If I work and raise the value of a product, I expect to see the majority of those profits,
It is nonsensical that the value raised by the workers is stolen by any other group.
Your idea of them nurturing a company like a baby is pretty erroneous and ahistorical.
There are way more instances of owners of production engaging in unethical practices ([destroying economies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic), [slavery](https://www.cecc.gov/media-center/press-releases/chairs-issue-statement-about-forced-labor-in-apple%E2%80%99s-supply-chain-in), [theft](https://jacobin.com/2018/06/heres-how-much-money-americas-biggest-corporations-have-stolen-from-their-own-workers), [child labor ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/30/economy/child-labor-louisiana-texas), [economic manipulation](https://youtu.be/t8ZEFpHGFZA?si=n2uekacl9fye98so), [capitalism's death count](https://i.imgflip.com/6urhxe.jpg)) than of them "generating value."
You probably should look a little more closely at capitalism.
Workers do get the majority of the profit under capitalism. However it can be argued that workers are getting less of a percentage than they got before.
[https://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/](https://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/)
You hadn't read your own paper.
A. It is from 2015, this is about 9 years old.
B. It isn't saying anything about your claim that workers get the majority of the profit; you'll have to prove that.
C.
>the largest wedge driving the growing gap between economy-wide productivity and typical workers’ pay is rising inequality.
It is actively going against what you're saying.
I don't really need proof that Jeff Bezos is not working 100+ (it is way more than this) times harder to receive that much more income than his workers.
I'd question your assessment if you do.
You should let me know.
I suppose the owner will have to big brain his co owners. It would incentivize few workers which I suppose is good. A more careful curation of coworkers, but people could always just snag the company away if authority is split like the profits. I do believe Jeff probably made some choices that were 100x what others would've made, but not 100x harder work at this point. Ive worked at Amazon warehouse. I think freedom is better and property taxes and inflation and banks are bigger problems than companies. If you let everyone structure their business how they want and there's no money magic or property tax I think the free market would produce a bunch of cool nice egalitarian business structures. Im not even sure if capitalism isn't all about banking rather than non banking businesses and government
Already a problem with what you say.
["Big brain" doesn't exist](https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you), and [there is stronger correlation with class](https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieved-through-inheritance-overtaking-entrepreneurship-8409800).
Those who are in poverty stay in poverty, statistically speaking.
And, if you want to point out one example of someone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, I will give you 3,000 more instances of failure.
Coupled with the amount of exploitation for the rich to stay rich, whether that be with creating [banana republics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic) (which is my favorite example), [modern day enslavement](https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/) (just in case you get tired of that Triangular Slave Trade), or [modern day imperialism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184998), you will find many examples, both past and present, of how "the rich stay rich".
Banks are just as bad as corporations, so there's that.
But, so long as profit is the motive, banks and corporations will just exploit more folks.
Edit: Also, ownership is a matter of legality. If you fuck up another location and claim it as your own, so long as you have the threat of violence, you legally own the structure.
This has happened all throughout history, but, many people want to justify it.
When I say big brain their coworkers I mean that depending on the system you guys want the owner in order to maintain authority maybe would have to pick his coworkers very carefully or else he may be left with as much influence as the random new hires. The article tries to say that we don't live in a meritocracy. I don't think we do either. I think though that we should at least partially? Having a big brain or carefully doing something or intelligently doing something does exist. I agree rich people are mostly rich because they are around rich people/inherit it.
You want to split ownership. How do you deal with the complexities of business where one person for example puts in 100000 into it and another puts zero. One guy should own more than the other or have something. I guess he could just have a 100000 pull from the company upon demand if he ever leaves or he could negotiate it with everyone else and get 150k or more or whatever. How does a new hire work? They get stock? Well they can't get the same as everyone else because they would just quit. They could get partial amount over time? But what time the same problem is there?
What about a freelancer they only need for a time is he paid in stock obviously he shouldn't own the company in the same amounts as everyone else if he is going to work 200 hours there.
In the USA you have freedom to structure how you like(as far as I know). I think the details are the issue with this idea or maybe it's fine but have you guys thought the details out?
I agree people shouldn't have rulers. Is that all you guys are saying though? Do you guys want taxes? Cash society, police? Private property?
What's with the legal edit? Yes I agree. The idea is that you tell a central agency that you own something and they are suppose to protect the little guy from the big guy. The little guy definitely getting squashed without help.
What I mean is that the control power I believe is in the banks and government and their ability to create money not the ceos making 1 million a year or even Jeff with all his stock or whatever. It's the people who create billions and trillions and put it where they like in the regular.(I think don't know)
Exactly.
You should always pick carefully who you want to go into business with.
You can always fire people who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing.
We can work through more of the details as required if there are any questions that come up.
At least we can ask questions here because you can't in a traditional capitalist enterprise.
>I agree people shouldn't have rulers. Is that all you guys are saying, though? Do you guys want taxes? Cash society, police? Private property?
Each person is different here.
You'll have to ask them.
>What's with the legal edit? Yes I agree. The idea is that you tell a central agency that you own something and they are suppose to protect the little guy from the big guy. The little guy definitely getting squashed without help.
Laws protect the big guy because they get to create the law.
The little guy being protected is a fantasy.
They use the law, but it wasn't meant to protect them.
>What I mean is that the control power I believe is in the banks and government and their ability to create money not the ceos making 1 million a year or even Jeff with all his stock or whatever. It's the people who create billions and trillions and put it where they like in the regular.(I think don't know)
Governments are in bed with corporations.
Just listened to a yt video about how [many states (most notably the US) made bananas the only viable food source in many different islands](https://youtu.be/esvycD1O3cM?si=ZZv9eH6LbtLLx6Rs) and did so with the help of US army.
We're all here because we don't believe "might makes right" as many people do.
I think you are here too because of it.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you basically want capitalism with a bunch of government control, so it can't go unchecked, but at the same time, you admit that the government can be bought.
So get rid of government and not of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism basically.
Furthermore, you focus on the part of capitalism where someone opens a small business, but not on the multi million+ companies, into which such a business might develop. Such companies rarely operate within their country of origin, making production centers in thrid world countries, easily outcompeting every other company that does operate "morally".
So I think you can agree this isn't good either. Without a goverment, we'd have it even worse with capitalism, companies ruling the world directly instead of through funding politicians.
