One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist.

Thank you for accepting, MaestorAemon, and good luck to you as well. Introduction Anarchy, as defined in R1, is a form of political organization with Law and Freedom, but without force. Within this definition, the term “force” is slightly ambiguous, and appropriately so. The compatibility of Anarchism and Capitalism is one of great debate within the Anarchist tradition. The correct definition of “force” is quite difficult to find. Perhaps this debate will bring this definition to the fore. This debate is focused on the nature of capitalism and anarchy. The resolution states “One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist”. This means that I, as CON, must argue that there is nothing inherent to capitalism that groups it among those things which anarchists must oppose, whereas MaesterAemon, as PRO, must argue that there is, in fact, something inherent to Capitalism that groups it among those things which anarchists must oppose. Arguments such as “Everyone is free to make their own choices, unless those choices entail the use of force” for my side or arguments such as “Sweat shops are exploitative” for PRO’s side will not be powerful enough. Neither of these has to do with the nature of capitalism as relates to anarchy. While these arguments could work in another debate, and in fact they have, these arguments neither support, nor refute, the resolution. People can be free to make their choices outside of a capitalist system and sweatshops can be opposed inside of a capitalist system. Should arguments similar to these be raised, I trust MaesterAemon will address them will as much tenacity as I will. Argument 1. One must oppose forcefulness to be an anarchist. 2. Capitalism does not require forcefulness. C. One does not need to oppose Capitalism to be an anarchist. Defense of Premise 1 1A. Forcefulness Anarchists do not necessarily oppose the use of force, as force must sometimes be used to defend oneself, others, or property; anarchists oppose the initiation of force. I use the term “forcefulness” to refer to the initiation of force. Pacifists are those who oppose all force; some of these people are among the ranks of anarchists. However, pacifism is not necessarily for identification as an anarchist. Some anarchist philosophers argue that violence must be used in response to the violence of the State. The Spanish revolution is one such instance. In order for an anarchist to be consistent, they must oppose more than just the power of the State. They must oppose all circumstances that are similar to the circumstance found in regards to the State. The State exercises dominion and rulership over its’ subjects. In some cases, the State’s use of force is warranted, as when punishing those who have themselves used force. In other cases, the State’s use of force is not warranted, as when someone breaks a law which is not related to any particular act against another person. It is in those cases that force is not warranted that the State’s power is questioned. These same instances constitute “forcefulness” as described earlier. Defense of Premise 2 With my defense of P1 now in place, I will begin my case for P2. 2A. Capitalism as a system The dictionary definition of Capitalism fails to encompass the whole of the system. As stated by PRO in the debate I linked in R1 “Dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated”. This lack of sophistication extends into the economic realm. For example, the term “capital” can be used to refer to cash, goods, or the combination of both. Within economics, the term refers mostly to capital goods, that is, those items which are durable and are used to produce other goods or services [1]. I shall refer to “capital goods” as simply “capital” from this point forward. The Factors of Production include land, labor, and capital. As the name suggests, these are the inputs for the production of a good or service. A pizza oven is capital. The pizza ingredients are not. While ingredients are inputs, they do not count as capital because they are not durable. The person who owns the pizza oven is, then, a “capitalist”. While some may argue that some distinction must be made between this person and, say, a wealthy factory owner, this distinction seems, to me, quite arbitrary. These same people argue that the pizza shop owner is not a capitalist, but that the factory owner is. It would be similar to calling only those people who can throw a perfect spiral when throwing a football, run a 4.3 second 40-yard dash, jump at least 40 inches, and bench at least 250 pounds a “football player”. It would seem to be quite a narrow definition of “football player” to place these requirements on the term. Likewise with “capitalist”, it is quite a narrow definition to consider as a “capitalist” only those who are wealthy. A “capitalist” is any person who owns capital goods and uses them for the purposes of producing goods or services. This then begets a system wherein people can profit from private ownership of capital. “Capitalism” is the system in which this occurs. 2B. Capitalism and Forcefulness Capitalism does not require forcefulness to work. While it could be argued that force is required, force is required for any system of laws or ownership to be successful. A key component of capitalism is the ability to privately own capital. As mentioned earlier, capital goods are those items which are durable and are used to produce other goods or services. A capitalist is a person who owns capital. The statement “X owns y” means that “X can determine the disposition of y”. How one goes about gaining ownership of something is a debate in itself. Whether ownership “rights” can be said to exist or not is a topic for discussion at a later time. Once some x does establish ownership of some y, we get into discussion of how that ownership is to be maintained. Unfortunately, ownership of an item means very little without the ability to prevent others from taking said item. Thus, in order for ownership to be maintained, force must be used. This applies to any item, not solely capital. Clothing, food, water and other such items must sometimes be defended as well, if one wishes to keep them. Capitalism only requires that one be permitted to use force in this capacity. That is, one has no need to be forceful. Just as someone, call him Joe, needs to be able to protect his food and water, so too much Joe be able to protect his pizza oven. In order for one to maintain ownership of any item, one must be permitted to defend it. However, Joe does not need to use force against others. If Joe were a lumberjack, for example, and were to cut down trees then sell them, he would be a capitalist. The only force involved in this is the force required to protect his earnings from others. 2C. Capitalism and Wages, Organization, and Equality An argument that is sometimes offered by those who oppose Capitalism is that Wages are exploitative. However, this objection is not to the system of Capitalism, but rather a practice that has been seen within it. Likewise, the organizational structure which is often seen within Capitalism is considered oppressive. However, these arguments are addressed at a method of implementation, not at the system itself. As an analogy, consider the Windows Phone operating system. One complaint that is raised is that the app selection for the Windows Store is quite low. Another complaint is that it is (was) difficult to get notifications, as there is (was)* no quick notification screen**. These two complaints are offered as reasons to not get a Windows phone. However, the App store can grow, with the help of developers, and there is now a drop down menu available that displays the notifications of various apps. Likewise, with the issues that I mentioned, even if true, neither of these entails that an anarchist must oppose Capitalism, as the structure can be changed and compensation increased. The organizational structure of some businesses is oppressive. Employees are not valued as people and are easily replaceable. However, this is not inherent to capitalist, as it is not necessary to have a top-down approach or view employees as machines. The wages of working will vary. Unfortunately, some people are more productive, efficient, or valuable to a business. For example, a private tutor who can tutor a C average student such that this student begins making A’s is more valuable than a private tutor who only takes that student to a B average. By “valuable” I mean worth more investment. By paying Tutor A more money, the business, or customers, might get more “bang for their buck”, that is, a better return on investment. For example, the now-A average student earns scholarships based on essays that were written in class, under the tutelage of Tutor A. Conclusion With that, I shall close my Opening Statements. I look forward to reading what MaesterAemon has to offer. [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://www.ppu.org.uk...