> Capitalism is (...) not a human-created system; it did not emerge from
> colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors
> under resource scarcity.
1) I didn't mean to imply that capitalism emerged from colonialism, but
that the current distribution of wealth an power within capitalism is
connected to colonialism (among other things).
2) I don't think you're assertion of capitalism being "an emergent system"
is correct -- capitalism is defined by having capital and private
ownership over means of production. There are many other systems for
regulating scarcity (artificial or otherwise) (eg: feudalism).
> As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what
> they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic
> trade. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity,
> it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent
> property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system.
3) You imply that there aren't enough resources. While that may be
true, I think the issue is more one of uneven distribution. This
obviously also depend on your clause "for everyone to have what they
want". I think the current system encourages aggregation without much
regard for what individuals actually want (Who "wants" Foxxconn to
dominate in certain areas of industrial production?).
4) Not all markets and trade systems define a capitalist system.
Note also that I specifically said modern anarchism. That doesn't
necessarily define away the right to self defence. Communism certainly
doesn't.
The main difference between the two, is that communism seeks to
maintain a form of government, highly localized and highly democratic
-- but with the option to retain such things as a police force and a
justice system (reserve the right of the government to use violence such
as detaining and investigation of crimes for the common good) while
anarchism is generally more sceptical of any power structure and any
use of force against the individual.
1) I didn't mean to imply that capitalism emerged from colonialism, but that the current distribution of wealth an power within capitalism is connected to colonialism (among other things).
2) I don't think you're assertion of capitalism being "an emergent system" is correct -- capitalism is defined by having capital and private ownership over means of production. There are many other systems for regulating scarcity (artificial or otherwise) (eg: feudalism).
> As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what > they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic > trade. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, > it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent > property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system.
3) You imply that there aren't enough resources. While that may be true, I think the issue is more one of uneven distribution. This obviously also depend on your clause "for everyone to have what they want". I think the current system encourages aggregation without much regard for what individuals actually want (Who "wants" Foxxconn to dominate in certain areas of industrial production?).
4) Not all markets and trade systems define a capitalist system.
Note also that I specifically said modern anarchism. That doesn't necessarily define away the right to self defence. Communism certainly doesn't.
The main difference between the two, is that communism seeks to maintain a form of government, highly localized and highly democratic -- but with the option to retain such things as a police force and a justice system (reserve the right of the government to use violence such as detaining and investigation of crimes for the common good) while anarchism is generally more sceptical of any power structure and any use of force against the individual.