War and conflict are driven by resources. To maintain our lives in the West, we need more resources then we can find at home, often these resources come from third world countries. We need those countries to remain favourable to us and our companies and if they say no then we have a problem. You could say that's an extreme example but it's just how our world works today, the minerals in our computers and phones come from the Congo, one of the poorest countries on Earth.

In socialism (lower stage of communism) you would still have "police and the military", now under the jurisdiction of the proletariat. There would still be crime and you would need police for other non-criminal duties like for example directing traffic. Now of course you would not need the police for such things like protecting private property because such a thing would no longer exist. In early socialism, you would still see the marks left from capitalism. Once these forces are no longer necessary such as in a state of post-scarcity then the role of force such as police and military would no longer be necessary assuming that these entities were created by material conditions.

The world does not run on ideology, it runs on state of affairs. You cannot emulate the Roman Republic today because it was a republican state based on a slave driven economy (ancient slavery functioned different than slavery of the late 1600-1800 empires), whereas today our economy is driven by capital.

The advantage of capitalism right now is the much longer phase of development it has experienced over socialism. There will probably be many more failures in socialism before it becomes successful.

In some sense, both the mainstream "left and right" are reactionary in their solutions, both digging up economic theories from the past in order to try to solve the problems of today. That's really the challenge with social democracy right now. Governments are becoming bloated, people are losing faith in the government and media, we're seeing the rise of radical ideologies again and there's a lack of solutions. The rise of groups like the alt-right I think helps to illustrate that we are leaving an era of stability and into one of crisis.

Will the system be able to offer new concessions or will it snap? Who knows.

1. Greed can only lead to exploitation if one or a group of people have a privileged position in society which they can act on. If all people are similarly capable of inducing violence, and there is no unilateral authority on the legitimacy of that violence then the self-interested forces of individuals mostly cancel out of an aim of cost-reduction. Yes, there will be a non-zero number of successful murders that one can get away with and rapes, but the murderer and the rapist has no special protections like murderers and rapists receive in the existence of institutionalized state power. For example, something like legalizing husbands raping wives wouldn't be a thing, because the wives would have the ability to kill their husbands without any repercussions. 

Your implied argument is really silly. That a non-zero number of raping, killing, and usury exists <=> it is useless to reduce the number of raping, killing, and usury. 

2. You can't be serious, can you? Use your brain please. Are there means of enforcing one's will besides statutes (do you know what a statute is?) and telepathy? 

3. The point made is that I can rescind my consent at any time. Otherwise it is not consensual. We apply a much  fuller standard of consent to sex than we do labor agreements. Rather than assert that they're different, tell me why you think their difference creates a distinction. Both are promises of a future social interaction. I have autonomy over my body and my labor-product. So on and so forth. Make an actual argument rather than asserting that they are different. But somehow I don't think you're capable of making arguments, merely feigning outrage. That's your thing isn't it?  

4. That is because you don't know what individualism is. Read a book. It's obvious you don't do that often. Your grasp (or the lack thereof) of political, legal, statistical, etc knowledge seems to be the problem here. Ignorance is not a virtue. 

5. Sure, but this is not an on and off switch. You certainly would not equivocate joining a gang and marrying an abusive husband, for example. There are degrees to which people surround themselves with those whom are or are not in their interest. 

6. Because exploitation is not in my or the vast majority of people's interests. Subjectively, it is bad for us. Why would we let others exploit us without fighting back? As you noted, "greed" exists. I want my full labor-product (or an equivalent value) and don't want the capitalist to have it. I am acting in my self-interest. The capitalist wants as much of my labor-product as he can get. In the absence of the state and its enforcement of capitalist-privileged legal norms I would have more bargaining power over my labor-product, and the capitalist would have less. Hence I support the dissolution of the state so that I can empower myself to receive my full labor product. THIS IS INDIVIDUALISM and EGOISM. Not your flimsy belief that we should just roll over and let others exploit us, because rape and murder will always exist to some minimal level, which is based on some purported objective moral spook. 

