If Marx turns out to be right...

[GeneralHaNor]

Just answer this question, is their room in an Anarcho-Communist society for a "Propertarian", because I am a propertarian, and I extend that right from self ownership. That would be non-negotiable.

If I couldn't own the product of my labor, then I could not live in that society, which leaves me only two choice, Fight, or Flight.

Either way, I again lose my freedom.

You don't really have the right to self ownership at the moment, but you're bitching on the internet instead of fighting in the streets.

Are you sure you're just not all talk?

I don't have a legal right to self-ownership, but I still have the right to self-ownership
If you don't follow, that merely means that until you (or a representative of you, with a badge and gun) comes here to take me away and make me a slave, I am still free, I still own myself.

The reasoning I'm not fighting in the streets, is because I am not being actively oppressed.

[Sucrati]

Oh, and we don't need socialism to have common ownership over the means of production, hasn't anyone heard of the Stock Option?

Yes because all Wage-Laborers can afford stock.

Those who cannot afford the stock strikes...

It's not that bad, owning one stock isn't that expensive.

[Meryuma]

You're projecting a modern conception of property onto the whole of human history. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Human beings were making art, culture and civilization long before even the very concept of ownership had been spoken into existence. And for much of civilization, the majority of property was communal or state owned in someway. People had no less individuality then, whether they were working on a medieval peasant commune or owning their own lands.

And I have honestly no idea where you're getting any idea that communism seeks to undo time preference. I'd be willing to venture that I'm probably more well-read on the entire breadth and depth of socialist political economy and philosophy, and I am completely at a loss as to how you could even construe that from communism. One of Marx's central criticisms of political economy was how situations of markets and private ownership would calculate time-preferences in a non-optimal manner, favoring short-sighted actions over long term viability.

It's a simple fact that the future is just another commons that can't be privatized, and capitalism treats it as such, squandering it for short-sighted objectives.

Civilization can only arise out of property rights, division of labor, and time preference. Without this, and communism presumes to destroy all 3, there is no civilization. The reason you are at a loss to account for a persons preference for goods and services sooner rather than later is b/c communism (socialism) fails to account for a pricing structure. This is precisely the issue that led to Marx giving up following Bohm Bawerk and Menger thoroughly trouncing his theories as childish fantasies. As well read as you are, you simply don't understand human activity in a collectivist way. Humanity is made up of individuals who live in voluntary collectives. Humanity is not a collective made up of individuals. The sovereign self comes first.

Marx was wrong. About everything. Without an adequate concept of human activity, human beings are relegated to automatons. As such, all collectivist doctrine is designed to remove the individuals incentive for individual action. In so doing, collectivism destroys the mind. Capitalism did not lead to lower standards of living. It still hasn't, despite all of the supposed "wonders" socialism has brought the world. Socialist economies are the ones in squalor. Marx was and will forever be, wrong. The triumph of Socialism is not inevitable. It's failure is.

1.Marx wasn't wrong about primitive accumulation being a process of violence. Thus, Karl Marx wasn't wrong about everything.
2. The failure of command economies doesn't disprove socialism.
3. Marx considered capitalism to be more advanced in the dialectic then feudalism, so capitalism raising standards of living doesn't contradict him.

I'm not a Marxist by any means, but srsly, dude.

Anarcho-communism wouldn't be like that. Just read Kropotkin if you don't believe me.

Just answer this question, is their room in an Anarcho-Communist society for a "Propertarian", because I am a propertarian, and I extend that right from self ownership. That would be non-negotiable.

If I couldn't own the product of my labor, then I could not live in that society, which leaves me only two choice, Fight, or Flight.

Either way, I again lose my freedom.

How propertarian are we talking?

And there isn't room for a propertarian in an ancom society. However, there is room for coexisting systems of Bakuninite collectivism, gift economies, barter, mutualism, council communist planning, and pretty much every other imaginable anti-authoritarian economic vision within the broader context of anarchist society.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Yes because all Wage-Laborers can afford stock.

Those who cannot afford the stock strikes...