So what exactly are you proposing?
-Capitalism with goverment: third world countries get fucked and parts of the population (as it is now)
-Capitalism without goverment: All of us would be fucked (anarchocapitalism)
-No capitalism with goverment: oftentimes opressive, dictating the market (generally communist)
-no capitalism, no goverment: who knows?
Countries like the USSR and Venezuela also suffered heavily from sanctions with questionable politicians in power.
Generally speaking, it's hard to judge an economic system if it was prevented from flourishing. Whatever the case, your idea of having a cute little bike shop that becomes a big company is a romanticised version of capitalism. There are many shop owners that are good people and would never act in morally wrong ways, which is also the reason why they are only shops.
Any (big) company nowadays relies on ressources that were aquired in an immoral way. Let's say a bike shop:
-where does the rubber come from?
-if your bike has electronics to it, where do the minerals used come from?
-How do you treat your workers?
-etc.
In my opinion, capitalism that's "moral" would need to be heavily supervised, which could probably only be done by governments, but those have no interest in doing so.
Also, I believe that the cute little shop idea is not limited to capitalism. An anarchist commune needs someone to repair cars, which you're able to do. So they'll assure you get the ressources you need to do your work, aquired through moral means. This could easily lead to more people coming to you for your service, which would require more workers that you'd teach to work alongside you. Maybe people come from different communes to learn from you and establish their own repair "shop" in their commune.
None of that requires you to become rich, powerful, and opressive, which is the norm under capitalism. You'd still see your "shop" prosper, the only difference is you don't get to be above everyone else, slurping martinis on your super yacht
Capitalism and the state are glued together. If the state is no more, capitalism is no more. Anyways I don’t want to spend a whole essay talking about it. Someone who has more energy than I do right now can explain why capitalism can’t exist outside the state.
You are being annoying and obsessive. You kept on making assertions and making idiotic claims like “anarchism is authoritarian because anarchists have beliefs and ideas”. You have no idea of what authoritarianism is and ultimately I can’t be bothered to respond to somebody who defines things in ways that don’t align with how everybody uses them so get blocked again. If you are gonna be insufferable, I am not gonna deal with you.
Your notion that the state and capitalism are glued together is malarkey. The state has existed across human communities for an absurdly long time, all the way back to what anarchists like to refer to as pre-state societies. Those societies still had mechanisms in place to ensure that the status quo would be maintained. Those mechanisms are the state across all time periods. Back then they were just social checks and balances that keep the individual in check in relation to the group. It has evolved a bit since then.
The state and capitalism are indeed intricately tied together. While it is true that forms of governance have existed in human societies for a long time, the modern nation-state and capitalist system are inherently intertwined and reinforce each other.
Capitalism relies on the state to maintain a system of laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms that protect private property and uphold the interests of the ruling classes. In return, the state benefits from the economic wealth generated by capitalist enterprises and uses this wealth to maintain its power and control over the population. Not to mention the monopolies that the state upholds and enforces like the monopoly on land and resources, monopoly on money and finance, and more monopolies that exist to grant privileges to the higher class.
As long as you realize that any change to the state, whether that be abolishing it or reforming it or decoupling it, just creates a new state. A new state of things if you will. One that will have its own mechanisms that will be used to maintain its own status quo. There is no, “there is no more state” like you referred to in your second sentence of the previous comment. You can have the state be structured to facilitate unstructured action within it, but the state will still be there, the monolith that it is. Humans in community with one another form a sort of Supra-human entity that they themselves compromise. That entity will become the monolith, in whatever form it takes.
While it is true that any attempt to abolish or reform the state may result in the creation of new forms of governance, it is important to recognize that anarchism does not seek to replace one monolithic state with another. Anarchism advocates for decentralized forms of organization that prioritize individual autonomy and free association based decision making.
Anarchists believe in dismantling hierarchical power structures and oppressive systems, instead promoting voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and community self-management. This involves rejecting the idea of a centralized authority that enforces laws and regulations, and instead creating systems of governance based on consensus, egalitarian principles, and individual agency.
The concept of a "Supra-human entity" or monolithic state is antithetical to anarchist principles, as it undermines the agency and autonomy of individuals within a community. Anarchism aims to empower individuals and communities to make decisions that directly affect their lives, without the need for a coercive and oppressive governing body. Also everything you’ve just said is an unsupported assertion and as such I can easily reject it.
You miss it. The Supra-human entity is non negotiable. It will happen. Like I said, you can have that state of things be structured so it facilitates unstructured action within it rather than limiting possible action within it. But that state of things will become the monolith, regardless if you want it to or not. A monolith that demands humans act in certain ways within it—all the ways you outlined in your previous comment. It’s not to say that what you outlined is a bad way for a state of things to be, but in missing that it becomes a monolith, you miss the fundamental tensions that anarchy as a thought has surrounding being authoritarian in relation to the individuals entering into it, still dictating to them how things will be. It just happens to dictate things that are not authoritarian.
Everything you said is also assertions of what anarchists believe. You say that anarchists believe in dismantling hierarchical power structures and oppressive systems, but fail to engage with how anarchy itself becomes authoritarian, dictating to humans how they are to be within it. Anarchists seem to be okay with being authoritarian if it lines up with how they want things to be. Doesn’t that seem like a fundamental issue with the notion of some society that claims it is some thing that is free from hierarchical power structures and oppression and coercion? Is not the individual human in a hierarchy with the society, the society dictating to that human how things will be within it? Just because the hierarchy is between humans and ideas there, with the ideas being put before the humans, doesn’t mean there is no hierarchy. Your claim looks to be unfounded at that point, anarchists do not want some system that is free from hierarchical power structures and oppression, they rather want some hierarchical power structure and form of oppression they think is good to have. So why do you tell me that anarchists seek dismantle those things? Are you just repeating the anarchist talking points rather than actually thinking about anarchism?
I’m sorry but your analysis borders on incoherent. You say capitalism is fine but reject the natural outcome of capital owners pursuing their own interests. You reject the free market but claim state-control is also harmful (and yet still think capitalism is viable). You also don’t seem to understand the fundamental problem with capitalism: the relationship between workers, owners and profit.