7. The difference between utopic and idealistic is whether or not one believes an ideal/perfect thing can be achieved. Note the second definition provided in the dictionary you cited. The utopian believes utopia is achieveable, while the idealist doesn't necessarily believe a perfect thing is achievable, but it's worthwhile aiming for. So while total anarchism (the elimination of hierarchy and rulership) in all social context at all scales in space and time is very much impossible, aiming to abolish hierarchies and rulership is a useful ideal to aim for. 

Second definition which you didn't quote, notice it stipulates "desirable or perfect" and also note the rest of the bolded: "existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality."

8. You need to again prove such a statement. Merely asserting it doesn't make it so. For example, you'll have to compare gender norms across different societies in different times and come up with an explanation for those societies where gender norms (and roles) diverged from the traditions of western societies. For example, the gender norms of many native american tribes were significantly different from the gender norms prescribed by Christianity. 

Feminism is about equal rights, but not just about equal rights. It's also about social status. 

9. In our current world where contraceptives are legal, abortion is legal, where women are not socially pressured to have as many children as possible, she has more autonomy than two hundred years ago when women were considered nothing more than baby-producing creatures. So how autonomous the pregnant woman is depends mostly on her social status and the norms of the society she is in. The small part of autonomy lost due to the nature of her pregnancy is relatively insignificant in today's world, albeit very much significant in another. This is actually a clear example of how a hierarchy was disestablished. 

10. I can agree that success within any system is determined by individual qualities. I can't agree that social structures are insignificant though. Which individual qualities and to what degree prevail are very much determined by the social conditions external to the individual. Do you agree with this? 

11. I am arguing that all the capitalist provides other individuals is capital. I am not arguing that all that matters in success is capital. These are two very different arguments with two very different conclusions. Reading comprehension has been very difficult for you in this conversation, not necessarily because you can't read, but because you choose not to read and think about what is written.

12. Nope I'm not denying that some people are better at some tasks, I am denying that the people who are better are necessarily the ones in power, or at least I am skeptical of this claim. 

13. Sure, but almost every distinguishing characteristics follows a similar distribution to intelligence. They'd have to have a non-linear transformation in order to produce the distribution in wealth we have. This might be likely if intelligence correlated with other desirable qualities, but this is very improbable in itself. The most intelligent people aren't necessarily the most beautiful people aren't necessarily the most physically capable people aren't necessarily (insert another trait.)

14. And this is suppose to be an argument? Sure people and society aren't perfect (and won't ever be), that doesn't mean we just stop here and accept it. If that were the case you'd likely be born a slave in a slave society or a peasant under feudalism, because "hey peasant, the world ain't perfect!"

15. Again, this is not an argument. Otherwise we should accept slavery and feudalism. 

16. What does this have to do with the management of firms and capitalism? Einstein and Tesla weren't capitalists managing others to produce these ideas. Also both Einstein's and Tesla's ideas were further developed by other individuals. 

17. Think like what? The economic calculation problem? Um, this is a concept actually used by capitalist/liberal thinkers (Mises, Hayek) to criticize state-socialism/central planning. I am just using it from a libertarian-socialist perspective to criticize capitalist firms. Are Mises and Hayek not individualists? Do you even understand what I am talking about? Again, it seems likely your thing is to reflexively react rather than think (or even process what is being said.) 

18. Land (this is a big one), waterways, airwaves, fossil fuels, minerals, metals, mines, caves, etc. As John Locke (you know that crazy socialist, right?) says in his proviso, 

"Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same."

The state gives monopoly access to natural resources to particular individuals independent of whether or not they improve (homestead) them and in conditions of scarcity. 

Locke presupposed that (land) enclosure was okay if there was enough for others, but if there wasn't enough then enclosure wasn't okay. 

The socialist merely takes locke's provisos seriously. 

