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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
