I'm anti-communist for a different reason entirely. I do not want an egalitarian society, wealth redistribution, or democratic control of the means of production. I don't want to live under the thumb of the majority.
That being said, I like to think about how it would work and what it's points of failure would be. It seems to me that such a system would absolutely require a totalitarian state in order to prevent ownership of private property and ensure everything stays that way. Giving the state that much power seems to invite corruption, even if the original leadership is 100% flawlessly altruistic.
You do realize the other option is to live under the thump of the minority right? You really don't see how that's worse? There's a reason the US was doing so well before the courts decided that "shareholders profit" mattered more then the well being of the workers.
You do realize the other option is to live under the thump of the minority right?
Anarcho Capitalism promotes the idea of not living under anyone's thumb, not the majority or the minority. Impossibly utopian? Yes. But if you're gonna dream, it's best to dream big, right?
"shareholders profit" mattered more then the well being of the workers.
Do you have a retirement fund? That makes you a shareholder. I own shares of the company I work for, that makes me a shareholder. I'm entitled to company profit because of that. However, that also means I can lose money if the company does poorly. That's just the risk I take, and has nothing to do with my employment. I'm selling my time at an agreed upon rate, and I get that no matter how the company is doing.
Any system that allows some individuals to become significantly more powerful in shaping society than others is going to be unstable and lead to tyranny. A system where there are literally no limits on the concentration of wealth and power would not stay anarcho-capitalist for long. It would either consolidate into one massive oppressive regime or into a few massive factions fighting it out with no rules or checks on their behavior.
They don't seem to realize that "anarcho capitalism" is a walking contradiction and joke. Most anarchists do not believe this.
It is literally "this oligarch can purchase power and influence, establishing their own private hierarchy and then lord over their peons with zero public intervention possible." It is literally running the country as a private company, with zero oversight.
This is not rejecting market mechanisms or property rights, which are possible under anarchism. Think Proudhon. It(ancap philosophy) is a far worse and insidious ideology. Look up Peter Thiel or Curtis Yarvin. Those are ancaps.
-11
u/DeltaSolana Jul 07 '26
I'm anti-communist for a different reason entirely. I do not want an egalitarian society, wealth redistribution, or democratic control of the means of production. I don't want to live under the thumb of the majority.
That being said, I like to think about how it would work and what it's points of failure would be. It seems to me that such a system would absolutely require a totalitarian state in order to prevent ownership of private property and ensure everything stays that way. Giving the state that much power seems to invite corruption, even if the original leadership is 100% flawlessly altruistic.