Joint ownership is already a thing in capitalism. Two or more people jointly owning a resource in no way implies that they must submit to a monopolistic arbiter of force. In fact, it's only when resources are jointly shared by everyone that a monopoly disappears.
Ultimately it would be better if resources were shared equally according to need and nobody would have to work since production would be fully automated and based on need. Corporations are the equivalent of a centralized government limited to their own institutions.
-
-
Imagine though, if property hadn't been historically obtained through violence and oppression, then you'd have a more cooperative economy. In fact, early on people were organizing voluntarily to share their resources but the state came in to enforce capitalism for the few.
-
And economic oppression for the rest. If that hadn't had happened, if your more pure anarchist capitalism would've initially taken root, then the natural social proclivities of humans would've inevitably lead to a more cooperative economy.
-
Anyways, since you're interested in individualism, I recommend that you read Max Stirner. He does criticize communism to be sure, but he also points out the collectivist and totalitarian element inherent to capitalism. His solution? Egoism.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
So why would it be in my self-interest to respect the property of capitalists since their holding of property deprives me of my own? Murray Rothbard was a twisted moralist who rationalized the selling of children as property and of police violence against the homeless.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.