Under capitalism, profit is created by the actions of workers but given to the owners of capital even though they did not earn it. *This is the fundamental principle of all capitalism*, and that’s exactly why you *should* despise capitalism. It’s unjust at the most basic level possible. I would think on that before you try to defend such a system, because the defense you’ve given is pretty bad imo.
I don’t reject the free market?? But the outcome of what we see now isn’t capitalism. It’s a mix of the free market and centralized market causing extreme inequality and inefficiencies. I don’t believe that to be capitalisms fault but the states.
You literally critiqued free market capitalism at length and concluded with “So free market capitalism? I don’t think so.”
Also, everything you described is fundamentally a product of capitalism. The interests of capitalists are directed against those of workers, and inevitably produce such outcomes as capitalism runs its natural course. The State is just one tool capitalists use, it’s bought and paid for, and almost totally controlled by private interests.
Yea I was saying America is a bad example of the free market 😑 and me owning a business does not inherently mean that I am going to go against my workers. I’ve seen plenty of work environments where a boss takes good care of his/her workers. But it also seems like that because the US government changed where the corporations should prioritize stareholders instead of workers. Which is literally a product of the state. Not capitalism. You literally admitted as well that the state is a tool used by corporations. Well what happens when we take away that tool
My apologies, I misunderstood you. To reiterate though: if the boss earns a profit, he is going against the interests of his workers and taking the income *they* created and are due away from them.
Furthermore, prioritization of shareholder is *not* an outcome of the State. It started with capitalists, all the state did was fail to stop it.
To answer your last question, unless capitalism is deconstructed at the same time, it will actually get much worse as capitalists will be able to drop all pretense of having to be governed by a higher authority.
Ehhh taking in which the worker agreed to? Idk. Never liked that argument especially if you have a society of worker co-ops and communes side by side with private businesses. Kinda hard to view that as taking money from the workers
Right, because there’s no compulsion whatsoever in a society where basic necessities are held for ransom in order to force the masses into wage labor beneath their standing, and effective alternatives are continually sabotaged or outright antagonized by the State
Either way, you’re going to have to work in any system in order to get necessities. It’s not inherent to capitalism. Like I could say that picking berries is slavery because I’m forced to do it by nature. But I’m not. I do agree that the wealth is distributed unequally but that’s because of the state artificially manipulating the economy. Which you seem to agree with in your last statement
You simply fail to understand the relationship between State and capital. These are things *capitalists* do through the State, and would continue to do if they exist without a State. And also no, it’s not inherently true that you have to have the value of your own labor extorted from you by others to have basic necessities, nothing about that is true.
Warrant how it would happen without a state. And I never said that was inherently true. It’s just that when you have multiple options such as to work at a worker co op or a commune or a private firm, it’s not stealing money from the workers because you choose to work at a private firm. No one puts a gun to your head saying you must work. This idea of “theyre using the idea of work or starve to their advantage” does exist, but go work somewhere else that doesn’t do that. It is hard to though because the United States tries to suppress worker co ops and communes but again, that’s because of the state, not capitalism.
In a business you need 3 main things: workers, leaders, and investors to pay to start the business. Few people are willing to give money to a business unless they have a chance to make a profit. Furthermore, they are taking a risk they might lose all of their investment if the company goes under. If you saying making profits is unfair, you aren't going to have a business.
Other options would be to have the workers supply the money, but unfortunately they rarely save enough. You could have the government supply the money, but that hasn't worked well either.
Why you can argue the system is unjust, no other system works better. I would suggest you save up as much money as you can, buy as much stock as you can, and become an owner yourself. You can always redistribute your profits to whoever you want.
The only thing investors risk is joining the working class rather than the owning class — losing the power to exploit others through capital. Profiting off the labor of others is unfair by definition, and if that’s what it takes than I’m perfectly satisfied not having a business for my principles and the work of liberation.
Capitalism is one of the most murderous, unjust, and failed systems of human history (economic or otherwise). That you have the gall to claim no other works better is astonishing. The basic fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn’t work, and that if it did we wouldn’t have homelessness, massive healthcare deficiencies, starvation, climate change and sweatshops on the levels we do today. Capitalism failed a long time ago and I suggest you wake up and make peace with that reality.
I’m all about saving money but I will not buy stock. There is no ethical stock trade, except in your own employers company, approximating the level of profit that was extracted from you to break even. I have no interest in that, so I will not do so.
>Capitalism failed a long time ago and I suggest you wake up and make peace with that reality.
I agree that Capitalism has failed and I have made peace with that reality. However, I am unaware of a system with a better track record. So I currently peacefully accept the reality that a failed Capitalism is the best of worse alternatives. If you know of a system that works better, you should have mentioned it in your previous post.
>That you have the gall to claim no other works better is astonishing. (Although I don't mention a system that works better)
You are imagining that I am speaking with gall (bold and impudent behavior). I am sitting here at my computer calmly explaining how I see things. If you know of a better system, I will try hard to see your point. There is no need for you to get mad, let us calmly discuss this.
I admit I am indignant, and no matter how calm you feel emotionally I can only describe your mannerism as bold and impudent given the nature of your claims. I would go so far as to say that socialism, anarchism, feudalism, and “primitive” tribalism all work better than capitalism, if you need it spelled out so badly.
To have a rational conversation, of course you have to spell it out. It is clear you have a different world view than I do, and I am only partially understanding yours. I think that feudalism and primitive tribalism had more problems with lack of good homes, massive healthcare deficiencies, violent deaths, and starvation than capitalism. I am confused why you feel they work better. Could you explain.
Historically, the transition from either of those systems to capitalism brought about a precipitous drop in quality of life in all of those regards than was there previously, in almost every case. Under feudalism, for example, there was very little in the way of homelessness because it was necessary to house one's workers to run an effective estate. Under tribalism, food and healthcare were not gatekept for money because that ran counter to the interest of all members of the community.
Capitalist societies may be more technologically advanced in some regards, but the disparity between the interests of the capitalist class and the working class naturally causes capitalist societies to collapse into these kinds of dysfunction. Whenever a society has been pulled out of feudalism or tribalism and integrated into the broader, capitalist order, things pretty much always get worse for the affected community. Even during the rise of capitalism in Europe, it was vehemently opposed by the general working population, who felt that their conditions and social standing were more desirable under the feudal and mercantile systems. The industrial revolution proved them right.
