Hate commies? Think again.

[sith_wampa]

Here is a short guide to help you understand your own views and the views of others.

 

Ancoms see factories as oppressive, and believe working there is not a choice, because a capitalist society compels you to earn capital to survive. Working somewhere entitles you to the profits that result from your labor, even if you have made agreements otherwise because the agreements were not voluntary. They believe that enforcing private property violates the rights of everyone else.

 

Ancaps see your choice to work as voluntary. Nobody forces you to work. Nobody forces you to work at a particular place. You are not forced to own anything, nor are you entitled to anything that was not contractually agreed upon. They see collectivism as oppressive unless all parties have voluntarily agreed.

 

This is the most important difference to understand. Your definition of property largely determines what side of the fence you fall on.

 

True anarchism is when you are not forced to into either private or common property. You can choose to live in a place that has whichever you prefer, or some combination, or some other system. The entire Ancap vs Ancom debate becomes Anarchist vs Statist once you decide one system must be universal, because they start from a subjective definition of property.

 

[Agalloch]

Let's test it!

 

Everyone is on their own separate island, completely isolated from other people. You claim property is the problem, and not illogic, so we will take the ancom view of property: it is unownable, anyone can use anything, and we ignore the moral claims to property that are all actions.

 

Now, words like oppressive, and your claims that contracts become involuntary, require a human oppressor. Otherwise, you're arbitrarily blaming one half of a contractual party for physicsand rewarding the other half. So, either we should be able to find a human oppressor of our islander, or he shouldn't "have' to work.

 

Day 1: nobody but our one islander. With no one around, he isn't "forced" to work. He lazes around all day.

 

Day 2-5: similar, though he feels in physical pain as if assaulted but there's no one around so its not assault or oppression causing him pain.

 

Day 6: our islander dies.

 

I hope I don't have to explain the point? Needless to say, there was no oppressor around. BTW, factories? Has someone been reading too much 19th century communism and not spent much time in the real world? Most labour in my country is not factory based anymore.

 

Now that situation isn't airtight because we can also prove you don't have to work. Its just that the islander was in a situation where he did. So, situation 2:

 

Rich kid inherits £300,000,000, never has to work, the end.

 

Not everyone is so lucky, indeed, but the point is, the requirement to work isn't universal, but personal. Therefore there is no force, of man or nature.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Ancom is a contradiction. If someone forces you where to work or into an involuntary agreement, then it's not anarchy.

 

Ancap isn't a belief system. It's just what happens in the absence of violence. No belief required.

 

Reminder: Anarchy means "no rulers".

[regevdl]

maybe we should begin by defining terms so we are on the same page when referencing such words.  What do you mean by 'capital' in "because a capitalist society compels you to earn capital to survive".  Do you view food as capital? Would you trade labor to obtain food...even if you grow it yourself you are inputting labor and resources (water, compost, etc) in order to reap capital (i.e. food).  You are capitalizing on your work and investment (time, energy, talents, etc.)

[J. D. Stembal]

 

Here is a short guide to help you understand your own views and the views of others.

 

Ancoms see factories as oppressive, and believe working there is not a choice, because a capitalist society compels you to earn capital to survive. Working somewhere entitles you to the profits that result from your labor, even if you have made agreements otherwise because the agreements were not voluntary. They believe that enforcing private property violates the rights of everyone else.

 

Ancaps see your choice to work as voluntary. Nobody forces you to work. Nobody forces you to work at a particular place. You are not forced to own anything, nor are you entitled to anything that was not contractually agreed upon. They see collectivism as oppressive unless all parties have voluntarily agreed.

 

This is the most important difference to understand. Your definition of property largely determines what side of the fence you fall on.

 

True anarchism is when you are not forced to into either private or common property. You can choose to live in a place that has whichever you prefer, or some combination, or some other system. The entire Ancap vs Ancom debate becomes Anarchist vs Statist once you decide one system must be universal, because they start from a subjective definition of property.

 

What is your definition of property? You did not actually define it. I am assuming you are a more left leaning liberty advocate, but I am not sure.

 

While the wording is volatile, you are forced (expected) to own a few things in a free society. You must own yourself and your actions (and the products of your actions) at the very least. This is the underlying basis for the non-aggression principle, and the theory of capitalism.

 

I've heard people talk about starting an ancom style commune, but I've never actually seen one in action. I've heard rumors about a few in the Rocky Mountains. There is a town in Southwest Colorado that is a community of artists, but I doubt they have total collectivized ownership. To do so, people would be limited in their individual choices.

 

If they have ranchers feeding the town, one could not be a vegan, for example. A collective eats what they are given since there is no economy to drive free choice.

 

Also, in a collective community where their is joint ownership of everything, women could not exercise autonomy over the production of new humans. That would also be controlled by a central authority.

 

It is also a distinct possibility that once you become old and infirm, you will be ejected from the commune to die in the mountains since you can no longer contribute labor and are simply drawing resources until your death. If the commune did not do this, it would run the risk of becoming too old to be functional. See the success of Social Security in the United States, as an example.

[WasatchMan]

 

Ancoms see factories as oppressive, and believe working there is not a choice, because a capitalist society compels you to earn capital to survive.

 

 

Actually, reality is what compels you to produce what you consume.

[NotDarkYet]

"You can choose to live in a place that has whichever you prefer"

 

 

Can you live in a house somebody else built?

 

If not, then why?

[Alan C.]

There is no such thing as a society in which one can abstain from work unless one is in some kind of symbiotic relationship with others.

 

Without symbiosis, and if one were to abstain from work, then the result would be death in a matter of days from dehydration, starvation, or hypothermia.

[Libertus]

Nobody "hates commies". That's a misconception similar to how theists say atheists just "hate god". Communists do admit that they will indeed use force against anyone who owns property privately, meaning, exclusively. And that's because they believe that you are aggressing against them, simply by putting borders around or otherwise protecting anything they consider "means of production", a vague, somewhat arbitrary term, that ranges from a toolbox to a piece of land to any natural resource.

 

It makes no sense having a discussion with someone who threatens you with a gun (or a molotov cocktail) for owning certain types of stuff. I feel no hate, I feel sorry for them.