The Market will not regulate itself, if left unchecked and without constant and never-ending regulation, it will collapse into as few monopolies as possible, wringing you dry and effectively fusing with or replacing the ruling class.
The State will not wither away, if left unchecked and without constant and never-ending regulation, it will collapse into as few centers of power as possible, becoming all the more authoritarian and powerful in the process.
I didn’t mean to suggest this. The monster of which I speak is authoritarianism. Capitalism and statism are just different ways for the powerful to oppress people and extract wealth from them.
There are many such ways—hereditary titles, patriarchy, churches, slavery, policing, etc. These often coexist and support one another, but an individual society rarely has all of these repressive elements.
But they all stem from the same central idea: that some people are more deserving of freedom and dignity than others. I think ultimately it is this idea that needs to be uprooted to fully eliminate the various heads. Eliminate one without addressing this and another immediately emerges.
The caveat here is that the existence of the capitalist regulatory center is a product of material and labor scarcity. To the extent that withers away, so does that central lever of power the state wields to compel obedience. Of course even without material scarcity there are still many issues that individuals cannot address on their own, so some structure of cooperation still must exist.
I agree about the structure of cooperation, I’m… anarcho-adjacent… I think, but definetly not an anarchist… in certain regards I could even be called a stateist, simply because I expect the state to be exactly that, a structure for cooperative effort and decision making. Imho, the problem arises when the state creates a social stratography or non-fluid hierarchy where there is something like a “ruling class”.
Neither statement is right.
The Market will not regulate itself, if left unchecked and without constant and never-ending regulation, it will collapse into as few monopolies as possible, wringing you dry and effectively fusing with or replacing the ruling class.
The State will not wither away, if left unchecked and without constant and never-ending regulation, it will collapse into as few centers of power as possible, becoming all the more authoritarian and powerful in the process.
See also: literally the USA rn, and the USSR/China
Anytime you give someone the power to regulate their own power (however indirectly), powertripping and corruption will always increase.
Capitalism and the state are two heads of the same monster. The fact that we think of them as separate is how the ruling class divides our strength.
I mean, practically you might be right, but taken to the extreme, your statement precludes the idea of a non-capitalst state, which seems ridiculous.
I didn’t mean to suggest this. The monster of which I speak is authoritarianism. Capitalism and statism are just different ways for the powerful to oppress people and extract wealth from them.
There are many such ways—hereditary titles, patriarchy, churches, slavery, policing, etc. These often coexist and support one another, but an individual society rarely has all of these repressive elements.
But they all stem from the same central idea: that some people are more deserving of freedom and dignity than others. I think ultimately it is this idea that needs to be uprooted to fully eliminate the various heads. Eliminate one without addressing this and another immediately emerges.
In essence, I agree, but what they both generally aim to extract from people is labor not wealth.
The caveat here is that the existence of the capitalist regulatory center is a product of material and labor scarcity. To the extent that withers away, so does that central lever of power the state wields to compel obedience. Of course even without material scarcity there are still many issues that individuals cannot address on their own, so some structure of cooperation still must exist.
I agree about the structure of cooperation, I’m… anarcho-adjacent… I think, but definetly not an anarchist… in certain regards I could even be called a stateist, simply because I expect the state to be exactly that, a structure for cooperative effort and decision making. Imho, the problem arises when the state creates a social stratography or non-fluid hierarchy where there is something like a “ruling class”.