Anarchy more particularly means without hierarchy, of course having absolutely no hierarchy is disasterous. So more or less the definition is no unjustified hierarchy.
The main point with capitalism is the fact that capitalism must indeed have hierarchies which are unjustified such as relationship between the work and the boss. But even if so taking your definition of anarchy that it is without state, it is incredibly disasterous to let people setup their own police forces that have authority over other people: which is also why we have the government, the police isn't owned a by single entity but rather the tax payer. Ontop of that the government is quite nessecary for the capitalist economy as without it and the police there would be no one to enforce private property, which is what most of capitalism is based off.
Do you think if I mow my neighbours lawn and he washes my car that one of us is the boss and one the worker?
Also If I make such a voluntary trade with my neighbour ,would you find it ok to stop me from making that choice?
Those "police forces" would not have the "right to rule" as the government version has now.
If I become the so called police force in a free world, I would only have the right to do what I as a normal human being am allowed to do, because I am a normal human being. What clothes I wear, or shiny things (badge) I carry does, not change that.
The police forces are owned by government. Not by the taxpayers. If you want to know who owns something one can look at who has the last word over what is done with it.
Government makes the laws so government is the owner.
With government you can never have private property, because you always have to pay the extortion money. ( or else your protectors come to your house (police)) You merely rent it, it's their property they are the owner. It doesn't matter to them how long you worked for it to pay it of or how long it took for you to build. (can you see how the police works for government?)
For documenting things like this, you don't need a government.
Also if you have property in a free society you are responsible for the protection. You can't make your neighbours pay (via taxes) for the defense of your property.
One more thing about owning. Now everything, and even everyone is owned by a group of people with guns, that own everything that lives withing some lines on a piece of paper some people, long ago, have drawn with magical inc.
If you can not decide what you can, put in your body, if you can not decide who you invite in your house (for instance a so ( by the government) called illegal, if you can not decide to sell lemonade without a permission... and they punish you, or kill, you if you do not eventually obey or pay them. Then you own nothing, and they own everything including you.
"Do you think if I mow my neighbours lawn and he washes my car that one of us is the boss and one the worker?
Also If I make such a voluntary trade with my neighbour ,would you find it ok to stop me from making that choice?"
markets exist in socialist anarchist systems and trades like that can exist under literally every system, stop being delusional.
Private property vs personal property.
"With government you can never have private property, because you always have to pay the extortion money. "
actually private property can't exist without the government, because it only exists through a monopoly of violence, so the "owner" just becomes the head of the localised state
Thank you for the reply.
Under socialism those trades can not exist if there is money involved, which in end effect is just as an voluntary trade as barter, (if we both consent)....If you do, and the tyrants/masters/a big group of people with another opinion, finds out you get punished. If you do not obey...and keep resisting you're dead, make no mistake.
Boss worker employee employer ....all labels to divide and conquer. There is only voluntary trade If something is not voluntary it's violence, theft, fraud rape..archating...etc.
If I have the property I worked for, or build, and I defend that against thief's I don't hold the monopoly on violence....no way. What I do hold is the right to defend, which has nothing to do with violence. I would define it as defensive force as a reaction to the initiation of violence.
"Boss worker employee employer ....all labels to divide and conquer. There is only voluntary trade If something is not voluntary it's violence, theft, fraud rape..archating...etc."
private ownership of the means of production is not voluntary.
The means of production are built by the workers, upkept by the workers, and labored on by the workers. This is true under every economic system. The difference between socialism and capitalism is that under socialism the workers also control it, while under capitalism it is an outside entity.
The basis of capitalism is that outside divide and conquer tactic.
Can a human be a "means of production" since you can dig a whole with a shovel, a spoon, but you can also use your hands? Being the means of production yourself.
Can someone or the community force you to dig with your hands if someone/group/computer algorithm deems that necessary for society? (Since one does not own oneself in that theory)
"Can someone or the community force you to dig with your hands if someone/group/computer algorithm deems that necessary for society? (Since one does not own oneself in that theory)"
anybody with more powerful violence can force you to do literally anything, that's a stupid argument on every level.
"Can a human be a "means of production" since you can dig a whole with a shovel, a spoon, but you can also use your hands? Being the means of production yourself."
definitions are subjective, the means of production are whatever the local union says they are.
Here is the wikipedia, which holds the most common definition, you might as well start there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
It's not a stupid argument on every level.
Maybe I phrased it in the wrong way.
If you say
then that local union can use violence to make you do things, because the local union with all it's subjectiveness can say it's good to kill a person that does not what the union does.
There is no higher intelligence to be found in the thoughts of a group.
And so according to your philosophy, to make someone the means of production if "the union" says it's for the good of "the union" through violence is very well possible, and most likely the outcome.
Thank you for the link... but to be honest, why would I want to look at the subjective definition that seems to be, according to you, most commonly held, it is still subjective. If we can not know anything or can not define things because everything is subjective than we can not convey anything. It's all pointless.
Then saying that one knows something, is always a lie. And everything is invalid. Then and there the possibility for all communication stop and there can be no relating to anything or any one.
Thanks for the reply
P.S. I will look at the wikipedia link anyway. Have a nice day :)