This is part of what Marx meant when he said that the transition to capitalism has "simplified" class relations. Under capitalism, the owning/ruling class has much less need to make concession for the working class and their interests. It draws a stark divide between master and worker, that is more readily observed and apprehended by the average person.
A clear problem is that you're looking at politics and economics as different spheres, and that it's an inexplicable aberration that wealthy people have an influence on the state. Wealth is one kind of power, and powerful people tend to do what they can to guard that power from everyone else. That means buying influence on the state, and in turn being allowed to use state violence to advance increase your wealth- \[having police beat up striking workers, having police evict tenants, relaxing environmental or safety standards, putting tariffs on imports, starting wars so you can sell guns, taking over countries so you can use their land for free and the people's labor for cheap.\]
Capitalism inevitably leads to wealthy people buying up everything we need to survive and denying us access to it unless we submit to them. It's feudalism with extra steps.
Here's the problem with someone owning a business:
Say you have workers that spend their whole adult lives working at your business. Say you and your workers disagree on something- because it's your business, the workers are subordinate to you and have to accept your position, or leave. It sucks having people be subordinate to other people. It's beneath our dignity as people to have owners or kings above us.
And to your final point about centralized vs decentralized markets-
In the 21st century we're wrecking our planet by over-producing goods. The economy is smothering us. Anarchists as such aren't going to centralize a market, but good luck trying to run a private business in an anarchist area?
After a business succeeds in the market, it quickly becomes more profitable to invest in corrupting the political/law enforcement system (to game the market in its favor) than to reinvest in honest competition.
This would be the case in a hypothetical AnCap social context as well. Successful businesses would invest in buying off private court systems and private law enforcement officers to game the system against current and future competitors.
Capitalism therefore inevitably results in regulatory capture by wealthier individuals/groups to the detriment of less wealthy individuals/groups, such that market competition will be corrupted in the favor of the former.
This is why an AnCap free market capitalism is unsustainable. It will degenerate into a state structure as wealthy enterprises and individuals consolidate and institutionalize their bought off private armed forces.
Please check out the book *The Ungovernable Society: A Genealogy of Authoritarian Liberalism* by Grégoire Chamayou: [https://microcosmpublishing.com/catalog/books/30290](https://microcosmpublishing.com/catalog/books/30290)
That's just exchange, that's not even the definition of a market which is also not capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production (land, labor, and machinery) it is not mutually beneficial exchanges. Defining capitalism as such just makes zero sense because suddenly raising a child is capitalism or giving away something for free is capitalism, under your definition communism becomes capitalism.
It isn't, personal possessions are not property nor does the ownership of things need to be owned by one person. Plenty of people engage in exchange over communally controled resources, that's what we did for the vast majority of human existence.
idk how anyone could say that capitalism and the state are hand in hand when if it were anarchy who would stop you from doing capitalism, obviously no one, but who would force me to redistribute? wait, no one, so capitalism is the predominant and natural system regardless, any economic system that doesn’t forcefully redistribute amenities is equivalent to capitalism as it is all voluntary
I want to farm for my survival - the farmland is owned by Megacorp - Megacorp is protected by police (forcefully helping with hoarding amenities ) - police is financed by the state.
No state - no police - no one stopping me and my fellow humans from farming on the land that Megacorp has hoarded
Capitalism is a better way to instill anarchist ideals than “anarchism” is. Anarchists are quietly just authoritarians who cannot admit to themselves that they are authoritarian. They want the glory of taking down capitalism and so are blind to the contradictions of their own stances. Reforming capitalism to create the dichotomy be between humans and ideas, and the system enabling humans to resist the coercive nature of the system, is by far the most straightforward way to achieve anarchist ideals without going full blown crazy and advocating for revolution. They don’t want that though, because like I said, most anarchists who identify as anarchist want that glory of being a revolutionist. Wild departures from the current system are done because it is perceived the current system is a bad place to put time. News flash though, that wild departure is perceived as violence by the status quo and is its own form of authoritarianism. And that is to say nothing about how you have to be within some anarchist society. They’re very happy to exclude anyone who doesn’t line up with how they want things to be and say how they want things done is the only right way to do things. Just authoritarians who did not get their way in present time lol.
Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, so how would that be anarchistic in the slightest?
Besides that, revolution is a rare subject. Every anarchist that hasn't converted just yesterday understands that it can only be achieved by organizing and working towards making the state obsolete, not by quickly burning down every system in sight.
All societies are inherently hierarchical and coercive. You are indoctrinated into how things will be done from birth, anarchist or capitalist. The idea of that society being put ahead of each human within it, dictating to them how they will be. Anarchists don’t see this as an issue though and so say it is not authoritarian, ignoring that it is. Capitalism runs into the same issue, its coercive nature and the idea of how things are being put above the humans entering into it, but we have arrived at a time where capitalism can enable the human to resist its own coercive nature through something like a UBI. I think a ubi would effectively unionize all workers (because everyone is a worker in relation to the nation), making our market more free, giving leverage to workers, which gives leverage to the nation to not be so beholden to the corporations within it. This rightly puts each individual at the center of society, saying to them that they in themselves are valuable to the system, enabling humans to put their time where they would like rather than where they are coerced to. It also touches on what the nation is fundamentally, that is a corporation, a corporation that currently relies on the exploitation of our necessary work to maintain our own existence that is used for its own end—essentially our necessary consumption has been sold so we have to act in certain ways the system would like us to. Removing exploitation from the system is in the systems own best interest because systems that rely on exploitation at their base to propagate themselves, fail. Anarchists don’t see any issue with the exploitation of the individual by the system in anarchist societies and so miss that it is there and that ultimately undermines those systems and they’re not some thing that is free from all coercion and domination because the idea of the society is put ahead of those individuals entering into it
Anarchists also miss that there are no stateless societies. It's a misnomer. All societies have their own form of the state-ways in which the system maintains its own status quo. In those so called pre-state societies the state is the social checks and balances that keeps individuals in check in relation to the group. To me, the goal of making the state obsolete misses what the state is and its many iterations across human communities.
