(Original post by mojojojo101)
Ah I apologise, I didn't intend to. I'll fully admit I am far from the most eloquent of people and am by no means an expert in anarchist ideology.
What I did mean was that it is my belief that a society (defined pretty generally as the aggregate of a group of people who live in the same place at the same time) in which private ownership was the basis would show an unacceptable risk of regress back to crony-capitalism as some private owners seek to consolidate their positions. I think that some sort of collective or public ownership better protects against that so would be my preference.
Hopefully you see what I am trying to get at.
Yes, I see what you're trying to get at, but I disagree with your, or "the general", definition of society. Society is not the aggregation of groups, or the aggregation of anything. That's what collectivists (who perceive the world through the rose-tinted glasses of socialism) want you to believe, but it's false. Society, as they regard it, is a meaningless abstraction that doesn't influence or affect anything in real life. It's essentially a religious belief i.e. "society does this", "society does that" etc. No, society can't
things, simply because it's not real, it's a concept. Society is, if we're going to take a serious approach in our analysis of the world and embrace reductionism, an epiphenomenon of individual
experiences in a complex system of human relationships. So, now that we accept that society is this complex system of individuals, it's possible to derive from this the idea that some of these individuals privately
own the means of production.
Yet, I cannot see how there is a connection between said individuals simply owning the means by which resources are produced, and your argument, which is that this will result in a returning propensity toward crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is when government violently (by virtue of its very nature) interferes with and sabotages the free market. Instead, I would argue that the very justification for government interfering in these processes is based on this false assumption that society is an "aggregation of groups". It's the fact that people hold this very idea
of collectivism and public ownership (or, as Ayn Rand identified, altruism) that is the cause
behind government implementing the crony capitalism you're deriding. So it seems your view is slightly inconsistent unless you can, somehow, draw that connection.