Means of production; Except anyone in a true free society (not the Statism we have now) anyone can produce value for someone else to buy, asks others to help out (or not)...
In a free society, there are only voluntary exchange of goods and services, not theft, coercion, violence, kidnapping and murder, like (I presume!) you are advocating in form of Socialism/Communism.
Instead of demanding the State to steal for you; Start a commune, labor-owned means of production and so on
>>...not theft, coercion, violence, kidnapping and murder, like (I presume!) you are advocating in form of Socialism/Communism.<<
Why would you presume this? If you had just taken a quick look at the profile of the person you're replying to you would see information that contradicts this presumption. It may or may not make sense to you but it should be a clue to lead you to questions, maybe about some of your own assumptions and adopted narratives.
I mean right there in their pinned toot it explains that they believe in "rejection of both state authority and class distinctions" and "a stateless, classless society where the means of production are collectively owned and managed by the community through direct democracy, voluntary association, and decentralized decision-making."
Maybe don't be so quick to presume, at least if you're actually engaging in good faith.
I try to engage in good faith. And no Socialist/Communist ever have explained how their proposed system can work without State Violence.
Scenario; Community owns means of production. I start making hand-made shoes. Are the tools I create mine, or will they be stolen? At which point does "personal property" (stuff that isn't taken by others) becomes "community property"?
How to enforce that? Coercion? No, then how?
All such details are never mentioned.
@niclas @Radical_EgoCom @passenger
You can keep your tools. But if you're an asshole about it, there will probably be consequences.
Well, at some point those tools might make me wealthier, and you are no longer in the class-less society that you aspire so much.
"being an asshole"; Does providing value, by mutually voluntary exchange of goods and services, to others considered "being an asshole"? Because that is how the vast majority of capitalist enterprise is conducted today.
@niclas @Radical_EgoCom @passenger
I'm not going to indulge your fantasy version of capitalism.
@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger
The problem isn't that capitalism or communism are good or bad. Both function perfectly fine in small egalitarian situations. The problem is in scale. They scale differently but ultimately result in the same issue of wealth disparity.
Without an answer to "how does this work at scale with evil people throughout the system" the whole discussion is moot.
@shadowsonawall @Radical_EgoCom @passenger
The emergent system that has been named capitalism was always a global system and could never have existed without state and colonialism. It did not scale up from small egalitarian situations, it was forced upon and destroyed such situations.
The problem is that capitalism is bad.
@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger in some places that happened with capitalism, in some places it happened with communism, in some places it happened with theocracy. The issue isn't in the government type. It's with people who actively *want* to exploit other people for their own personal benefit.
@shadowsonawall @Radical_EgoCom @passenger
Capitalism arose from already existing wealth disparity, it could not have been any other way. It was created and spread precisely by "people who actively *want* to exploit other people for their own personal benefit."
Yes, such people are an issue, that is why capitalism is so problematic: because it is designed to systematically support, encourage and even create such people.
@RD4Anarchy @shadowsonawall @Radical_EgoCom @passenger It's strange that defenders of capitalism so often ignore what's right in the name they're using.
Capitalism is a social structure for accumulating capital. It's about capital. Capital is accumulated by exploiting resources to convert them into capital. Accumulating capital is the problem.
@foolishowl @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger I think you misinterpret what I mean: I dislike all the systems we've spoken about. I'd love to hear an alternative. But the alternative has to work in the face of reality.
@shadowsonawall @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger Looking back upthread, I may have misread you a bit.
Earlier you were talking about scaling problems. To some extent this is true.
Some folks will use a metaphor about rhizomes, the networks of fungi that spread below the surface almost unseen until the fruiting bodies emerge. The idea is that we don't have a centrally enforced utopian scheme, but that we organize locally in overlapping horizontal networks.
@foolishowl @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger I truly do love the idea. I believe that is exactly what the early christians attempted to do. Without changing the playbook, I fear the strategy will face a similar fate.
@shadowsonawall @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger The early history of Christianity really is interesting in this respect. I do remember reading a brief discussion of the early monastic movement and thinking that it showed that you didn't need industrial production in order to have egalitarian communities.