Question: What does an AnCapCom entail? Isn't that a contradiction?
As
an anarcho-capcom, I might be able to shed some light on the concept. I
believe that people should divide themselves into communes with shared
resources and communal ownership. I do not believe in very large
communes because as communes grow they require an authoritarian state
just for the sake of organization. As an anarchist, I see that as
tyranny. Everyone in each commune should be able to know one another so
that collective property is actually meaningful. Each commune decides
the law of their land (laws must not violate the NAP) as defined by a
form of adverse possession. Membership to any commune is entirely
optional.
Since these communes are small, they will be equipped to specialize in a select few products rather than producing everything which is consumed. The free market facilitates efficient trade between communes. Communes will without force of state agree upon currencies to maximize trade. There will be glorious large, unrestricted corporations spanning communes. If you work for a corporation, your wage is paid to the commune to which you are a member. Hell, a corporation might hire an entire commune for its efficiency in producing a key product. It's worth noting that a corporation cannot buy a commune outright any more than a corporation could buy a person. (That would violate the NAP.)
Because resources are shared, there is no class inside a commune. Everyone is free to live a life with equals. No one must live among those judged by capitalism to be above them. However, to create the necessary capital differential (and to avoid state-mandated redistribution), different communes would have different wealth. This makes economic sense. The communes most capable of transforming their collective labor into a marketable product other communes wish to buy would control the most capital. And as the communes first form, people will prefer to band together primarily by class (which would of course be eliminated inside of every commune.)
Of course, individual rights cannot be infringed even if collective rights create a better society. Anyone is free to leave a commune at his discretion and join another commune if its laws allow it. Or many people could leave one or many communes and form a new commune with their own rules. An individual is even free to choose to live in no commune at all. Of course, that person could not take any of the commune's property with him. Claiming what is the collective's for one's own, much like taxation, is theft. As nearly all people would be raised in a commune and since commune membership would generally require the relinquishment of all personal private property, this person would be left with nothing. Hey, don't leave your commune expecting some kind of handout. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bucko!
Also, a person without a commune would find himself isolated. Since communes are the only social groups most people would have, he would be truly alone. Corporations might hesitate to hire him. Living without a commune shows that you're not a team player, something which would likely be stigmatized. Also, it would probably be difficult to just figure out how to file the paperwork to just pay one guy. So while one is free to live without a commune, for most it is undesirable. After all, anarcho-capital communism would create such abundance, social stability, and high quality of life, that very very few will want anything about the system to change.
I hope this helped!
Since these communes are small, they will be equipped to specialize in a select few products rather than producing everything which is consumed. The free market facilitates efficient trade between communes. Communes will without force of state agree upon currencies to maximize trade. There will be glorious large, unrestricted corporations spanning communes. If you work for a corporation, your wage is paid to the commune to which you are a member. Hell, a corporation might hire an entire commune for its efficiency in producing a key product. It's worth noting that a corporation cannot buy a commune outright any more than a corporation could buy a person. (That would violate the NAP.)
Because resources are shared, there is no class inside a commune. Everyone is free to live a life with equals. No one must live among those judged by capitalism to be above them. However, to create the necessary capital differential (and to avoid state-mandated redistribution), different communes would have different wealth. This makes economic sense. The communes most capable of transforming their collective labor into a marketable product other communes wish to buy would control the most capital. And as the communes first form, people will prefer to band together primarily by class (which would of course be eliminated inside of every commune.)
Of course, individual rights cannot be infringed even if collective rights create a better society. Anyone is free to leave a commune at his discretion and join another commune if its laws allow it. Or many people could leave one or many communes and form a new commune with their own rules. An individual is even free to choose to live in no commune at all. Of course, that person could not take any of the commune's property with him. Claiming what is the collective's for one's own, much like taxation, is theft. As nearly all people would be raised in a commune and since commune membership would generally require the relinquishment of all personal private property, this person would be left with nothing. Hey, don't leave your commune expecting some kind of handout. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bucko!
Also, a person without a commune would find himself isolated. Since communes are the only social groups most people would have, he would be truly alone. Corporations might hesitate to hire him. Living without a commune shows that you're not a team player, something which would likely be stigmatized. Also, it would probably be difficult to just figure out how to file the paperwork to just pay one guy. So while one is free to live without a commune, for most it is undesirable. After all, anarcho-capital communism would create such abundance, social stability, and high quality of life, that very very few will want anything about the system to change.
I hope this helped!
No comments:
Post a Comment