I mean, for starters, it's called "capitalism" because it's all about capital. And this is where most people get lost right off the bat.
Analyzing what capital really is leads one behind the curtain to find...
NOTHING
Nothing but an idea that has been used to enslave us.
Why do we need capital? The true answer to this question tells us all we need to know.
An individual's answer to this question tells us all we need to know about the state of their understanding/beliefs.
@pixelpusher220 @RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange
Most basically, capitalism is rule by capital owners.
Capital is the power to command others, quantified and commodified. That is, in contrast to past modes of power like feudalism, there is a market for capital; it can be bought and sold.
@HeavenlyPossum
It's commodification, as mentioned. That's why #Marx started his major work with an extended analysis of the commodity.
It's important to know that #capitalism is the first mode of domination in history which is not (only) executed by humans, but the the basic principles of the mode of production itself. Once established, the process of making (more) money from money through the "valorisation" of labour, becomes an "automatic subject".
@pixelpusher220 @RD4Anarchy @SallyStrange
@messaroundmarx @HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange
I've likened this to critical mass being reached in a reactor or a star being born. A self-sustaining process was launched at some point in history when capital reaches this "critical mass".
@RD4Anarchy @messaroundmarx @HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange
I think it's important to recognise (and it has been, earlier), that capitalism is not just about money, but about the power that commands, which brings us back to the power of the state, and how capitalism was imposed.
It's very much about the relationships - like:
The standard AnCap defense of Capitalism is "lol, so you'd make it illegal for me to own a strawberry farm and pay people, who would voluntarily work for me for money? You're an authoritarian!"
And they're missing the bigger picture - the only reason they could possibly own all the strawberry fields is that they're able to steal it, from it's natural owners, using the threat of police action.
BUT
The AnCap isn't *paying* for the police. He gives a £100k donation to his local wanker politician, who directs £1million worth of police protection to his land-grab (numbers obviously made up from whole cloth)
If had to pay those cops himself, he wouldn't be able to afford it, and the claim would swiftly be rebuffed by those who refuse it.
Capitalism doesn't just rely on *wealth*, it relies on *externalising costs*, which is only possible with a state.
@neonsnake @RD4Anarchy @messaroundmarx @HeavenlyPossum @pixelpusher220 @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space I think ancaps do actually want to pay explicitly and directly for police protection. (e.g. "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy talks about everyone hiring "insurance companies", which are basically private security.) (I'm maybe not using the same definition of "ancap" as you are, though, if so beg pardon.)
The claim that security would be unaffordable is interesting, but I don't think that's the main problem with this approach.
