• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 个月前

    but for some reason you still worship the inequalities of capitalism.

    We actually don’t, we worship voluntarism, taboo on aggressive violence and personal borders, the rest is up to free interpretation from these axioms.

    Also it’s not monotheism, rather a system like Taoism in the wild.

    But I’ll return to this:

    but for some reason you still worship the inequalities of capitalism

    There’s an issue with no evolutionary mechanisms in a society.

    A person who doesn’t know how to survive and doesn’t get help from others dies. A person who knows or gets that help doesn’t. On this level there are no problems as we assume that people help each other, if we are talking about “usual” anarchism.

    Now, people form communes. Communes require organization. We don’t want them to have hierarchy, but the situation where everybody respects the rights of others won’t hold by itself. If you expel those who make trouble, then a sufficiently intelligent sociopath may persuade the majority to expel those they don’t like. Other than it being the problem in itself, this will eventually make sociopaths more likely to be the leaders of communes, and form hierarchy. If you don’t expel those who make trouble, you’ll need hierarchy right away to re-educate or jail or punish and otherwise discourage them somehow. These are all with the assumption of common property.

    But if we have private property and voluntarism, so every person is a faction in itself, as if they, pun intended, had sovereignty, - we have an evolutionary mechanism which reduces the advantage sociopaths have. It doesn’t negate it, but you may collect power, expressed in property, as an alternative to power expressed in social ties, and the existence of the latter you can’t abolish. So we prolong the life of communities.

    And there’s another consideration - property can be collected both by honest and dishonest means, the former meaning someone’s opinion is more valuable on practical subjects. Power as social ties is usually of the “dishonest” kind. Even without private property, frankly, someone of more use for the commune has more weight, but private property allows to account for that more easily. When your understanding who is more useful for the commune and who is less useful for the commune is skewed, it’ll have smaller chances of survival.

    And then how do you share resources with a commune part of which you don’t want to be? What will make them behave in the spirit of brotherhood and equality and such? Same if you are a smaller commune. Will they declare you antisocial or something, capture all those resources for themselves and leave you to die?

    (With ancap to share resources and various devices of existence property is preserved, and other borders erected, and systems on basis of voluntary agreements are offered to prevent violence.)

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 个月前

      weird how this flavour of “anarchism” is pretty identical to conservative politics

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 个月前

        I’ve specifically put parentheses to leave the hypothetical situation where I’d like to see answers as the last paragraph without them.

        I’ve literally explained how with property you get a mechanism for communal cooperation without hierarchy.

        • jorp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 个月前

          You don’t seem to differentiate private property and personal property and also I learned long ago not to bother debating with ancaps because the rational ones tend to un-cap themselves on their own eventually

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            4 个月前

            The difference would exist in a world where you have a mediator making it. How would you differentiate them without such?

            Say, I have a longbow, a tunic, leather pants and shoes and arrows on me and a piece of cloth I sleep on. Is that piece of cloth personal or private property? Say, for me they are all the same, but somebody near me needs that cloth. I say no, because I need it too. They say I’ll be fine with half of it. I say no without disputing whether half of it is enough for my needs. Who’s right?

            EDIT: Ah, also I’ve already, as you say, “un-capped” myself like 10 years ago, being tired of the emotional component of ancap, and was trying to be realistic and open to new ideas and such. I don’t regret it, I’ve learned a few more things, it was cool and all.

            But in the end realized that what I have is simply an evolution of ancap. Even when I’ve been reading Trotskyist articles and imagining ways to build that. Thus I’m calling myself ancap.

            The only things comprising ancap are moral constraints, all the rest is good until it doesn’t violate them. Say, ancaps are fine with ancom communes existing and interacting between each other in pretty ancom ways. The only situation where ancom won’t be a valid ancap is when ancoms prevent someone from leaving their heaven if that someone wishes so or try to conquer the neighboring Ancapistan for agricultural land.

            • jorp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              4 个月前

              I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what private property is. Also I’m not sure if you understand exactly where capitalism begins and ends compared to other concepts like money, trade, and markets.

              The gap there is again the concept of private property and how economic production capability is owned and operated.

              It’s shocking to me how much trouble people have imagining non-capitalist systems, propaganda has successfully conflated the idea of capitalism with economy, and with freedom. You’re more a victim of that than anything else, so no hard feelings.

              Anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory ideology and there’s no way to reconcile those two things together. Capitalism must be rejected in any egalitarian society.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                4 个月前

                I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what private property is.

                That’s damn certain, I’ve only seen any discussion on the possible separation of such 1) in Russian language, 2) it’s specific to your ideology, so requires clarification of terms.

                Also I’m not sure if you understand exactly where capitalism begins and ends compared to other concepts like money, trade, and markets.

                Same with this. People mean all kinds of things saying “capitalism”. It requires clarifying which exact meaning you are using.

                It’s shocking to me how much trouble people have imagining non-capitalist systems, propaganda has successfully conflated the idea of capitalism with economy, and with freedom. You’re more a victim of that than anything else, so no hard feelings.

                Well, no hard feelings, but when I try to extract specific statements from this sentence, I get none. A bit similar to the Imperial ambassador’s words from “Foundation” book.

                Anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory ideology and there’s no way to reconcile those two things together. Capitalism must be rejected in any egalitarian society.

                Anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily involve capitalism (depends on the definition of that). It’s a name that stuck.

                • jorp@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 个月前

                  Yikes dawg how does one communicate with someone whose ideological landscape is full of missing definitions and contradictory definitions? There’s a lot to untangle here and I’m not willing or able to do that for you. I can only suggest reading more anarchist sources. I typically share this one as a decent conceptual intro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works although I don’t agree with everything it says.

