# Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534 "2010-07-04T17:28:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/61 "2010-07-06T19:19:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Look, there’s a real and important difference between a business that is owned by the workers and one that isn’t, and “capitalist” is as good a name for the difference as any other; and I’m fairly certain the word’s use in that sense actually predates the word’s use in any other sense. Rolling your eyes isn’t conveying your point. Explain why a business owned by the workers is different than a business that isn’t from the point of view of somebody who isn’t part of that business. I was buying some DVD’s yesterday. I’ve been in the store a few times before and it’s always the same guy working there. Maybe he’s the owner. Or maybe he works for the owner. I’ve never asked. Why? Because it doesn’t make any difference in the operation of the store. At least no difference I can discern as a customer. But apparently you can. You’d be able to walk into this store and immediately know whether or not the guy was the owner or an employee. Because if he’s an employee it’s a capitalist store and if he’s the owner it’s a non-capitalist store. And apparently the two are vastly different. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/62 "2010-07-06T19:21:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Little Nemo, what does “capital” mean? Basically, it’s investable assets. Which means it has to be something that has a widely recognized value. It has to be subject to ownership and its ownership must be transferable. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/63 "2010-07-06T20:15:18Z")
It’s really pretty simple: Capitalism is a system where private individuals are free to trade with one another in an open marketplace. They are free to keep the profits from those trades, accumulate capital, and invest it in businesses in return for partial or complete ownership. Capitalists are therefore people who use capital to invest in the means of production, with the expectation that they will be able to own those means of production and profit from the sale of the resultant sale of the goods and services they produced. Now, if you set up a business as a collective, the _interior_ structure of that business may be different than the typical capitalist enterprise. But to the outside world, there is no difference. If Collectives were competitive in the open marketplace, you would see more collectively-owned businesses. Since you don’t, the only way you could get to a place where all businesses were worker collectives would be to mandate it by law. You’d need to prevent the accumulation of capital by taxing it away from anyone who collects more money than they ‘should’. You would have to prevent individuals from using their capital to set up companies that are not employee owned. If you do that, you no longer have a free market, and you no longer have capitalism. Brainglutton appears to think that there’s a big difference in behavior of worker-owned companies vs companies in which the person with capital owns the company and hires the workers for a salary. I don’t see it. He seems to think that such companies would be better stewards of the environment, would act more ethically, and in someway contribute to a new form of quasi-socialist capitalism in which there’s technically a free market, but really the workers of the world are just using the market to bind their collectives together in a large conglomeration of workers. Or something. History suggests that that simply isn’t the case. Once you get past the smallest of organizations, you can no longer manage it collectively. You need to establish hierarchies to allow decisions to be made. You need to have leaders who can speak for the company and make deals and sign contracts. These people in responsibility generally expect to be paid more. Eventually, you wind up with a corporate structure that looks pretty much like any other corporate structure. Hell, even within labor unions themselves hierarchies develop. Have you seen how much money big labor bosses make? And while members do vote on major contracts affecting them, the day-to-day decisions of the union are made by the leadership. And if you think union leaders are somehow more community-minded or ethical than business leaders, you haven’t paid much attention. There are a lot of former labor leaders in jail for unethical behavior. Brainglutton seems to think that there is a path to utopia or at least a much better world that can be attained if only we find a way to give workers all the power. Communism has failed, Socialism isn’t doing so hot, so now terms are being redefined and the big thinkers in the collectivist movement are trying to invent new ways of stripping power from the current capitalists and giving it to the workers under the theory that workers are more deserving and better people. They know that Socialism and Communism have largely discredited themselves, so they’re trying to build this brave new world under the banner of free markets - a newer, better kind of free market that is owned and controlled by the ‘workers’. But you can’t avoid the rules of economics and human behavior. Humans respond to inecntives. Power corrupts. People are not equal in intelligence or work ethic. So no matter what kind of system you start out with, you’ll wind up with 80% of the wealth being controlled by 20% of the people. The Soviet Union had equality of income - but factory owners got ‘use’ of government provided summer homes. Politicians rode around in state-provided ZIL limousines and could shop at department stores not open to ‘the people’. Whenever a system comes along that attempts to use force to organize people into ‘better’ ways of living that deny the reality of incentives and human behavior, the result is ultimately a tragedy. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/64 "2010-07-06T23:54:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > By pooling their resources, by calling in favours, by pre-selling their mineral revenues. Might as well ask where the mining equipment factory gets its money, and so on down the line. Whom are they selling their mineral revenues too? What sort of favors have they done that are worth this much? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/65 "2010-07-07T10:26:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As I’ve said, I disagree. There’s a family farm stand across the street from me. Are you claiming it’s not a capitalist enterprise? As long as they employ no-one else, and every family member has a proportional share in the enterprise and can dissolve that share at will, yes, I’m claiming it’s not a capitalist enterprise. Of course, I’ve not come across any family businesses like that (usually, the kids are employees not full shareholders) but there’s nothing saying they couldn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/66 "2010-07-07T10:32:28Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Whom are they selling their mineral revenues too? The factory they want the equipment from > [@](#): > > What sort of favors have they done that are worth this much? I don’t know, maybe they used to work in another collective mine and those guys agreed to have a word with the factory when these guys found a new deposit to mine. Maybe they (collectively) earned 1000000 blowjobs worth of good feeling behind the truckstop. It doesn’t really matter. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/67 "2010-07-07T18:38:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: **I** did not invent it; it is a definition that has been in wide currency in economic and political theory for almost two centuries now. Did you even read the OP? Yes. My point stands, and your cite in the OP was TVTropes, not a real authority. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/68 "2010-07-07T20:10:40Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Yes. My point stands, and your cite in the OP was TVTropes, not a real authority. Yes, but that’s as if TVTropes said, “Christians believe Jesus Christ is the son of God.” It’s knowledge at that level of public-record status. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/69 "2010-07-07T23:02:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but that’s as if TVTropes said, “Christians believe Jesus Christ is the son of God.” It’s knowledge at that level of public-record status. Um, sure, _if you’re an anarchist_. From your own damn cite, for God’s sake, my emphasis: [QUOTE=TVTropes] **Most anarchist literature, and most anarchists, define “Capitalism” in the Marxist sense of the term** (i.e. capital is owned by party X, and party X pays wages to parties A, B and C to operate said capital). [/QUOTE] So, yes, in a Marxist sense as interpreted by anarchists, you’re right, this is the only acceptable definition. Most of us are not anarcho-Marxists. The fact that the word “Capitalism” is defined that way on your TVTropes page does not mean we out here in the wide world of competing opinions can’t argue that that definition is wrong, or fatally limited. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/70 "2010-07-08T03:20:06Z")
I googled definition of capitalism and got this [page](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+capitalism&aq=0&aqi=l1g7g-m3&aql=&oq=definition+of+capitalism&gs_rfai=CzC1JW0I1TNCbNYfAzQTWkKT_CwAAAKoEBU_Q3_gQ). > [@](#): > > Definitions of capitalism on the Web: > > an economic system based on private ownership of capital > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > > Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, after taxes, is distributed to the owners or invested in … > [Capitalism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) > > Capitalism is “the condition of possessing capital“ [1]. It refers to an economic system whereby goods and services are exchanged on a for-profit basis. Exchange is generally mediated through money. … > www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/globalization/globalization\_glossary.jsp > > Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. It is a system based on the production of goods and services for exchange rather than use. … > www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html > > Economic system in which property is privately owned and goods are privately produced.It is sometimes referred to as the private enterprise system. > [www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html](http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html) > > The current economic system of the United States and much of the world. Capitalism operates according to supply and demand, as well as the drive for greed and profit. But this drive for profit can cause capitalists to disregard the safety of workers and the environment. … > [reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html](http://reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html) > > A system under which private entrepreneurs have complete freedom to devise and control production and distribution for their own profits, competition being the only limiting factor > [www.perfectyourenglish.com/vocabulary/business-vocabulary.htm](http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/vocabulary/business-vocabulary.htm) > > Private ownership of the businesses of a society with the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties. > [www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html](http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html) > > an economic (not political or governmental) system that favors and requires a free market, competition, and private (as opposed to governmental) ownership of the means of production (ie, businesses). … > www.lib.uconn.edu/~mboyer/ms2001-02glossary.html > > is an economic system in which private parties make their goods and services available on a free market and seek to make a profit on their activities. … > [www.global-awareness.net/Singapore/definitions.htm](http://www.global-awareness.net/Singapore/definitions.htm) None of these are the Marxist definition quoted in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/71 "2010-07-08T06:57:49Z")