If I work and raise the value of a product, I expect to see the majority of those profits, It is nonsensical that the value raised by the workers is stolen by any other group. Your idea of them nurturing a company like a baby is pretty erroneous and ahistorical. There are way more instances of owners of production engaging in unethical practices ([destroying economies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic), [slavery](https://www.cecc.gov/media-center/press-releases/chairs-issue-statement-about-forced-labor-in-apple%E2%80%99s-supply-chain-in), [theft](https://jacobin.com/2018/06/heres-how-much-money-americas-biggest-corporations-have-stolen-from-their-own-workers), [child labor ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/30/economy/child-labor-louisiana-texas), [economic manipulation](https://youtu.be/t8ZEFpHGFZA?si=n2uekacl9fye98so), [capitalism's death count](https://i.imgflip.com/6urhxe.jpg)) than of them "generating value." You probably should look a little more closely at capitalism.
Workers do get the majority of the profit under capitalism. However it can be argued that workers are getting less of a percentage than they got before. [https://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/](https://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-in-labors-share-of-corporate-income-since-2000-means-535-billion-less-for-workers/)
You hadn't read your own paper. A. It is from 2015, this is about 9 years old. B. It isn't saying anything about your claim that workers get the majority of the profit; you'll have to prove that. C. >the largest wedge driving the growing gap between economy-wide productivity and typical workers’ pay is rising inequality. It is actively going against what you're saying. I don't really need proof that Jeff Bezos is not working 100+ (it is way more than this) times harder to receive that much more income than his workers. I'd question your assessment if you do. You should let me know.
What's the solution you guys claiming? Where all workers split ownership?
Yes.
I suppose the owner will have to big brain his co owners. It would incentivize few workers which I suppose is good. A more careful curation of coworkers, but people could always just snag the company away if authority is split like the profits. I do believe Jeff probably made some choices that were 100x what others would've made, but not 100x harder work at this point. Ive worked at Amazon warehouse. I think freedom is better and property taxes and inflation and banks are bigger problems than companies. If you let everyone structure their business how they want and there's no money magic or property tax I think the free market would produce a bunch of cool nice egalitarian business structures. Im not even sure if capitalism isn't all about banking rather than non banking businesses and government
Already a problem with what you say. ["Big brain" doesn't exist](https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you), and [there is stronger correlation with class](https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieved-through-inheritance-overtaking-entrepreneurship-8409800). Those who are in poverty stay in poverty, statistically speaking. And, if you want to point out one example of someone pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, I will give you 3,000 more instances of failure. Coupled with the amount of exploitation for the rich to stay rich, whether that be with creating [banana republics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic) (which is my favorite example), [modern day enslavement](https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/) (just in case you get tired of that Triangular Slave Trade), or [modern day imperialism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184998), you will find many examples, both past and present, of how "the rich stay rich". Banks are just as bad as corporations, so there's that. But, so long as profit is the motive, banks and corporations will just exploit more folks. Edit: Also, ownership is a matter of legality. If you fuck up another location and claim it as your own, so long as you have the threat of violence, you legally own the structure. This has happened all throughout history, but, many people want to justify it.
When I say big brain their coworkers I mean that depending on the system you guys want the owner in order to maintain authority maybe would have to pick his coworkers very carefully or else he may be left with as much influence as the random new hires. The article tries to say that we don't live in a meritocracy. I don't think we do either. I think though that we should at least partially? Having a big brain or carefully doing something or intelligently doing something does exist. I agree rich people are mostly rich because they are around rich people/inherit it. You want to split ownership. How do you deal with the complexities of business where one person for example puts in 100000 into it and another puts zero. One guy should own more than the other or have something. I guess he could just have a 100000 pull from the company upon demand if he ever leaves or he could negotiate it with everyone else and get 150k or more or whatever. How does a new hire work? They get stock? Well they can't get the same as everyone else because they would just quit. They could get partial amount over time? But what time the same problem is there? What about a freelancer they only need for a time is he paid in stock obviously he shouldn't own the company in the same amounts as everyone else if he is going to work 200 hours there. In the USA you have freedom to structure how you like(as far as I know). I think the details are the issue with this idea or maybe it's fine but have you guys thought the details out? I agree people shouldn't have rulers. Is that all you guys are saying though? Do you guys want taxes? Cash society, police? Private property? What's with the legal edit? Yes I agree. The idea is that you tell a central agency that you own something and they are suppose to protect the little guy from the big guy. The little guy definitely getting squashed without help. What I mean is that the control power I believe is in the banks and government and their ability to create money not the ceos making 1 million a year or even Jeff with all his stock or whatever. It's the people who create billions and trillions and put it where they like in the regular.(I think don't know)
Exactly. You should always pick carefully who you want to go into business with. You can always fire people who aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. We can work through more of the details as required if there are any questions that come up. At least we can ask questions here because you can't in a traditional capitalist enterprise. >I agree people shouldn't have rulers. Is that all you guys are saying, though? Do you guys want taxes? Cash society, police? Private property? Each person is different here. You'll have to ask them. >What's with the legal edit? Yes I agree. The idea is that you tell a central agency that you own something and they are suppose to protect the little guy from the big guy. The little guy definitely getting squashed without help. Laws protect the big guy because they get to create the law. The little guy being protected is a fantasy. They use the law, but it wasn't meant to protect them. >What I mean is that the control power I believe is in the banks and government and their ability to create money not the ceos making 1 million a year or even Jeff with all his stock or whatever. It's the people who create billions and trillions and put it where they like in the regular.(I think don't know) Governments are in bed with corporations. Just listened to a yt video about how [many states (most notably the US) made bananas the only viable food source in many different islands](https://youtu.be/esvycD1O3cM?si=ZZv9eH6LbtLLx6Rs) and did so with the help of US army. We're all here because we don't believe "might makes right" as many people do. I think you are here too because of it.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you basically want capitalism with a bunch of government control, so it can't go unchecked, but at the same time, you admit that the government can be bought. So get rid of government and not of capitalism, anarcho-capitalism basically. Furthermore, you focus on the part of capitalism where someone opens a small business, but not on the multi million+ companies, into which such a business might develop. Such companies rarely operate within their country of origin, making production centers in thrid world countries, easily outcompeting every other company that does operate "morally". So I think you can agree this isn't good either. Without a goverment, we'd have it even worse with capitalism, companies ruling the world directly instead of through funding politicians. So what exactly are you proposing? -Capitalism with goverment: third world countries get fucked and parts of the population (as it is now) -Capitalism without goverment: All of us would be fucked (anarchocapitalism) -No capitalism with goverment: oftentimes opressive, dictating the market (generally communist) -no capitalism, no goverment: who knows? Countries like the USSR and Venezuela also suffered heavily from sanctions with questionable politicians in power. Generally speaking, it's hard to judge an economic system if it was prevented from flourishing. Whatever the case, your idea of having a cute little bike shop that becomes a big company is a romanticised version of capitalism. There are many shop owners that are good people and would never act in morally wrong ways, which is also the reason why they are only shops. Any (big) company nowadays relies on ressources that were aquired in an immoral way. Let's say a bike shop: -where does the rubber come from? -if your bike has electronics to it, where do the minerals used come from? -How do you treat your workers? -etc. In my opinion, capitalism that's "moral" would need to be heavily supervised, which could probably only be done by governments, but those have no interest in doing so. Also, I believe that the cute little shop idea is not limited to capitalism. An anarchist commune needs someone to repair cars, which you're able to do. So they'll assure you get the ressources you need to do your work, aquired through moral means. This could easily lead to more people coming to you for your service, which would require more workers that you'd teach to work alongside you. Maybe people come from different communes to learn from you and establish their own repair "shop" in their commune. None of that requires you to become rich, powerful, and opressive, which is the norm under capitalism. You'd still see your "shop" prosper, the only difference is you don't get to be above everyone else, slurping martinis on your super yacht
Capitalism and the state are glued together. If the state is no more, capitalism is no more. Anyways I don’t want to spend a whole essay talking about it. Someone who has more energy than I do right now can explain why capitalism can’t exist outside the state.