                  I’m finding it difficult to be talking to an “anarcho-capitalist” who doesn’t seem to agree or identify with either anarchism or capitalism nor have confidence in their understanding of the terms.

                  Maybe don’t be so quick to label yourself, let your mind explore without the baggage of assuming what you are a priori.

                  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    4 个月前

                    Yikes dawg how does one communicate with someone whose ideological landscape is full of missing definitions and contradictory definitions?

                    That’s not what I’ve said. I’ve said that your definitions are subjective to your own ideology. Thus they require clarification when used.

                    There’s a lot to untangle here and I’m not willing or able to do that for you. I can only suggest reading more anarchist sources. I typically share this one as a decent conceptual intro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works although I don’t agree with everything it says.

                    I’ve read Kropotkin. For everything good, against everything bad, no specifics, no mechanisms, and how animals don’t hurt each other for power (in fact they do).

                    I’m finding it difficult to be talking to an “anarcho-capitalist” who doesn’t seem to agree or identify with either anarchism or capitalism nor have confidence in their understanding of the terms.

                    I’ve even explained to you how ancap is just a common name and what the ideology called that actually is. That your brain skips anything you don’t expect from this conversation is your own flaw, sorry.

                    Maybe don’t be so quick to label yourself, let your mind explore without the baggage of assuming what you are a priori.

                    That’s amazing.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 个月前

      Capitalism is inherently based on dishonesty. It routinely treats people as things in the employer-employee relationship. When the factual and legal situation don’t match, that is morally a fraud.

      Postcapitalism would consists of various intersecting and overlapping voluntary democratic associations managing their own collectivized means of production. Within these groups, there would still be a notion of possession of the shared asset.

      @technology

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 个月前

        It routinely treats people as things in the employer-employee relationship.

        No. A contract can only be signed by two equal sides. If you mean emotionally and in planning - well, do you treat your employer as people or as that thing, system, which allows you to get money in exchange for work?

        Postcapitalism would consists of various intersecting and overlapping voluntary democratic associations managing their own collectivized means of production.

        Does this mean that such an association is the basic entity? Because any system where a human is not the basic entity is unacceptable for me.

        there would still be a notion of possession of the shared asset

        Specifics? When I leave that voluntary association, what of possessions stops being managed by it? If I enter it with some “means of production” and leave it after some time, with what I leave?

        How does possession of those means overlap between associations?

        Does the described mean that a person can’t have property, but an association can?

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          Capitalism puts de facto persons into a thing’s legal role. Consenting to a contract doesn’t alienate personhood. As labor-sellers, workers are treated as persons. The issue arises with the workers as labor performers. The employees are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but get 0% of property and liabilities for the results of production. Instead, the employer has 100% sole legal responsibility.

          Individuals are the basic entity. Groups’ rules vary
          @technology

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            The issue arises with the workers as labor performers. The employees are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to produce outputs, but get 0% of property and liabilities for the results of production. Instead, the employer has 100% sole legal responsibility.

            That’s true, but cooperatives can legally exist where workers share those.

            It’s rather that dynamic of power makes bad behavior advantageous, but what would change this in “simple” anarchism?

            Ancaps imagine aiming for maximal granularity and variability, so that the same kind of abusive behavior wouldn’t fit all cases and rules’ combinations (same as with epidemics) and there’d be market mechanisms functioning due to scale (things generally look better when there are, say, 100 microsofts instead of 1). They assume that those variability and granularity won’t be reduced through open violence (conquering of subduing jurisdictions with differing rules on something) and enforcement of monopolies (trademarks, patents, licenses and such), because of everybody being armed to the teeth and usually there’s still assumed some centralized state which will keep the situation from coming to open violence.

            In case of “simple” anarchism I see contempt for ancap concepts of solving this, but what are the alternatives?

            No anwer is too stupid for me, even new genetically altered humans (I’ve literally encountered an opinion that an anarchist society may require this to make humanity more empathetic, LOL).

            Individuals are the basic entity. Groups’ rules vary

            This doesn’t seem to be different from ancap+panarchy when described so abstractly.

            • J Lou@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 个月前

              Cooperatives existing doesn’t solve the problem as it doesn’t address the violation of inalienable rights in all non-coop firms. Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility. The solution is to abolish the employment contract and secure universal self-employment as in a worker coop.

              Markets have a place, but non-market mechanisms and mutual aid should flourish within groups. Ancaps see the logic of exit, but ignore the dual logic of commitment and voice e.g. democracy and social property
              @technology

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 个月前

                Consent doesn’t transfer responsibility.

                I agree.

                Ancaps see the logic of exit, but ignore the dual logic of commitment and voice e.g. democracy and social property

                Ancaps delegate this to free will.

                Including

                … but non-market mechanisms and mutual aid should flourish within groups.

                Only how do you form a group with its resources without property of individuals as its components?

                • J Lou@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 个月前

                  So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy?

                  The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds @technology

                  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 个月前

                    So you agree that the employer-employee contract must be abolished due to it violating workers’ inalienable right to workplace democracy?

                    No, just that you can’t offload responsibility via contract. I agree though that contract under clear pressure is negligible.

                    The way collective property works is that each group member that possesses collective property self-assess and declares the price they would be willing to turn over the possession to another group member. Then, they pay a percentage fee on this self-assessed price to the group. Groups democratically decide what to do with the collective funds

                    So a group can make the fee zero and thus have a usual ancap community?