So what? The OP didn’t make up the Marxist definition, and it’s certainly the definition that most anti-capitalists will be using to define themselves (it’s not \*quite \*the one I’d use, but I’m OK with it), so it’s the definition of most relevance to the question under discussion. Also, your little laundry list of definitions just merrily leaves understood such concepts as “capital”, “means of production”, “free market”, all of which are up for interpretation too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/72 "2010-07-08T14:11:04Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Um, sure, _if you’re an anarchist_. From your own damn cite, for God’s sake, my emphasis: > So, yes, in a Marxist sense as interpreted by anarchists, you’re right, this is the only acceptable definition. > > Most of us are not anarcho-Marxists. The fact that the word “Capitalism” is defined that way on your TVTropes page does not mean we out here in the wide world of competing opinions can’t argue that that definition is wrong, or fatally limited. **So fucking what?** I’m perfectly within my rights to start a thread on “Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market?” **using the term “capitalist” the way anarchists and Marxists define it.** Discussion of the topic **on those terms** is interesting and meaningful and relevant to the real world, and you don’t need to be an anarchist or Marxist to participate in the discussion **on those terms** meaningfully. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/73 "2010-07-08T16:06:15Z")
> [@](#): > > So what? The OP didn’t make up the Marxist definition, and it’s certainly the definition that most anti-capitalists will be using to define themselves (it’s not quite the one I’d use, but I’m OK with it), so it’s the definition of most relevance to the question under discussion. Also, your little laundry list of definitions just merrily leaves understood such concepts as “capital”, “means of production”, “free market”, all of which are up for interpretation too. > [@](#): > > So fucking what? I’m perfectly within my rights to start a thread on “Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market?” using the term “capitalist” the way anarchists and Marxists define it. Discussion of the topic on those terms is interesting and meaningful and relevant to the real world, and you don’t need to be an anarchist or Marxist to participate in the discussion on those terms meaningfully. If you start a thread on the topic “Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market?” and base the question on irregular definitions of these terms, you have to expect people are going to point out that these words have conventional meanings. If you want to have a debate on whether Marxist economic theory is better than free market capitalism, then fine. But don’t beg the question by pretending the Marxist definition of capitalism is widely accepted. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/74 "2010-07-08T16:10:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you start a thread on the topic “Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market?” and base the question on irregular definitions of these terms, you have to expect people are going to point out that these words have conventional meanings. Of course they can point it out – **but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.** ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/75 "2010-07-08T16:44:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you start a thread on the topic “Is it possible to be anti-capitalist and pro-market?” and base the question on irregular definitions of these terms, you have to expect people are going to point out that these words have conventional meanings. Marxist theory is hardly “irregular”. “Not popular” in the States (hence, also, on the internet) would be a more accurate statement. > [@](#): > > If you want to have a debate on whether Marxist economic theory is better than free market capitalism, then fine. But don’t beg the question by pretending the Marxist definition of capitalism is widely accepted. It _is_ widely accepted, and anyway, you’re building a strawman version of **BG** ’s OP - instead, he laid his terms out plain as day, so you really should just shut up and address the fecking OP on its own terms, and stop hijacking. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/76 "2010-07-08T16:59:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Marxist theory is hardly “irregular”. “Not popular” in the States (hence, also, on the internet) would be a more accurate statement. “Crazy” would be an even more accurate term. I can’t think of a political philosophy that has been more discredited than Marxism. The wonder is that anyone believes in it at all any more. It was wrong in theory, and disastrous in practice. > [@](#): > > It _is_ widely accepted, and anyway, you’re building a strawman version of **BG** ’s OP - instead, he laid his terms out plain as day, so you really should just shut up and address the fecking OP on its own terms, and stop hijacking. The problem with re-defining terms like this is that it hijacks the discussion right from the beginning. If I started a thead that said, “Is Marxism compatible with human freedom?” but I defined Marxism as any political philosophy which suppresses human freedom and results in tyranny and the murder of millions, I suspect the thread would devolve into more of a debate about my weird definition than about the subject I wanted to talk about. In any event, I think we’ve answered the OP’s question even given the terms of his definitions, and the answer is NO. Markets and capitalism are inseparable. Markets