undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnotch656a4y ago0 comments

How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)?

Or say I have a full fledged industrial scale wave soldering, mass PnP, full inventory of millions of dollars worth of components. I need it to feed my family, I'm not going to just hand it to you after I gained it through consensual trade fair and square. Doesn't that require coercion? I'm not just going to give up my goods I worked hard for, what's going to happen when the comrades see the loaded barrel of a rifle protecting that which feeds my family? I think a lot of people needing to feed there families are going to have a lot of rifles, and they're not going to be very happy about someone coming along to "open up access" to means of production of their business.

When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

This all just sounds like a violent way of less efficiently allocating capital, under the guise of non-coercion. Access to property should require consent, otherwise you have coercion. Seems to me free market trading of private property fits a lot more neatly with the oxford definition of anarchism.

0 comments

beaconstudios4y ago

Under an anarchist model you wouldn't "need" ownership of a factory to feed your family because the farmer also isn't withholding food from the hungry on condition of payment.

The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military. Its kind of ironic that you accuse anarchists of violence while simultaneously withholding resources with threats of direct violence.

You have to understand, we're talking about an alternative economic system here, not an immediate action. Anarchism in practice within capitalism is things like this article, or mutual aid - people helping out others in need,and cooperating on mutual benefit. Anarchists also squat unused properties to feed and house the homeless, or come together to form cooperative societies in a few places like Oaxaca and Rojava.

> When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

notch656aOP4y ago

I'm aware of Rojava. I don't bring this up often, and I don't expect you to believe this, although I have nothing to gain from it, but I fought there with the YPG. I don't think you understand Rojava very well, there is very much capitalist trade there. You would very much be in danger if you went in and tried to "open up access" of someone's vendor stall. I have bought from capitalist vendors in Qamislo and other parts of Rojava. It is true you can walk up to a bread line and get it for free.

>That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

>The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military.

No I own it through consensual trade. The only way it is taken away is either consensual, by giving my permission to transact it away or for someone else to use coercion and take it.

beaconstudios4y ago

Oh, that's actually really cool that you've supported them, I respect that. I know they're not fully anarchist but there are anarchist elements within their society, as you say.

There are a few different economic models within leftism, including market socialism, which still involves trade but replaces corporations with worker cooperatives. Obviously that's incompatible with anarchism but they can exist alongside each other and mixed together - these ideas don't have to be purist.

> So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

Again, under an anarchist system you wouldn't need to pay to feed your family. Imagine for a moment, our current society but instead of everybody withholding their goods with demand of payment, these goods are just available to those who need them. No currency, no trade, just sharing and cooperation. Operation of machinery can still be restricted to the qualified through a syndicate (kind of like a medieval guild) but the labour is performed cooperatively. You could still do the job you love (if you love it - otherwise, you're free to explore other options), your family would be fed, you would have a house and so on. I wouldn't be in favour of any economic system that increased the amount of human suffering. I like people, I have a lot of empathy.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsnotch656a4y ago0 comments

How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)?

When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

0 comments

beaconstudios4y ago

Under an anarchist model you wouldn't "need" ownership of a factory to feed your family because the farmer also isn't withholding food from the hungry on condition of payment.

> When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

notch656aOP4y ago

>That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

>The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military.

No I own it through consensual trade. The only way it is taken away is either consensual, by giving my permission to transact it away or for someone else to use coercion and take it.

beaconstudios4y ago

Oh, that's actually really cool that you've supported them, I respect that. I know they're not fully anarchist but there are anarchist elements within their society, as you say.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse