And who is going to stop a company from owning a factory or a farm? It wouldn’t even require violence for a company to do so. It just requires them to have enough resources to pay people to do it.

I guess I don’t see what you call “anarchy” as a system that would ever exist more than a year. The end result would always be “anarcho-capitalism”. That, or, people would have to form their own government to prevent that system.

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 9 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

The company would need violence. There's no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there's no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The factory helps make the goods though

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, that's what I mean, the workers could go in the factory, produce the goods, and sell them, if the company did not use violence. It's not clear where the factory came from in this hypothetical. The community could've built it, it could have been abandoned, or the company could've claimed they "owned" it (which is not possible in the society, so it would be seized).

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)