reply to post by mnemeth1
Wouldn't that be more of an Anarcho-Socialist view?
I mean capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.
If private owners allowed their property to become common land then that is closer to socialism.
Either capitalism is the wrong term, or you don't really understand what it is. In fact I have always thought Anarcho-Capitalism was based on a
modern American misunderstanding of socialism.
Capitalism requires government, and laws, in order to protect that private ownership of the means of production, otherwise what keeps the workers from
taking that property when they need it?
If the government was gone what would keep the workers from organizing and taking your 'means of production' to be used by themselves. Do you think
the workers are so stupid they'd keep working for you if they didn't have to?
If it's free-markets that you want, nothing is more free than socialism.
When the means of production are privately owned a state system is inevitable because some people are naturally greedy and you can't expect everyone
to play fair. So to protect themselves and take full advantage of the workers, who without the capitalist earns nothing, the capitalists will
naturally create a state system to benefit themselves.
Your system creates exclusivity as not everyone can own the means of production. It's what leads to oppression, coercion, even racism.
Capitalism is what is the problem, not government. Government is just a tool used by capitalists to control the population, an unruly population is
not very productive or useful to the capitalist. Get rid of capitalism, we have no need for government.
Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production, what happens then is up to all of us not someone dictating policy.