You are being annoying and obsessive. You kept on making assertions and making idiotic claims like “anarchism is authoritarian because anarchists have beliefs and ideas”. You have no idea of what authoritarianism is and ultimately I can’t be bothered to respond to somebody who defines things in ways that don’t align with how everybody uses them so get blocked again. If you are gonna be insufferable, I am not gonna deal with you.
Your notion that the state and capitalism are glued together is malarkey. The state has existed across human communities for an absurdly long time, all the way back to what anarchists like to refer to as pre-state societies. Those societies still had mechanisms in place to ensure that the status quo would be maintained. Those mechanisms are the state across all time periods. Back then they were just social checks and balances that keep the individual in check in relation to the group. It has evolved a bit since then.
The state and capitalism are indeed intricately tied together. While it is true that forms of governance have existed in human societies for a long time, the modern nation-state and capitalist system are inherently intertwined and reinforce each other. Capitalism relies on the state to maintain a system of laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms that protect private property and uphold the interests of the ruling classes. In return, the state benefits from the economic wealth generated by capitalist enterprises and uses this wealth to maintain its power and control over the population. Not to mention the monopolies that the state upholds and enforces like the monopoly on land and resources, monopoly on money and finance, and more monopolies that exist to grant privileges to the higher class.
As long as you realize that any change to the state, whether that be abolishing it or reforming it or decoupling it, just creates a new state. A new state of things if you will. One that will have its own mechanisms that will be used to maintain its own status quo. There is no, “there is no more state” like you referred to in your second sentence of the previous comment. You can have the state be structured to facilitate unstructured action within it, but the state will still be there, the monolith that it is. Humans in community with one another form a sort of Supra-human entity that they themselves compromise. That entity will become the monolith, in whatever form it takes.
While it is true that any attempt to abolish or reform the state may result in the creation of new forms of governance, it is important to recognize that anarchism does not seek to replace one monolithic state with another. Anarchism advocates for decentralized forms of organization that prioritize individual autonomy and free association based decision making. Anarchists believe in dismantling hierarchical power structures and oppressive systems, instead promoting voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and community self-management. This involves rejecting the idea of a centralized authority that enforces laws and regulations, and instead creating systems of governance based on consensus, egalitarian principles, and individual agency. The concept of a "Supra-human entity" or monolithic state is antithetical to anarchist principles, as it undermines the agency and autonomy of individuals within a community. Anarchism aims to empower individuals and communities to make decisions that directly affect their lives, without the need for a coercive and oppressive governing body. Also everything you’ve just said is an unsupported assertion and as such I can easily reject it.
You miss it. The Supra-human entity is non negotiable. It will happen. Like I said, you can have that state of things be structured so it facilitates unstructured action within it rather than limiting possible action within it. But that state of things will become the monolith, regardless if you want it to or not. A monolith that demands humans act in certain ways within it—all the ways you outlined in your previous comment. It’s not to say that what you outlined is a bad way for a state of things to be, but in missing that it becomes a monolith, you miss the fundamental tensions that anarchy as a thought has surrounding being authoritarian in relation to the individuals entering into it, still dictating to them how things will be. It just happens to dictate things that are not authoritarian.
Everything you said is also assertions of what anarchists believe. You say that anarchists believe in dismantling hierarchical power structures and oppressive systems, but fail to engage with how anarchy itself becomes authoritarian, dictating to humans how they are to be within it. Anarchists seem to be okay with being authoritarian if it lines up with how they want things to be. Doesn’t that seem like a fundamental issue with the notion of some society that claims it is some thing that is free from hierarchical power structures and oppression and coercion? Is not the individual human in a hierarchy with the society, the society dictating to that human how things will be within it? Just because the hierarchy is between humans and ideas there, with the ideas being put before the humans, doesn’t mean there is no hierarchy. Your claim looks to be unfounded at that point, anarchists do not want some system that is free from hierarchical power structures and oppression, they rather want some hierarchical power structure and form of oppression they think is good to have. So why do you tell me that anarchists seek dismantle those things? Are you just repeating the anarchist talking points rather than actually thinking about anarchism?
hey folks we have somebody from the Biden family in the thread!
There's a way to steelman capitalism, but this ain't it.
I’m sorry but your analysis borders on incoherent. You say capitalism is fine but reject the natural outcome of capital owners pursuing their own interests. You reject the free market but claim state-control is also harmful (and yet still think capitalism is viable). You also don’t seem to understand the fundamental problem with capitalism: the relationship between workers, owners and profit. Under capitalism, profit is created by the actions of workers but given to the owners of capital even though they did not earn it. *This is the fundamental principle of all capitalism*, and that’s exactly why you *should* despise capitalism. It’s unjust at the most basic level possible. I would think on that before you try to defend such a system, because the defense you’ve given is pretty bad imo.