are the inevitable result of capitalism, and you can’t have a free market unless capital is free to flow. Brainglutton argued that a collective enterprise isn’t capitalist, because there’s no distinction between owner and worker. But that’s only true in the micro sense - as soon as these collectives create markets to trade with one another, you have capitalism. Some collectives will become wealthier than others. They will accumulate capital. But an even stronger point is that collectives only work when they are very small. As soon as an organization grows beyond a few individuals, it requires a hierarchy of responsibility. And human nature being what it is, you won’t get people at the top to take on the added work and responsibility without paying them more, and you won’t get them to take responsibility unless they also have more authority. At some point, they stop being ‘workers’ and become ‘capitalists’. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/77 "2010-07-08T19:49:10Z")
An interesting thread! I just wanted to add this as a data point really, it’s a hugely successful UK high street retailer about which I quote from Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > The John Lewis Partnership is a major United Kingdom worker co-operative retailer which operates John Lewis department stores, Waitrose supermarkets and the direct services company Greenbee. The company is owned by a trust on behalf of all its employees - known as partners - who have a say in the running of the business and receive a share of annual profits, which is usually a significant addition to their salary. > [@](#): > > Finally, every partner receives an Annual Bonus, which is a share of the profit. It is calculated as a percentage of the salary, with the same percentage for everyone, from top management down to the shop floor and the storage rooms. The bonus is dependent on the profitability of the partnership each year, varying between 9% and 20% of the partners’ annual salaries since 2000. [Organisation of the partnership](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership#Organisation_of_the_partnership) [Example of its upmarket retailing](http://www.peterjones.co.uk/) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/78 "2010-07-08T21:00:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > “Crazy” would be an even more accurate term. I can’t think of a political philosophy that has been more discredited than Marxism. Libertarianism comes to mind… > [@](#): > > The wonder is that anyone believes in it at all any more. It was wrong in theory, and disastrous in practice. Dunno that Marxism (or Marxist communism, to be pedantic) has ever been practised anywhere. Lots of folk \*called \*themselves Marxist, but they never seem to let go of the State, like Marx stipulated for World Communism. Also, note that Marxism =/= Marxist politics. Other facets of Marxist thought like dialectic materialism, historical materialism, class consciousness, these are all alive and well in current academic discourse in many disparate fields. Especially culture studies and humanities, but also such fields as anthropology and architecture. By no means is it all discredited. Note that I’m definitely \*not \*a Marxist, even if I am anti-capitalist. > [@](#): > > The problem with re-defining terms like this is that it hijacks the discussion right from the beginning. If I started a thead that said, “Is Marxism compatible with human freedom?” but I defined Marxism as any political philosophy which suppresses human freedom and results in tyranny and the murder of millions, I suspect the thread would devolve into more of a debate about my weird definition than about the subject I wanted to talk about. There was nothing “Weird” about BG’s definition, though, unlike your example. I can find pages and pages of references that use the Marxist approach to capitalism - academic papaers, Wiki articles, blog rants, you name it. > [@](#): > > In any event, I think we’ve answered the OP’s question even given the terms of his definitions, and the answer is NO. Err, no, I think the debate is still very much alive, once we ignore the hijack. > [@](#): > > Markets and capitalism are inseparable. Markets are the inevitable result of capitalism, and you can’t have a free market unless capital is free to flow. Brainglutton argued that a collective enterprise isn’t capitalist, because there’s no distinction between owner and worker. But that’s only true in the micro sense - as soon as these collectives create markets to trade with one another, you have capitalism. Some collectives will become wealthier than others. They will accumulate capital. CApital isn’t just “wealth”, though - it’s wealth used in a particular way. > [@](#): > > But an even stronger point is that collectives only work when they are very small. As soon as an organization grows beyond a few individuals, it requires a hierarchy of responsibility. I disagree. It is perfectly possible to run an organisation of hundreds, even thousands, without this hierarchy. Or without responsibility being tied to compensation. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/79 "2010-07-08T21:04:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Libertarianism comes to mind…Dunno that Marxism (or Marxist communism, to be pedantic) has ever been practised anywhere. Lots of folk \*called \*themselves Marxist, but they never seem to let go of the State, like Marx stipulated for World Communism. Someone, perhaps a Scotsman, made a similar contention about Christianity once. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534/80 "2010-07-08T21:11:10Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Someone, perhaps a Scotsman, made a similar contention about Christianity once. It’s not a fallacy if the guy actually laid out the form of the future Communim in his works. “Stateless” is a big part of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-anti-capitalist-and-pro-market/545534.md?page=5)