The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
This statement is false. Many of the modern legal/corporate structures are finely grained in their differences in specifying both the possession and control of the
collectively owned and maintained capital of the company.
Using convoluted legalese, some of the "its mine" can appear to be mitigated. In actuality, capital is still withheld from use by those who might use it.
The withholding of capital (in this case, the growing forest and the land it grows upon) is
using it. In one sense, it's savings. In another sense, the growing forest itself is capital
at work. Seriously, you guys don't understand what you are speaking about.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Only in the sense that said appropration is by force, against the will or consent of those with a prior claim to that capital. We do have corporate structures that are specificly designed to limit corporate ownership to present and/or former members of the corporate workforce.
That prior claim is invalid and based on imperialism.
Says you.
The workforce has only force to use.
Bullshit. I am not a slave to my employer. If anything, I am a slave to my government to the same percentage that they take my income in taxes.
Any basic understanding of union politics wlll show this.
More bullshit. I'm presently a member in two different unions, and own stock in both the company that I work for and several other companies. You are not prevented from doing the same.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on
wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Can a capitalist enply non-coercive methods to maintain control of his capital? Yes. But the strawman you set up above should be set alight, because those are all examples of
coercive methods. Just because the cops are private thugs doesn't make it a non-coercive solution.
The strawman belongs to anarchocapitalists, not me.
Control of private capital requires violent defense.
Maybe, maybe not. The key word is
defense. You don't agree with my views on property and rights; fine, don't work for me. If yo utry to take my stuff because you think you have the right, expect a vigorous, and perhaps violent, defense. This would not be different in any socity, no matter how primitive or "ideal" in your view. What belongs to them, belongs to
them. You can choose to work for them, under their rules, or not.
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
How are you going to afford the service robot?
With my liberated community capital. Capital is not bad, capitalism is bad.
"Liberated" capital? Theft is worse.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.
Good God, where do you people come up with this crap?
Derp.
Anarchism has lots of variants. some oppose others. Some are misnomers.
Derp, Derp. Some are simply deluded.