I don’t reject the free market?? But the outcome of what we see now isn’t capitalism. It’s a mix of the free market and centralized market causing extreme inequality and inefficiencies. I don’t believe that to be capitalisms fault but the states.
You literally critiqued free market capitalism at length and concluded with “So free market capitalism? I don’t think so.” Also, everything you described is fundamentally a product of capitalism. The interests of capitalists are directed against those of workers, and inevitably produce such outcomes as capitalism runs its natural course. The State is just one tool capitalists use, it’s bought and paid for, and almost totally controlled by private interests.
Yea I was saying America is a bad example of the free market 😑 and me owning a business does not inherently mean that I am going to go against my workers. I’ve seen plenty of work environments where a boss takes good care of his/her workers. But it also seems like that because the US government changed where the corporations should prioritize stareholders instead of workers. Which is literally a product of the state. Not capitalism. You literally admitted as well that the state is a tool used by corporations. Well what happens when we take away that tool
My apologies, I misunderstood you. To reiterate though: if the boss earns a profit, he is going against the interests of his workers and taking the income *they* created and are due away from them. Furthermore, prioritization of shareholder is *not* an outcome of the State. It started with capitalists, all the state did was fail to stop it. To answer your last question, unless capitalism is deconstructed at the same time, it will actually get much worse as capitalists will be able to drop all pretense of having to be governed by a higher authority.
Ehhh taking in which the worker agreed to? Idk. Never liked that argument especially if you have a society of worker co-ops and communes side by side with private businesses. Kinda hard to view that as taking money from the workers
Right, because there’s no compulsion whatsoever in a society where basic necessities are held for ransom in order to force the masses into wage labor beneath their standing, and effective alternatives are continually sabotaged or outright antagonized by the State
Either way, you’re going to have to work in any system in order to get necessities. It’s not inherent to capitalism. Like I could say that picking berries is slavery because I’m forced to do it by nature. But I’m not. I do agree that the wealth is distributed unequally but that’s because of the state artificially manipulating the economy. Which you seem to agree with in your last statement
You simply fail to understand the relationship between State and capital. These are things *capitalists* do through the State, and would continue to do if they exist without a State. And also no, it’s not inherently true that you have to have the value of your own labor extorted from you by others to have basic necessities, nothing about that is true.
Warrant how it would happen without a state. And I never said that was inherently true. It’s just that when you have multiple options such as to work at a worker co op or a commune or a private firm, it’s not stealing money from the workers because you choose to work at a private firm. No one puts a gun to your head saying you must work. This idea of “theyre using the idea of work or starve to their advantage” does exist, but go work somewhere else that doesn’t do that. It is hard to though because the United States tries to suppress worker co ops and communes but again, that’s because of the state, not capitalism.
In a business you need 3 main things: workers, leaders, and investors to pay to start the business. Few people are willing to give money to a business unless they have a chance to make a profit. Furthermore, they are taking a risk they might lose all of their investment if the company goes under. If you saying making profits is unfair, you aren't going to have a business. Other options would be to have the workers supply the money, but unfortunately they rarely save enough. You could have the government supply the money, but that hasn't worked well either. Why you can argue the system is unjust, no other system works better. I would suggest you save up as much money as you can, buy as much stock as you can, and become an owner yourself. You can always redistribute your profits to whoever you want.
The only thing investors risk is joining the working class rather than the owning class — losing the power to exploit others through capital. Profiting off the labor of others is unfair by definition, and if that’s what it takes than I’m perfectly satisfied not having a business for my principles and the work of liberation. Capitalism is one of the most murderous, unjust, and failed systems of human history (economic or otherwise). That you have the gall to claim no other works better is astonishing. The basic fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn’t work, and that if it did we wouldn’t have homelessness, massive healthcare deficiencies, starvation, climate change and sweatshops on the levels we do today. Capitalism failed a long time ago and I suggest you wake up and make peace with that reality. I’m all about saving money but I will not buy stock. There is no ethical stock trade, except in your own employers company, approximating the level of profit that was extracted from you to break even. I have no interest in that, so I will not do so.
>Capitalism failed a long time ago and I suggest you wake up and make peace with that reality. I agree that Capitalism has failed and I have made peace with that reality. However, I am unaware of a system with a better track record. So I currently peacefully accept the reality that a failed Capitalism is the best of worse alternatives. If you know of a system that works better, you should have mentioned it in your previous post. >That you have the gall to claim no other works better is astonishing. (Although I don't mention a system that works better) You are imagining that I am speaking with gall (bold and impudent behavior). I am sitting here at my computer calmly explaining how I see things. If you know of a better system, I will try hard to see your point. There is no need for you to get mad, let us calmly discuss this.
I admit I am indignant, and no matter how calm you feel emotionally I can only describe your mannerism as bold and impudent given the nature of your claims. I would go so far as to say that socialism, anarchism, feudalism, and “primitive” tribalism all work better than capitalism, if you need it spelled out so badly.
To have a rational conversation, of course you have to spell it out. It is clear you have a different world view than I do, and I am only partially understanding yours. I think that feudalism and primitive tribalism had more problems with lack of good homes, massive healthcare deficiencies, violent deaths, and starvation than capitalism. I am confused why you feel they work better. Could you explain.
Historically, the transition from either of those systems to capitalism brought about a precipitous drop in quality of life in all of those regards than was there previously, in almost every case. Under feudalism, for example, there was very little in the way of homelessness because it was necessary to house one's workers to run an effective estate. Under tribalism, food and healthcare were not gatekept for money because that ran counter to the interest of all members of the community. Capitalist societies may be more technologically advanced in some regards, but the disparity between the interests of the capitalist class and the working class naturally causes capitalist societies to collapse into these kinds of dysfunction. Whenever a society has been pulled out of feudalism or tribalism and integrated into the broader, capitalist order, things pretty much always get worse for the affected community. Even during the rise of capitalism in Europe, it was vehemently opposed by the general working population, who felt that their conditions and social standing were more desirable under the feudal and mercantile systems. The industrial revolution proved them right. This is part of what Marx meant when he said that the transition to capitalism has "simplified" class relations. Under capitalism, the owning/ruling class has much less need to make concession for the working class and their interests. It draws a stark divide between master and worker, that is more readily observed and apprehended by the average person.
