RE: Anarcho-Capitalism, Voluntarism & Alternatives - My Response to @kafkanarchy84; RE: @dannyshine
I am sorry I missed this when it came out.
There are a couple points I would like to make early on. The first is about the definition of capitalism versus the outcome results implied to capitalism in the video.
Nearly everything you have implied as a negative about the results of capitalism come from a social construct of/in capitalism. I think Commerce is the biggest and most repeatedly mentioned one. I don't view the social constructs built within and around capitalism as capitalism at all. That is a form of socialism, often socialism for the elites.
Capitalism is a subjective value exchange, one thing for another without a risk/chance process involved.
Much of the inequality based outcomes you attribute can be attributed to two specific things:
-Market capture by a social construct
-Pareto distributions from chance processes in social constructs
(https://steemit.com/anarchy/@joesal/the-pareto-problem-and-capitalism)
on those grounds I would say much what people are calling problems of capitalism are in fact problems of social constructs.
Once capitalism is localized to owner operators you don't see as much of the problems pointed out by the marxist thinkers of 'absent owners'.
I guess to talk of this as a systems type discussion, we would be talking free trading, adaptive, self programming voluntary nodes that couldn't take over a (social)system or another node. Each node operates independently so you wouldn't see system wide cascade failures (or capture), it's about as systemless as it can get IMO.
I only know of definitions of capitalism that include the concepts of private ownership and trade/commerce. For example, this dictionary definition:
Commerce and trade are typically noted as synonymous in dictionaries - https://www.wordnik.com/words/trade
While I will happily agree that dictionaries are in no way to be taken as the primary source of definitions for language, I am not aware of definitions that differ from their default position.
You wrote in the linked post:
Is trade not commerce?
The problems, from my perspective, have several origins and key features - but i am sure they extend beyond the aspects of chance and gambling. The key point I made several times is that as soon as territory and ownership are defined, with the capacity for capital to increase - those who 'aren't in the game' will forever be forced to suffer.. Capitalism therefore is wholly unsupportive of any other options - it is therefore a kind of social/economic bully that demands compliance.
Commerce typically involves larger constructs. Typically banks and other financial institutions where the risk components, rent seeking and usury show up.
Ownership on a owner operator level limits the ability of excessive capital formations, so you don't typically see the excessive volumes of wealth and market capture that develop in social constructs of corporations.
I want capital increases/formations to be easy for everyone from a starting opportunity. This allows everyone equal opportunity to achieve wealth(wealth as defined subjectively), now how they use that opportunity requires effort, as life requires effort. If there is little effort there will be little results. Even in permaculture setups, there is effort.
I would like to see a analysis of capitalism where the chance processes and social constructs were removed to see what problematic key points remain.