What is a "State" or "Government" in the first place? If the Capitalist organization controlled its own means of defense, then we would see corporate wars and absorption. If there was a central mercenary force that everyone subscribed to for protection and peacekeeping, this is essentially a nightwatchman state, and you merely have a limited state.

All in all, Capitalism maintains itself through threat of violence, and monopolizes said threat. Without that factor, Private Property Rights depend on individual respect, which doesn't ultimatley matter.

There's also the issue of banking and currency, which needs to be backed up and maintained.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Given this paradigm, how would you describe anarchy and communism?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We never really laid out what it means to be a "State." Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, and gets into technicalities.

For Anarchists, the State is a monopoly on violence. Workers having unified horizontal coalitions and equal power, in their eyes, counts as stateless.

For Marxists, the State is the portion of Government that enforces Classist society. Get rid of class contradictions, and the elements that make up those contradictions, Private Property Rights for example, and you achieve Statelessness, even with a government.

Using either of the previous definitions, Capitalism still fails to exist without a State, it requires a monopoly of violence and class society to exist.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren't government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.

So what I'm seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.

Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I'm a Marxist. I am fine with government, not Capitalism nor the tools of government present in Capitalist society that Capitalists use to maintain power. I am absolutely fine with courts, administration, laws, social programs, etc.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which tools of government are used to maintain power for capitalists that also are of no use to a communist government?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Private Property Rights are a quick example, along with all aspects related to Capitalist ownership.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A little vague, but fair.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Kinda has to be vague, there are so many aspects of current society that exist to support Capitalism that would no longer need to exist. The SEC, for example, would cease to exist, as would the stock market. So much goes into maintaining and regulating those areas that would no longer need to exist that they cannot be listed outright.