• Cowbee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.

    Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.

    Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.

    • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the collective has to enforce collective ownership, isn’t that just a monopoly on violence again?

      Private ownership doesn’t require a collective, or a monopoly on violence. You only get to keep what you can defend.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If everyone has equal ownership, there is no "mono"poly.

        Private ownership requires a monopoly on violence to exist, if you can’t defend it there are no rights.

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have a gun. Try taking it from me.

          There are no laws saying I can’t have one, and there are no laws saying I can’t shoot you if you try to take it.

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, first of all, have you taken a look at our current society, and second of all, this is just a thought experiment to prove that anarcho-communism is pure fantasy, or at the very least not inevitable.

              • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Anarcho-Capitalism cannot exist, it would cease to exist the very second it did.

                Anarcho-Communism is a lofty goal, but is fully capable of existing.

                That’s the fundamental difference, what you consider to be Private Property simply wouldn’t be, it would either be personal property or you wouldn’t have it. It is only through threat of violence that one can own the products of tools despite not doing the labor.

                • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Okay, as frustrating as it is to have you simply repeat your initial statements despite any arguments made to the contrary, it seems as though your point hinges on the distinction between personal and private property.

                  However, I don’t see how private property couldn’t be maintained as long as you have the ability to defend it. Hiring guards for instance does not constitute a monopoly on violence, since others can do so as well. In an anarcho-communist scenario, for instance, if the workers want to maintain control of the means of production after ousting the owner, they would potentially have to post guards as well, or the property owner could hire a bunch of mercenaries to take the property back.

                  The long and short if this is, I don’t see how anarchy would favor either the creation of capitalist or communist structures of organization. Most likely, there would be both, and survival would be a matter of who is better at organizing.

                  • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There are numerous critical flaws of what you just said.

                    1. Why would Guards support you? If you become a robber-baron, hiring muscle to protect your factories from the Workers, you have to deal with the fact that either you don’t actually control and own your factories, the mercenaries do, or accept that you have become a micro-state.

                    2. What is preventing any of these micro-states from absorbing others and becoming a full state? Nothing.

                    3. Why would anyone willingly work for you, unless it already reached the point where you are essentially a state? They could make more money simply by working cooperatively.

                    Private Property cannot maintain itself unless you have a monopoly on violence and thus a state.

                    Cooperatively owned property, on the other hand, supports itself and is maintained cooperatively. There are no avenues to realistically overturn it.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, absolutely. How would one win over with individual ownership? One dude with a couple guns vs an entire community?

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then we gradually dismantle corps by eliminating regulatory capture, IP and limited liability over time and we all win.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dont know, let’s ask Chinese feudal lords how their ability to enforce private property went after the CPC stopped enforcing their private property rights for them like the old government did.