Back

Criticize capitalism around here and very soon you'll have replies arguing that your complaints may be accurate but the things you object to are somehow not intrinsic to capitalism. That capitalism can be reformed so there's no need to destroy it. All we need is better laws, all of these arguments go. Often Scandinavian countries get mentioned.

None of these arguments convince me, but the silliest one of all is that capitalism can exist without coercion, without organized state violence. It's an intrinsically contradictory position. If all we need are better laws to eliminate the flaws of capitalism well, then how will those laws be enforced if not through violence?

So, you know, tax billionaires at 99% and use the money for social programs and universal health care and basic income. Take laws protecting workers seriously, and limit the amount of money CEOs make to some small multiple of what workers make. Institute rent control and whatever social programs you want. More laws to eliminate the influence of money on politics. Make destroying the environment illegal, outlaw private jets and SUVs, and on and on and on.

But what if the billionaires won't pay? What if employers violate all the worker protections and landlords refuse to charge legal rents? What if the politicians take money under the table? What if the polluters keep polluting? How will you make them comply if not through courts and police? And if they won't comply with a judge's orders what will you do? At some point someone has to go to jail or your laws won't reform anything, and putting them in jail is intrinsically a violent process. It can't be done without violence.

Like I said, none of these reformist arguments convince me. Even if all these schemes were effective they still require violence to work, therefore it's still not possible to keep capitalism, no matter how reformed, without violence and the threat of violence. Violence is absolutely a necessary condition for the existence of capitalism.

P.s. This isn't the main reason capitalism requires violence. Mostly it requires violence because no one would allow themselves to be exploited by landlords and bosses if there weren't violent consequences for refusing, but arguing from that fact that capitalism requires violence doesn't leverage the opposition's own hypothesis against their argument.