Can we please resume the logic lesson on a different thread? Thanks.
I think, that you understand my conclusions perfectly, nirgrahamUK.
But anyways, I guess that capitalism is equal to private property (as per Lilburne), but then where does that leave anarcho-communism in relation to anarcho-capitalism and therefore in relation to HA?
Anarcho-communists are simply people who fancy mutually giving up natural rights. They'll join civilization soon enough after they spent all existing capital in their communities.
So now I'm just getting more and more confused, you say that anarcho-capitalism is all about private property. So that must mean that anarcho-communism cannot exist under it?
What does anarcho-communism have to do with Human Action?! I'd still like to help anyone who has questions about the ideas in the text itself. Can we please stay on topic?
Sorry I was just trying to figure out the definition then, of capitalism because (although I thought I knew it) it appears that I really don't know it and understanding that definition would really help in understanding HA.
(why I brought up AnCom was to figure out its definition inorder to figure out capitalism's definition -a very roundabout but nevertheless possible route).
Anarcho-communism is all about property in the sense that they (in theory at least) should allow other people like ancaps to live in private property focused communities.
Most of them don't think anyone will want to live in ancap though, and some of them get violent when you tell them you do. But in theory, anarcho-communism is the voluntary and mutual agreement to share property.