The first ten pages of "Looking Backward" are delightful. On page 10, the author introduces his theme with the view that income from an investment should be viewed as "a species of tax ... upon the product of those engaged in industry...".
I would counter that the fallacy of this view can be exposed by pointing out that in a "free market" there is no coercion; all participants participate voluntarily, including the investors, the entrepreneurs who borrow and issue shares, the workers in the factory, and the purchasers of product. All of the relationships are voluntary, and hence presumably mutually beneficial, exchange relationships.
There is no doubt that this happy state of affairs does not fully manifest in the real world. My point is only that living on the income from one's "capital" cannot be fairly characterized, per se, as a tax on workers. Workers might well be taxed and otherwise oppressed in capitalism as it exists in the real world, but the oppression cannot logically be attributed to capitalism itself.
The book is so delightfully written that I will keep it bookmarked for a while in the hope that I will continue to read, so that I give it a more fair chance to persuade me of its thesis and also so I can understand how you see the world.
The choice of submit to exploitation by a crapitalust or starve is not a free choice.
We have no choice but to eat and the crapitalust system has a lock on that.
Emma Goldman and Alex Berkman are the authorities on the subject i most rely on.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/emma-goldman
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/alexander-berkman
I also see our social system as a slave system. If our thinking differs at all, it differs only in the analysis of the nature and structure of the slave system. If by "capitalism" (or "crapitalism" :) ) you mean simply to identify the current system that actually exists, then I agree with you without reservation. But if by "capitalism" you intend to blame theoretical capitalism, which is nothing more than a perfect market regime in which the coercive power of the State is ONLY used to establish and defend individual rights, including the right to possess property, then we differ in our opinions as to what causes the current enslavement.
'Perfect theoretical capitalism' lifts people out of poverty, but doesnt solve the issue of who cleans the toilets.
If the bottom is raised so that we are all millionaires, it will be millionaires cleaning the toilets of the trillionaires.
Nor does it solve the havenots being slaves of the haves.
Ancom theory says if you want a toilet cleaned you are going to have to do it yourself or it might not get done.
Everybody has, as far as the basics, and we are only enslaved by life's necessity.
Ie, somebody has to do the work if we want work done.
Crypto may make this largely accademic provided the haves dont press their advantage over the have nots, but the majority are crapitalust and see this as their chance to be the ruling uberlords.
There is a chance for ancoms to get heard in the din, we will have to grab our chance, or miss it.
If you are not willing to be wrong, then you will not alter the course of history. I have a vision and a plan. I know that there have to be flaws in both my vision and my plan. But if people join with me for community action toward the vision that I can articulate, I know that something good will happen, that we will get to a place that is better than were we are headed if we DON'T act. The vision and the plan just serves to enable us to act coherently.
The important thing is that we act. You might envision anarchy communism, a vision that differs from mine. But if we both want to empower people to be able to determine their own lives and destinies, then we can work together on the aspects of our respective plans that promote individual empowerment.
As we make progress in empowering everyday people, we can sort out the difference in our visions and adjust our level of cooperation (or competition).
Mostly i look to end rule by force, then we can all do as we please.
In the sci-fi story, what keeps farmer #2 from walking up to farmer #1 with a gun, killing him, and taking farmer #1's wife and tractor?
For a less violent scenario, what recourse does farmer #1 have if the tractor doesn't work as promised?
Gonna have to get to know your neighbors.
If somebody sells you a bum tractor nobody else will buy from him, and without cops and judges he will be lucky not to hang.
Folks didnt have any problems settling the frontiers, the wild west was survived.
Gonna have to man up and solve your problems how you do it.