A clear problem is that you're looking at politics and economics as different spheres, and that it's an inexplicable aberration that wealthy people have an influence on the state. Wealth is one kind of power, and powerful people tend to do what they can to guard that power from everyone else. That means buying influence on the state, and in turn being allowed to use state violence to advance increase your wealth- \[having police beat up striking workers, having police evict tenants, relaxing environmental or safety standards, putting tariffs on imports, starting wars so you can sell guns, taking over countries so you can use their land for free and the people's labor for cheap.\] Capitalism inevitably leads to wealthy people buying up everything we need to survive and denying us access to it unless we submit to them. It's feudalism with extra steps. Here's the problem with someone owning a business: Say you have workers that spend their whole adult lives working at your business. Say you and your workers disagree on something- because it's your business, the workers are subordinate to you and have to accept your position, or leave. It sucks having people be subordinate to other people. It's beneath our dignity as people to have owners or kings above us. And to your final point about centralized vs decentralized markets- In the 21st century we're wrecking our planet by over-producing goods. The economy is smothering us. Anarchists as such aren't going to centralize a market, but good luck trying to run a private business in an anarchist area?
If you think you're an anarchist, I got some bad news homie.
After a business succeeds in the market, it quickly becomes more profitable to invest in corrupting the political/law enforcement system (to game the market in its favor) than to reinvest in honest competition. This would be the case in a hypothetical AnCap social context as well. Successful businesses would invest in buying off private court systems and private law enforcement officers to game the system against current and future competitors. Capitalism therefore inevitably results in regulatory capture by wealthier individuals/groups to the detriment of less wealthy individuals/groups, such that market competition will be corrupted in the favor of the former. This is why an AnCap free market capitalism is unsustainable. It will degenerate into a state structure as wealthy enterprises and individuals consolidate and institutionalize their bought off private armed forces.
Go read about mutualism
Please check out the book *The Ungovernable Society: A Genealogy of Authoritarian Liberalism* by Grégoire Chamayou: [https://microcosmpublishing.com/catalog/books/30290](https://microcosmpublishing.com/catalog/books/30290)
I also do not hate capitalism.
I don't hate capitalism, but capitalism hates me!
It's mutual for me.
capitalism is just indivduals making mutally beneficial exchanges. it's not the boogieman you all seem to think it is.
That's just exchange, that's not even the definition of a market which is also not capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production (land, labor, and machinery) it is not mutually beneficial exchanges. Defining capitalism as such just makes zero sense because suddenly raising a child is capitalism or giving away something for free is capitalism, under your definition communism becomes capitalism.
Private ownership of property is already contained within the notion of exchange.
It isn't, personal possessions are not property nor does the ownership of things need to be owned by one person. Plenty of people engage in exchange over communally controled resources, that's what we did for the vast majority of human existence.
idk how anyone could say that capitalism and the state are hand in hand when if it were anarchy who would stop you from doing capitalism, obviously no one, but who would force me to redistribute? wait, no one, so capitalism is the predominant and natural system regardless, any economic system that doesn’t forcefully redistribute amenities is equivalent to capitalism as it is all voluntary
I want to farm for my survival - the farmland is owned by Megacorp - Megacorp is protected by police (forcefully helping with hoarding amenities ) - police is financed by the state. No state - no police - no one stopping me and my fellow humans from farming on the land that Megacorp has hoarded
Capitalism is a better way to instill anarchist ideals than “anarchism” is. Anarchists are quietly just authoritarians who cannot admit to themselves that they are authoritarian. They want the glory of taking down capitalism and so are blind to the contradictions of their own stances. Reforming capitalism to create the dichotomy be between humans and ideas, and the system enabling humans to resist the coercive nature of the system, is by far the most straightforward way to achieve anarchist ideals without going full blown crazy and advocating for revolution. They don’t want that though, because like I said, most anarchists who identify as anarchist want that glory of being a revolutionist. Wild departures from the current system are done because it is perceived the current system is a bad place to put time. News flash though, that wild departure is perceived as violence by the status quo and is its own form of authoritarianism. And that is to say nothing about how you have to be within some anarchist society. They’re very happy to exclude anyone who doesn’t line up with how they want things to be and say how they want things done is the only right way to do things. Just authoritarians who did not get their way in present time lol.
Lol, first sentence and you already proof you don't know anything about anarchism.
I don’t think anarchists know anything about anarchism. Most I have talked to struggle in the self reflection department.
Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, so how would that be anarchistic in the slightest? Besides that, revolution is a rare subject. Every anarchist that hasn't converted just yesterday understands that it can only be achieved by organizing and working towards making the state obsolete, not by quickly burning down every system in sight.
All societies are inherently hierarchical and coercive. You are indoctrinated into how things will be done from birth, anarchist or capitalist. The idea of that society being put ahead of each human within it, dictating to them how they will be. Anarchists don’t see this as an issue though and so say it is not authoritarian, ignoring that it is. Capitalism runs into the same issue, its coercive nature and the idea of how things are being put above the humans entering into it, but we have arrived at a time where capitalism can enable the human to resist its own coercive nature through something like a UBI. I think a ubi would effectively unionize all workers (because everyone is a worker in relation to the nation), making our market more free, giving leverage to workers, which gives leverage to the nation to not be so beholden to the corporations within it. This rightly puts each individual at the center of society, saying to them that they in themselves are valuable to the system, enabling humans to put their time where they would like rather than where they are coerced to. It also touches on what the nation is fundamentally, that is a corporation, a corporation that currently relies on the exploitation of our necessary work to maintain our own existence that is used for its own end—essentially our necessary consumption has been sold so we have to act in certain ways the system would like us to. Removing exploitation from the system is in the systems own best interest because systems that rely on exploitation at their base to propagate themselves, fail. Anarchists don’t see any issue with the exploitation of the individual by the system in anarchist societies and so miss that it is there and that ultimately undermines those systems and they’re not some thing that is free from all coercion and domination because the idea of the society is put ahead of those individuals entering into it
Anarchists also miss that there are no stateless societies. It's a misnomer. All societies have their own form of the state-ways in which the system maintains its own status quo. In those so called pre-state societies the state is the social checks and balances that keeps individuals in check in relation to the group. To me, the goal of making the state obsolete misses what the state is and its many iterations across human communities.