitalism not a free market? Can you elaborate a response that does not involve the state or coercion of any other kind?
While at it, is communism a “free market”? If so, what (if not private property) is traded in such a “free market” and how (if not through voluntary exchange)?
Z.
“Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing.”
By few except An-caps/vulgar libertarians and vulgar liberals.Note vulgar is here not used as an insult but is part of Kevin Carsons phrase indictating naivety or shallowness.
“A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism.”
I disagree.Capitalism is something with a definite historic meaning.
" But then i would not call that anarchist-communism."
Why not?
“Anarcho-capitalism is called such because anarchy had been dissected by the marxists and then we had people coming forward with anarchist-socialism, anarchist-collectivism (have you seen that wikipedia page with every social-political theory you can thing of + anarchy listed?) etc. So as to not confuse and give people a clear understanding of the theories and philosophies the term anarcho-capitalism was developed.”
The problem is that it’s an ahistoric minority definition of capitalism and could be seen to benefit the defenders of the status quo more than defending anarchism or the free market.Furthermore An-cap has near zero historical precedence.
“But from what i can see anarchy in its basic sense of the use of the word, is the same as anarcho-capitalism.”
Only if you define capitalism as the free market (which is dishonest) then since anarchy would have a free market (which is true) since a free market exists in absence of statism meaning it’s pretty much synonymous with anarchy (true) then Capitalism is anarchy.
or in another way you say:-
Capitalism is the free market
anarchy would be a free market
therefore a free market is capitalist or anarchy is capitalist.
your first premise is dishonest because you conflate everything associated with capitalism together in one package assuming an absence of one element would not be a free market.
Has any social phenomenon (system, philosophy) historically existed outside the realm of (or dis-entagled from) a state? Hence, would you also propose that, say, Buddhism too must inextricably include the state in its definition?
Z.
What a pathetic and weak attempt at an ad hominiem, you have had the indecency of trying to cover up your attempt by stooping to a even lower level of ad hominem.
Communism has to require a form of central planning so technically it is never without a form of government, even if it was not on the national level. But I think forms of communism could exist freely in a free market system within a nation. A town could choose that system and if people did not like it they could leave that town. But i would not call that anarcho-communism, it could be called communism under anarchy, a town that decided to switch to communism could also be considered to be localism and communitism. Which further goes to prove my point, that all these quasi anarchist groups only create a further miss-understanding as to what anarchism is.
I thought i had explained the relationship terminology wise with regards to free market and capitalism:
“Capitalism and a free market are considered to be pretty much the same thing. A free market is used when referring exclusively to capitalism without a government, but it is still capitalism.”
Capitalism in the general mainstream use of the word is used when referring to trade of privately owned goods as well as everything else that can happen when goods are privately owned, with regards to economics.
I cannot see how a free market and socialism can co-exist. From what i have seen if you have socialism in a specific industry then you do not have a free market in that industry, the two are wholly incompatible.
you said that beautifily 100 points.
Not only that “wanting more” could NOT be “relaxed”, it is, in fact, inherent in the “humans act” axiom. Absent the desire to improve one’s situation, one needn’t even move a finger as that would remove them from the presumably “perfectly satiated” state they’re in. A human who doesn’t want more, doesn’t act, and vice versa.
Pleonexia, or greed, on the other hand, is something completely different (bolding is mine):
Just sayin’.
Z.
OK, let’s forget definitions. Absent the state, would you have anything against property (goods, commodities, machines, money, etc.) and labor (services) being privately owned and voluntarily exchanged between people?
Z.
Jack, you’re not going to get a marxist to use terms as we define them here.
Good luck though. 
Marx himself equivocated on this. At some junctures he describes a laissez-faire system; then he comments on a mercantalist system and lumps them together as one system.
Because capitalism doesn’t have cooperation? This is just a retarded argument and filled with fallacies. Markets run on cooperation and groups.
The main problem leftism has is the fact that it ignores human nature, or believes a collective will eliminate it.