19. I don't see a clean dichotomy between individual interests and collective interests if we are to speak of an organic society where social groups are mostly voluntary, in so much as people associate (join a collective) individual interests and collective interests align. It is only when you force somebody to join a collective entity or restrict their other options via force that these interests are in conflict. But yes, I agree mostly with this paragraph besides the idea that because our current society isn't perfect it is just the same as another possible society. 

20. Even if I assume your scenario, who is being exploited in your description? The man gains the psychological benefit of helping the person he cares about, and the woman receives the benefit of being helped. It would only be exploitative if the man or woman expected this to be the case and enforced that expectation through coercive means (violence, blackmail, etc.) 

21. As you stated "you would have a point if you were referring to a large scale development"

My freedoms to do such a thing are dependent on what the state considers "large-scale development." This would usually include a home, electricity, etc. 

22. Steve Jobs got it from the capitalists, which is exactly my point. Steve Jobs was not able to act alone because he didn't have the pre-requisite capital. 

23. Before I answer the question, tell me why the question is relevant? 

24. Mere excuses for one's self-imposed ignorance. For the interested readers, here's the wikipedia page on individualist anarchism a tradition including influential philosophers like: Henry David Thoreau and William Godwin, and many less known philosophers like Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, William B. Greene, Max Stirner, Dyer Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre, and many others. But it's mere word-salad people. None of these people and their writings ever existed, guys. 

25. Hierarchy, "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."

"World's sexiest man" isn't a "system or organization" and there is no single authority to determine "world's sexiest man." 

But to humor you, everytime I say "hiearchy" implicit is the phrase "social hierarchy."  Considering that we were discussing socio-politics, I didn't think that was necessary, but I understand that hierarchy might be a new word for you. 

26. Note that this is not a perfectly achievable state (it's an ideal),  an extreme to which we contextualize things. Obviously the ability to induce violence can not be perfectly equal. Nevertheless, with the existence of guns (which equalize the capacity to kill at the individual level) this is not a ridiculous premise, especially when we consider that people can associate. It doesn't ignore individuality at all. 

27. That is not exactly what is happening here. A group of people have a set of monopolies (state-granted) on certain resources (and their products thereof) and they are using those monopolies to further bolster their position to exploit the labor of another. This is what is meant by exploitation. It is much more than simply pooling one's resources with others, which I obviously support. 

28. Sure, he might need others, but he'll be in a better position to bargain with said others if they did not have disproportionate state-granted privileges and monopolies. In a competitive market he'd find lenders who would lend at a rate proportional to the cost of lending (no more and no less.) See Benjamin Tucker's description of the money monopoly: 

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

29. Yep, with your writing abilities and reading-comprehension skills I am so sure of it! Not to mention how much you've read on the discourse between capitalists and socialists over the centuries, and all of the empirical data which you did not provide.. Your understanding is so overwhelmingly boundless! "Society can't be perfect!" is such a great argument to defend the current status quo. Ignorance must truly be blissful. 

30. Read, read, read! "If my choice is limited by unilateral violence it is less voluntary"

31. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in capitalist society, but the state is certainly forcing us to not participate in different societies through regulation and subsidy, as you conceded is the case, but merely gloss over with a lazy "The world isn't perfect." 

32. No, because there is no monopoly on the legitimation of violence. If I kill him in self-defense I don't have to go to a state court to prove it was self-defense and the state isn't there to give me permission. 

33. Merely asserting it must make it true, right?

34. What state was formed by consensus? Can you provide me one example? Or are you using a particularly innovative meaning of consensus? For example, the United States of America was created by a very small minority of people who died centuries ago. The millions of other individuals who existed in that time did not consent, nor did anybody born since consent to the United States. Spooner explains this pretty clearly in his essay. 

35. If the responsibility is with the individuals why have the state charade in the first place? Only individuals are real with moral agency, the state is a collectivist abstraction. 

Fair point there.

