Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn't. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.
We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don't live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.
Capitalism destroys its own regulations because politicians are for sale! You're acting like politics and markets are different, but they're interconnected at their very core.
Don't blame capitalism for something that's at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It's not capitalism's fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn't exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.
The problem with capitalism and feudalism and the ancient empires before them is they are unequal and undemocratuc. The common thread through all of them is a large amount of power concentrated into very few hands, leading to class conflict between haves and havenots. Capitalism isn't unique in that respect, it's just the most advanced form.
I don't hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.
On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It's nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won't care about the consequences of it.
As long as there are haves and havenots then there will be class conflict.
Abolish private property so no one can be a 'have' and redistribute the wealth so there are no longer people who are 'havenots.' WIthout the accumulation of wealth and power the class distinctions evaporate into air and we could abolish the State itself, because the State only exists as a tool for one class to oppress the other.
See? That's where I get confused and I end up with the "that can't happen" attitude in my head.
If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let's imagine that it's seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn't that be thievery in the eyes of those who don't want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don't it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a "haver" against all of those "havenotters" that gave their property for nothing but good will.
And then there's the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of "property"? And then it's the issue of how do you measure that "property"? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It's not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is "we"? Who organises "we"? How is "we" not anarchist? And if it's anarchist, how do we ensure it's just?
If you abolish private property, then who has that property?
Everyone has it, referred to as "the commons"
Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How?
The State, which will still be necessary during this transitional period. It will use the power invested in it by the democratic process (because havenots vastly outnumber the haves) to take and redistribute the wealth. This will likely not be a peaceful process, but the creation of private property was not peaceful either!
And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.
Property is theft.
The very existence of private land is based solely on violent theft from the commons. All land was stolen by armies and gifted to nobles and aristocrats and settlers and companies. The history of land acquisition is bloody all across the world.
Profit, too, is theft. Profit is the surplus value created by labor and unequal exchange through unfair trade and State-backed violence i.e. the market. Then those profits are used to buy politicians to steal even more, leading to endless wealth accumulation and evergrowing inequality.
And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”?
Democratic decision making works here; we all own it together and we decide how it is used/distributed.
And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Is it so unthinkable that we could democratically determine the value of a house based on location, quality, size, popularity, etc.? Why must this be done by a market? And before you say that the market is democratic, remember that democracy is "1 person, 1 vote" but the market gives the haves more votes than the havenots.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?
These are strategic questions. I don't think anarchism can achieve this because the State is necessary for the havenots to seize wealth and property and power from the haves. I worry that the State will need to be dealt with and won't just 'whither away' on its own, as posited by Marxists. Some kind of synthesis between the two? I don't know!
Ultimately, this is all just theory crafting divorced from real world struggle. Nothing you or I say on the internet really matters. We have to go out into the real world and test ideas against material reality, where things are ugly and messy
The world is already ugly and messy, though, so I think it's worth it.
Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn't. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.
We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don't live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.
Capitalism destroys its own regulations because politicians are for sale! You're acting like politics and markets are different, but they're interconnected at their very core.
Don't blame capitalism for something that's at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It's not capitalism's fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn't exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.
Misanthropy.
The problem with capitalism and feudalism and the ancient empires before them is they are unequal and undemocratuc. The common thread through all of them is a large amount of power concentrated into very few hands, leading to class conflict between haves and havenots. Capitalism isn't unique in that respect, it's just the most advanced form.
I don't hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.
On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It's nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won't care about the consequences of it.
As long as there are haves and havenots then there will be class conflict.
Abolish private property so no one can be a 'have' and redistribute the wealth so there are no longer people who are 'havenots.' WIthout the accumulation of wealth and power the class distinctions evaporate into air and we could abolish the State itself, because the State only exists as a tool for one class to oppress the other.
Imagine if everyone was finally working together.
See? That's where I get confused and I end up with the "that can't happen" attitude in my head.
If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let's imagine that it's seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn't that be thievery in the eyes of those who don't want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don't it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a "haver" against all of those "havenotters" that gave their property for nothing but good will.
And then there's the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of "property"? And then it's the issue of how do you measure that "property"? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It's not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is "we"? Who organises "we"? How is "we" not anarchist? And if it's anarchist, how do we ensure it's just?
Whoooookay, that's a lot of questions! So:
Everyone has it, referred to as "the commons"
The State, which will still be necessary during this transitional period. It will use the power invested in it by the democratic process (because havenots vastly outnumber the haves) to take and redistribute the wealth. This will likely not be a peaceful process, but the creation of private property was not peaceful either!
Property is theft.
The very existence of private land is based solely on violent theft from the commons. All land was stolen by armies and gifted to nobles and aristocrats and settlers and companies. The history of land acquisition is bloody all across the world.
Profit, too, is theft. Profit is the surplus value created by labor and unequal exchange through unfair trade and State-backed violence i.e. the market. Then those profits are used to buy politicians to steal even more, leading to endless wealth accumulation and evergrowing inequality.
Democratic decision making works here; we all own it together and we decide how it is used/distributed.
Is it so unthinkable that we could democratically determine the value of a house based on location, quality, size, popularity, etc.? Why must this be done by a market? And before you say that the market is democratic, remember that democracy is "1 person, 1 vote" but the market gives the haves more votes than the havenots.
These are strategic questions. I don't think anarchism can achieve this because the State is necessary for the havenots to seize wealth and property and power from the haves. I worry that the State will need to be dealt with and won't just 'whither away' on its own, as posited by Marxists. Some kind of synthesis between the two? I don't know!
Ultimately, this is all just theory crafting divorced from real world struggle. Nothing you or I say on the internet really matters. We have to go out into the real world and test ideas against material reality, where things are ugly and messy
The world is already ugly and messy, though, so I think it's worth it.
We have nothing to lose but our chains.