No one can mention any real life examples of both theories and that is because they are fictional theories.
-
Socialism assume that companies could work with no centralized ownership which is impossible in real life, it’s like the believers of this theory ignore all the human psychology and assume the perfection in the world.
-
Anarcho-Capitalisim assume that it’s possible to live in 100% autonomous society while ignoring all the big issues(unfair laws, corruption in law and protection agencies, …etc)
I typically don’t talk politics in this account, as I hate intrusive politics, but…
I’m upvoting this solely because the opinion is unpopular in Lemmy, even if really popular IRL.
Even under capitalism you have companies that work without centralised ownership. They’re called “state-owned enterprises”.
I’m not sure but I think that you’re conflating ownership with control.
Socialism is not “pretty”. It is not the result of humans being so happy and sharing and caring that they’ll happily share whatever power they get on their hands. Instead, it’s the result of people being so power-hungry and miser that they’ll do everything for power - even sharing it.
I’m not ancap and I have a thousand pieces of criticism against it, however that is a straw man even worse than the above.
Anarcho-capitalists don’t “ignore” those issues; they claim that capitalism can solve those issues, with the hand of the free market ensuring fair laws, creating mechanisms against corruption, all that jizz.
(Their mistake is in another level - they don’t realise that the hand of the market doesn’t give a fuck about human well-being. Plus it has Parkinson’s.)