Well they did produce results "on par with the Soviet Union." Pretty much every horrible thing said of the Soviet Union can be said of Rome (both the Republic and Empire) and many Greek city-states. Who said anything about not learning from history? There are things to learn from the totalitarian mess that was the Soviet Union, simplistic conclusions like "Socialism [in general] is always bad or wrong" is not one of them. It's a position without nuance. 

What you can do is try to prove that fascism (or socialism) are bad because they always end with the results that we've seen in the Soviet Union or fascist Europe, but that is a hard thing to prove. Particularly for fascism it is easier because it's not as broad an ideological tent as socialism, but even for fascism it is pretty difficult, which is evidenced by the number of fascists in the world. Ironically, fascism was Mussolini's attempt to revive Rome, so that tells you how despotic Rome could be. 

Classical marxism and Marxist-Leninism aren't the same thing. I take it VGPolyglot  (as an ancom) accepts the prior, but not the latter. Even still, it's possible to cite Marx and Engels without being a Marxist or a Marxist-Leninist. I personally don't find much of value in Marx besides the things he appropriated from older socialists (the Ricardian Socialists, Proudhon, etc) but some people find his theories of historical materialism and a few other things interesting. 

To have a more fruitful discussion. What do you consider "private industry"? I personally see the private-public distinction as a false dichotomy which is one of the causes for why people think social-democracy is a mix of socialism and capitalism. 

In my opinion, it is better to distinguish between individual vs. common vs. collective ownership and full property rights vs. usufruct. 

Individual property is property which only an individual accesses and uses and which can be excluded from others. Think of the individualist anarchist's like Benjamin Tucker's and Josiah Warren's thoughts on property. 

Common property is property (or non-property) which many access and use, nobody can be excluded from it, and a proportion (if not all) of the labor-product produced from it is commonly shared in a common-use pool. Think of Peter Kropotkin's thoughts on property. This is the basis of anarcho-communism. 

Collective property is property which many people have access to and can use, but people can be excluded from it, and labor-product produced from it is kept individual. Think of Mikhail Bakunin's thoughts on property. This is the basis of anarcho-collectivism. 

Full property rights are when one holds all rights to use, profit, and abuse a thing. Usufruct is merely using and profiting off a thing. 

You can combine individual, common, and collective property with usufruct or full property rights. 

For example, parts of the commons can be individualized through a mutual agreement with those who also use the commons, but maybe when individualized the individual only has a usufruct and the full property right to abuse is held in common. 

Or maybe individuals pool their resources together to create collective property, but retain the ability to separate a part of this new collective property if they exit it. 

Capitalism requires more than private property + markets existing. It requires the state imposition of private property and markets on those whom don't want to recognize or use them, and from this the separation and empowerment of capital (as a class) over labor (as a class) through depriving labor of its bargaining power. 

A society without a state to institutionalize markets and private property, but which might have individual property and markets extant isn't capitalist.

I think in an actual anarchistic society all these forms of property would exist with none being dominant. I also think gift-economies, barter, and markets can exist alongside and complementing one another. Heck they already do today (albeit distorted by state power.) 

I don't know ... things look pretty damn corrupt now at least in the US, a mixed economy. 

Careful. If Atlas shrugs, you'll have no site to complain about the owner on.

I tell you... if socialists were given a whole country, a big one, so they could develop their "real" socialism, it would end up in a civil war, a dictatorship, or probably would evolve into capitalism which is our human nature.
Later they would start claiming it wasnt real socialism for whatever reason, would blame someone else and start again to advocate for the "new" real socialism.
Its a neverending cicle, just like dark souls, but darker.

I tell you... if capitalists were given a whole kingdom, a big one, so they could develop their "real" capitalism, it would end up in a civil war, a dictatorship, or probably would evolve into feudalism which is our human nature. Later they would start claiming it wasn't real capitalism for whatever reason, would blame someone else and start again to advocate for the "new" real capitalism.

It's a never ending cycle, just like Dark Souls, but darker.