It's not that bad, owning one stock isn't that expensive.

Yeah we have seen how striking works in the Midwest. It is amusing how all your solutions come back to using capital. Capitalism is self-perpetuating.

[The Southron Nation]

I disagree with you Mery.

[The Last Hope for Bees]

You don't really have the right to self ownership at the moment, but you're bitching on the internet instead of fighting in the streets.

Are you sure you're just not all talk?

I don't have a legal right to self-ownership, but I still have the right to self-ownership
If you don't follow, that merely means that until you (or a representative of you, with a badge and gun) comes here to take me away and make me a slave, I am still free, I still own myself.

The reasoning I'm not fighting in the streets, is because I am not being actively oppressed.

I don't buy it.

[Lacadaemon]

I think the Trotskyist metaphor of "deformed workers' state" is apt. Eastern Europe wasn't much better developed than Russia in the early 1900s, and after WW2, it was pretty much a level playing field. They end up being mimics of the Soviet Union, of varying degrees of craziness.

Czechoslovakia and Hungary were streets ahead of Russia and the USSR.

And all that happened to them after they were folded into the Warsaw Pact by the perfidious western allies was they tried to reject socialism and got a beat down. So it ended badly.

[Meryuma]

I disagree with you Mery.

Care to give some arguments?

[Natapoc]

I don't have a legal right to self-ownership, but I still have the right to self-ownership
If you don't follow, that merely means that until you (or a representative of you, with a badge and gun) comes here to take me away and make me a slave, I am still free, I still own myself.

The reasoning I'm not fighting in the streets, is because I am not being actively oppressed.

I don't buy it.

Dude GeneralHaNor, is legit. He's a deep underground fighter. He just can't talk about the details on the forum. Did you seriously think he'd fall for that trick? Loose lips sink ships! Or in this case: Loose lips collectivize property!

Don't hate me GeneralHaNor

[GeneralHaNor]

How propertarian are we talking?

And there isn't room for a propertarian in an ancom society. However, there is room for coexisting systems of Bakuninite collectivism, gift economies, barter, mutualism, council communist planning, and pretty much every other imaginable anti-authoritarian economic vision within the broader context of anarchist society.

Complete and Absolute, an infringement on my property rights is an infringement on individual sovereignty, which constitutes not just a violation of self, but is indeed an act of war between two sovereign entities. I must be free to own what I acquired via labor and fair trade, anything else is a base tyranny that must not, and can not be tolerated.

[Meryuma]

How propertarian are we talking?

And there isn't room for a propertarian in an ancom society. However, there is room for coexisting systems of Bakuninite collectivism, gift economies, barter, mutualism, council communist planning, and pretty much every other imaginable anti-authoritarian economic vision within the broader context of anarchist society.

Complete and Absolute, an infringement on my property rights is an infringement on individual sovereignty, which constitutes not just a violation of self, but is indeed an act of war between two sovereign entities. I must be free to own what I acquired via labor and fair trade, anything else is a base tyranny that must not, and can not be tolerated.

How is property acquired? How much power does it bestow? How is it abandoned?

When you make universalizing statements of a right to property, certain issues come into play.

[GeneralHaNor]

I don't have a legal right to self-ownership, but I still have the right to self-ownership
If you don't follow, that merely means that until you (or a representative of you, with a badge and gun) comes here to take me away and make me a slave, I am still free, I still own myself.

The reasoning I'm not fighting in the streets, is because I am not being actively oppressed.

I don't buy it.

There's nothing for you to buy, cause I'm not selling anything.
I'm stating for the record, my "rights" are not derived from law, or society, or even nature. Until you take them from me, I have them.

If you wish to test whether or not I have the right to self-ownership, then attempt to take it from me. I sure you'll find your position rather difficult to defend.

[Mussoliniopoli]

I don't buy it.

There's nothing for you to buy, cause I'm not selling anything.
I'm stating for the record, my "rights" are not derived from law, or society, or even nature. Until you take them from me, I have them.

If you wish to test whether or not I have the right to self-ownership, then attempt to take it from me. I sure you'll find your position rather difficult to defend.

How are you going to defend something you admit to not having? This is just becoming silly.

[GeneralHaNor]

I don't buy it.

Dude GeneralHaNor, is legit. He's a deep underground fighter. He just can't talk about the details on the forum. Did you seriously think he'd fall for that trick? Loose lips sink ships! Or in this case: Loose lips collectivize property!

Don't hate me GeneralHaNor

Your impossible to hate, while we may not share economic views, we both share the desire for a truly voluntary society

Which makes you my ideological ally, even if your still a filthy commie.

[GeneralHaNor]

There's nothing for you to buy, cause I'm not selling anything.
I'm stating for the record, my "rights" are not derived from law, or society, or even nature. Until you take them from me, I have them.

If you wish to test whether or not I have the right to self-ownership, then attempt to take it from me. I sure you'll find your position rather difficult to defend.

How are you going to defend something you admit to not having? This is just becoming silly.

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

[The Southron Nation]

I disagree with you Mery.

Care to give some arguments?

1.Marx wasn't wrong about primitive accumulation being a process of violence. Thus, Karl Marx wasn't wrong about everything.
2. The failure of command economies doesn't disprove socialism.
3. Marx considered capitalism to be more advanced in the dialectic then feudalism, so capitalism raising standards of living doesn't contradict him.

1. PA presumes class distinctions. Class distinctions are bullshit. Period. The only class distinction possible is that of the expropriators and the expropriated. And we both know who is who there. The State and the people. [/Discussion]
2. Yes, it does. Socialism requires command economy to operate. But, I'm an An-Cap. Nowhere near your vein of anarchist.
3. Marx presumed that Capitalism would give way to the revolution as the working class continued to live in squalor while the management and possessor classes continued to expropriate them. Buddy didn't understand mutually beneficial division of labor, capital accumulation, or discounting. The revolution never came. Still hasn't. Capitalism still continues to prop us all forms of collectivism the world over and where the markets are banned, the economy sinks. The revolution is quite the opposite of Marx's theorizing.

To be fair, I'm keeping things rather vague b/c I'm not entirely certain where you want this discussion to go. We aren't prone to conversations with one anther. I haven't figured out how to accurately present my opinions to you. So, continue to define and refine it how you wish, if you wish. I'll get better.

[Trotskylvania]

You're projecting a modern conception of property onto the whole of human history. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Human beings were making art, culture and civilization long before even the very concept of ownership had been spoken into existence. And for much of civilization, the majority of property was communal or state owned in someway. People had no less individuality then, whether they were working on a medieval peasant commune or owning their own lands.

And I have honestly no idea where you're getting any idea that communism seeks to undo time preference. I'd be willing to venture that I'm probably more well-read on the entire breadth and depth of socialist political economy and philosophy, and I am completely at a loss as to how you could even construe that from communism. One of Marx's central criticisms of political economy was how situations of markets and private ownership would calculate time-preferences in a non-optimal manner, favoring short-sighted actions over long term viability.

It's a simple fact that the future is just another commons that can't be privatized, and capitalism treats it as such, squandering it for short-sighted objectives.

Civilization can only arise out of property rights, division of labor, and time preference. Without this, and communism presumes to destroy all 3, there is no civilization. The reason you are at a loss to account for a persons preference for goods and services sooner rather than later is b/c communism (socialism) fails to account for a pricing structure. This is precisely the issue that led to Marx giving up following Bohm Bawerk and Menger thoroughly trouncing his theories as childish fantasies. As well read as you are, you simply don't understand human activity in a collectivist way. Humanity is made up of individuals who live in voluntary collectives. Humanity is not a collective made up of individuals. The sovereign self comes first.

Marx was wrong. About everything. Without an adequate concept of human activity, human beings are relegated to automatons. As such, all collectivist doctrine is designed to remove the individuals incentive for individual action. In so doing, collectivism destroys the mind. Capitalism did not lead to lower standards of living. It still hasn't, despite all of the supposed "wonders" socialism has brought the world. Socialist economies are the ones in squalor. Marx was and will forever be, wrong. The triumph of Socialism is not inevitable. It's failure is.

Your thoughts about the pre-conditions for civilization are simply fractally wrong. No matter what resolution you look at the claims you make, how wrong you are doesn't diminish.

I cannot stress this enough. If you had taken even a basic survey of world history, or a basic anthropology class in college, and paid attention, you'd realize that the bulk of human history, and many of the great civilizations, were lacking one of your preconditions at the very least. Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon...they had almost no conception of private property beyond a very narrow sense of personal possession. Real property, especially in land, was almost always held in common, and the vast majority of artisans and craftsmen were employed by the state.

Rome's farmers worked on lands that were publicly owned, until the patricians illegally forced them out to build their slave-latifundia. I guess, under your terms, Rome wasn't a civilization

I don't know where you get this idea that Marx "gave up" or repudiated his earlier theories. Bohm-Bawerk only published his criticisms of Marx after Marx was already dead, and Carl Menger too didn't have any sort of dialogue with Marx while he was alive. It's easy to say you "trounced" someone when they're too dead to refute.

But hey, if they were such luminaries who thoroughly trounced Marx, you wouldn't mind enlightening me on them now would you? Since outside of the Austrian school you don't hear much of these fellows, I'm going to venture a guess that they didn't "trounce" Marx as thoroughly as you think. Given how popular it is to be a critic of Marx, you'd think we'd be hearing more about these luminaries by now, if only because they were useful to the bourgeoisie...

It's absurd on face that you even consider the self to be sovereign, let alone that you put it first. Even eminent liberal philosophers like John Rawls, in spite of their methodological individualism, recognize such a claim as contradictory. We're not born fully grown and brimming with wisdom from the head of Zeus; everyone one of us is ripped screaming into the world, poor and helpless. And everyone, without exception, owes their very existence to the millions who came before them, and built the civilization we live in. And from womb to tomb, we are manufactured to be the image of the society we live in. To call the individual sovereign is as absurd as calling the cog on an assembly line sovereign.

Free will, to the limited extent that it can exist, can only be understood as part of a collective phenomenon. Whereas you would ignore this truth, and build your society around a system that runs on autopilot, where everyone is "free" to act yet they have no concrete choices, I hold that the aim of socialism, properly understood, has always been to increase choice.

And I don't get where you seem to think that any self-respecting socialist thinks capitalism diminished the standards of living for society. Any socialist worth his salt acknowledges that capitalism was morally progressive compared to the societies that came before it, and that it served to create impressive productive forces in the industrialized core of the world economy. The socialist position is that capitalism has or will outlive its usefulness.

Considering that Marx had a conception human nature as homo faber: the artisanal man who finds self worth through individual intentioned creation and labor as well as through community, I'd say your talking nonsense when you say he had concept of human activity.

[Trotskylvania]

I think the Trotskyist metaphor of "deformed workers' state" is apt. Eastern Europe wasn't much better developed than Russia in the early 1900s, and after WW2, it was pretty much a level playing field. They end up being mimics of the Soviet Union, of varying degrees of craziness.

Czechoslovakia and Hungary were streets ahead of Russia and the USSR.

And all that happened to them after they were folded into the Warsaw Pact by the perfidious western allies was they tried to reject socialism and got a beat down. So it ended badly.

Neither the Hungarian Revolution nor the Prague Spring were revolutions against socialism. They were revolutions against Marxism-Leninism. Only in the Soviet official history can they be said to be "counter-revolutions".

The Hungarian workers in 1956 raised a banner of "All power to the soviets", and tried to actually give soviet democracy a shot. For their trouble, they got a column of Soviet tanks.

[The Last Hope for Bees]

How are you going to defend something you admit to not having? This is just becoming silly.

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

I believe you entirely and certainly don't think you would lie just to look tough on the internet.

[Trotskylvania]

How are you going to defend something you admit to not having? This is just becoming silly.

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

You're also the one who lied about killing three people in self-defense in Butte, Montana, Mr. Internet Tough Guy.

[Australien]

How are you going to defend something you admit to not having? This is just becoming silly.

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

You don't have rights if nobody recognises them. Rights detail how others must treat us, if nobody recognises your right then it basically doesn't exist. By that logic, we need to respect a serial killers right to murder people, because he has assigned that right to himself.

[GeneralHaNor]

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

You don't have rights if nobody recognises them. Rights detail how others must treat us, if nobody recognises your right then it basically doesn't exist. By that logic, we need to respect a serial killers right to murder people, because he has assigned that right to himself.

No we don't, because he's already violated other peoples right to live.
I'm not asking you to respect my right to self ownership, or even my right to self property, I'm telling you I have them, and letting you know what the consequences of "War" will be.

[Meryuma]

Care to give some arguments?

1.Marx wasn't wrong about primitive accumulation being a process of violence. Thus, Karl Marx wasn't wrong about everything.
2. The failure of command economies doesn't disprove socialism.
3. Marx considered capitalism to be more advanced in the dialectic then feudalism, so capitalism raising standards of living doesn't contradict him.

1. PA presumes class distinctions. Class distinctions are bullshit. Period. The only class distinction possible is that of the expropriators and the expropriated. And we both know who is who there. The State and the people. [/Discussion]
2. Yes, it does. Socialism requires command economy to operate. But, I'm an An-Cap. Nowhere near your vein of anarchist.
3. Marx presumed that Capitalism would give way to the revolution as the working class continued to live in squalor while the management and possessor classes continued to expropriate them. Buddy didn't understand mutually beneficial division of labor, capital accumulation, or discounting. The revolution never came. Still hasn't. Capitalism still continues to prop us all forms of collectivism the world over and where the markets are banned, the economy sinks. The revolution is quite the opposite of Marx's theorizing.

To be fair, I'm keeping things rather vague b/c I'm not entirely certain where you want this discussion to go. We aren't prone to conversations with one anther. I haven't figured out how to accurately present my opinions to you. So, continue to define and refine it how you wish, if you wish. I'll get better.

1. That expropriation, along with mercantilism, imperialist war, and fencing in the commons, marks the transition from feudalism to capitalism. I recommend you read this excellent article by Kevin Carson:
http://www.mutualist.org/id61.html

And the State and their cronies are a class.
2. I define "socialism" in the classical sense as worker ownership of the means of production (worker's self-management)... and we're not total adversaries. We're both individualists, and we both put a freed market as our goal: for you, this involves a propertarian system, for me, a mutualist and anti-hierarchy one.
3. Again, I'm not a Marxist... and I definitely don't want to abolish the market. Yeesh. I'm a mutualist.

[Natapoc]

Repeat that again?, I have rights, rights I assigned myself, rights I will not allow to be violated without undue and proper resistance. I will defend what I have till it becomes impossible to defend.

You don't have rights if nobody recognises them. Rights detail how others must treat us, if nobody recognises your right then it basically doesn't exist. By that logic, we need to respect a serial killers right to murder people, because he has assigned that right to himself.

It does not really matter to the topic anyway. From what I understand, GeneralHaNor would be no less "free" under that system then he is now and may fact have more of his "rights" respected then are currently respected.

I'm sure that HaNor pays sales tax or income tax? Something stolen by the state? If he does not then he has no significant property.

[Staenwald]

Civilization can only arise out of property rights, division of labor, and time preference. Without this, and communism presumes to destroy all 3, there is no civilization. The reason you are at a loss to account for a persons preference for goods and services sooner rather than later is b/c communism (socialism) fails to account for a pricing structure. This is precisely the issue that led to Marx giving up following Bohm Bawerk and Menger thoroughly trouncing his theories as childish fantasies. As well read as you are, you simply don't understand human activity in a collectivist way. Humanity is made up of individuals who live in voluntary collectives. Humanity is not a collective made up of individuals. The sovereign self comes first.

