If there was no government, and the capitalist organization hosted their means of violence internally or by hiring thugs like the Pinkertons, would it stop being capitalism?
What is a “State” or “Government” in the first place? If the Capitalist organization controlled its own means of defense, then we would see corporate wars and absorption. If there was a central mercenary force that everyone subscribed to for protection and peacekeeping, this is essentially a nightwatchman state, and you merely have a limited state.
All in all, Capitalism maintains itself through threat of violence, and monopolizes said threat. Without that factor, Private Property Rights depend on individual respect, which doesn’t ultimatley matter.
There’s also the issue of banking and currency, which needs to be backed up and maintained.
We never really laid out what it means to be a “State.” Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, and gets into technicalities.
For Anarchists, the State is a monopoly on violence. Workers having unified horizontal coalitions and equal power, in their eyes, counts as stateless.
For Marxists, the State is the portion of Government that enforces Classist society. Get rid of class contradictions, and the elements that make up those contradictions, Private Property Rights for example, and you achieve Statelessness, even with a government.
Using either of the previous definitions, Capitalism still fails to exist without a State, it requires a monopoly of violence and class society to exist.
Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren’t government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.
So what I’m seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.
Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.
Oh, I’m a Marxist. I am fine with government, not Capitalism nor the tools of government present in Capitalist society that Capitalists use to maintain power. I am absolutely fine with courts, administration, laws, social programs, etc.
Then that entity, be it Pinkerton or gang or army, would be government. Sure, it could also devolve below capitalism, but capitalism need government structure of some sorts, it cannot exist without it.
If there was no government, and the capitalist organization hosted their means of violence internally or by hiring thugs like the Pinkertons, would it stop being capitalism?
What is a “State” or “Government” in the first place? If the Capitalist organization controlled its own means of defense, then we would see corporate wars and absorption. If there was a central mercenary force that everyone subscribed to for protection and peacekeeping, this is essentially a nightwatchman state, and you merely have a limited state.
All in all, Capitalism maintains itself through threat of violence, and monopolizes said threat. Without that factor, Private Property Rights depend on individual respect, which doesn’t ultimatley matter.
There’s also the issue of banking and currency, which needs to be backed up and maintained.
Given this paradigm, how would you describe anarchy and communism?
We never really laid out what it means to be a “State.” Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, and gets into technicalities.
For Anarchists, the State is a monopoly on violence. Workers having unified horizontal coalitions and equal power, in their eyes, counts as stateless.
For Marxists, the State is the portion of Government that enforces Classist society. Get rid of class contradictions, and the elements that make up those contradictions, Private Property Rights for example, and you achieve Statelessness, even with a government.
Using either of the previous definitions, Capitalism still fails to exist without a State, it requires a monopoly of violence and class society to exist.
Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren’t government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.
So what I’m seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.
Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.
Oh, I’m a Marxist. I am fine with government, not Capitalism nor the tools of government present in Capitalist society that Capitalists use to maintain power. I am absolutely fine with courts, administration, laws, social programs, etc.
Which tools of government are used to maintain power for capitalists that also are of no use to a communist government?
Private Property Rights are a quick example, along with all aspects related to Capitalist ownership.
A little vague, but fair.
Then that entity, be it Pinkerton or gang or army, would be government. Sure, it could also devolve below capitalism, but capitalism need government structure of some sorts, it cannot exist without it.