Marx was wrong. About everything. Without an adequate concept of human activity, human beings are relegated to automatons. As such, all collectivist doctrine is designed to remove the individuals incentive for individual action. In so doing, collectivism destroys the mind. Capitalism did not lead to lower standards of living. It still hasn't, despite all of the supposed "wonders" socialism has brought the world. Socialist economies are the ones in squalor. Marx was and will forever be, wrong. The triumph of Socialism is not inevitable. It's failure is.

Your thoughts about the pre-conditions for civilization are simply fractally wrong. No matter what resolution you look at the claims you make, how wrong you are doesn't diminish.

I cannot stress this enough. If you had taken even a basic survey of world history, or a basic anthropology class in college, and paid attention, you'd realize that the bulk of human history, and many of the great civilizations, were lacking one of your preconditions at the very least. Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon...they had almost no conception of private property beyond a very narrow sense of personal possession. Real property, especially in land, was almost always held in common, and the vast majority of artisans and craftsmen were employed by the state.

Rome's farmers worked on lands that were publicly owned, until the patricians illegally forced them out to build their slave-latifundia. I guess, under your terms, Rome wasn't a civilization

I don't know where you get this idea that Marx "gave up" or repudiated his earlier theories. Bohm-Bawerk only published his criticisms of Marx after Marx was already dead, and Carl Menger too didn't have any sort of dialogue with Marx while he was alive. It's easy to say you "trounced" someone when they're too dead to refute.

But hey, if they were such luminaries who thoroughly trounced Marx, you wouldn't mind enlightening me on them now would you? Since outside of the Austrian school you don't hear much of these fellows, I'm going to venture a guess that they didn't "trounce" Marx as thoroughly as you think. Given how popular it is to be a critic of Marx, you'd think we'd be hearing more about these luminaries by now, if only because they were useful to the bourgeoisie...

It's absurd on face that you even consider the self to be sovereign, let alone that you put it first. Even eminent liberal philosophers like John Rawls, in spite of their methodological individualism, recognize such a claim as contradictory. We're not born fully grown and brimming with wisdom from the head of Zeus; everyone one of us is ripped screaming into the world, poor and helpless. And everyone, without exception, owes their very existence to the millions who came before them, and built the civilization we live in. And from womb to tomb, we are manufactured to be the image of the society we live in. To call the individual sovereign is as absurd as calling the cog on an assembly line sovereign.

Free will, to the limited extent that it can exist, can only be understood as part of a collective phenomenon. Whereas you would ignore this truth, and build your society around a system that runs on autopilot, where everyone is "free" to act yet they have no concrete choices, I hold that the aim of socialism, properly understood, has always been to increase choice.

And I don't get where you seem to think that any self-respecting socialist thinks capitalism diminished the standards of living for society. Any socialist worth his salt acknowledges that capitalism was morally progressive compared to the societies that came before it, and that it served to create impressive productive forces in the industrialized core of the world economy. The socialist position is that capitalism has or will outlive its usefulness.

Considering that Marx had a conception human nature as homo faber: the artisanal man who finds self worth through individual intentioned creation and labor as well as through community, I'd say your talking nonsense when you say he had concept of human activity.

Whether you owe your life to the life of people 100 years ago is irrelevant. People are not means to an end, to say we owe ourselves to people living before us, with no choice about it, and then saying we have a duty to continue on their path, isn't much different from original sin to be honest. I can see where you are going. I was going to say the free market capitalism does not go against the idea of collective ownership, as long as it is voluntary. But Having collective ownership would make it a socialist society. I have a feeling that the most important factor is actually the freedom to decide whether to live individually or collectively. In this case, I wouldn't say communism is possible, because sometimes it will be more rational and self-beneficial to act individually, but as long as it's rational and the results of working together are worth making a few compromises, I'd go for it. That is why i don't think it's good to judge the 'end goal' in an economic sense, but rather in one of freedoms which people have.

If patricians stole land of people who held it collectively, that's stealing- not capitalism. Ancient Egypt was a theocratic dictatorship pretty much, the pharoahs were pretty ruthless.