@estelle You assume that US is capitalism. Capitalism is by definition to have an open market Government regulating market negates that. It's more of an oligarchy or form of fascism.
A state capitalist system, in which the state acts as a corporate capital owner—though over the last few decades it’s basically become more of just a regular, banal capitalist system.
There really isn’t one; the term “libertarian” was originally coined to describe anarchist communism before it was coopted by propertarians like Rothbard—ie, people who advocate rule by property owners but mistake this for liberty.
No; I advocate for no private property, which is always and everywhere imposed by violence and which is incompatible with the sort of economic freedom we think of as “the free market.”
Homes are generally not private property, but rather personal property, owned through use and occupancy.
A good heuristic to ask is: does the person who lives in the home own it? If so, it’s probably personal property. Does someone else own it, to whom the occupant has to pay a private tax called “rent”? If so, it’s probably private property.
People have exchanged personal property, shared it, and created it themselves since the beginning of our species 300,000 years ago. So, in short: an incredible diversity of ways.
@OneEyeKing@HeavenlyPossum@gavinisdie@estelle Who built them before private property was invented? People. Who builds them now? People. Who will build them after private property is at an end? People, I'm guessing.
I mean, we might presume that some people would build their own homes, while others would do it in voluntary cooperation with their community, while still others might seek out the services of professional builders.
@HeavenlyPossum@gavinisdie@AdrianRiskin@estelle
If they would agree on compensation then people that are skilled and willing to complete more demanding tasks would receive bigger compensation and that would no longer be communism.
Wealth is not a measure of material “stuff.” It’s a social relationship of command. Two people can possess different amounts or kinds of stuff without being able to command each other as a result of that stuff.
If I have two toothbrushes and you have one, I cannot command you as a result. If I own your home and your place of work, I can command you as a result.
People now rent because they are forced to, not because they choose to. It’s not about prohibiting someone from renting a home, but rather enabling them to say no to renting.
@HeavenlyPossum@estelle@AdrianRiskin@gavinisdie You sound like someone who is just upset with the current state of affairs like I am. I think much of it has to do with government bureaucracy and corporations buying politicians. I don't think you're a communist. I think you're just a libertarian.
Yes, like I said, in the sense that “libertarian” was coined to describe anarchist communism but was later coopted by propertarians like Mises and Rothbard.
@HeavenlyPossum@AdrianRiskin@estelle@gavinisdie I was born and raised in communism. None of the libertarian aspects you described applied. Communism was totalitarian. All incentives to contribute to society were removed. Most people did less.
@HeavenlyPossum@estelle@gavinisdie@AdrianRiskin
I think that communism in theory is different then in application. Reality is that people are greedy and opportunistic and the system is set up for certain people to hijack it and use it to their own advantage. In the end every communist experiment ends up in violence and consequent rulling class. I would suggest that you test your ideas on a small scale with other like minded people. People suck.
> “I think that communism in theory is different then in application.”
The “application” of communism by ie Stalinist regimes is so unlike actual communism as to constitute something else entirely.
> “Reality is that people are greedy and opportunistic”
People are also selfless and prosocial.
> “and the system is set up for certain people to hijack it and use it to their own advantage. In the end every communist experiment ends up in violence and consequent rulling class.”
If there is a ruling class, it’s not communism in theory or practice.
> “I would suggest that you test your ideas on a small scale with other like minded people. People suck.”
People lived successfully with communism for thousands of years.
> “Yes there are exceptions. Unfortunately predatory individuals tend to dominate. Same as in nature.”
On the contrary, people are obligate social animals. We die in isolation. The dominance of predatory individuals now is a feature of capitalism, not of “nature.”
@HeavenlyPossum@gavinisdie@estelle@AdrianRiskin
"On the contrary, people are obligate social animals. We die in isolation. The dominance of predatory individuals now is a feature of capitalism, not of “nature.”"
People are opportunistic and its their nature. Its the reason communism always ends up in violence and few individuals pimping out the naive.
Everyone is both simultaneously self-aggrandizing and prosocially cooperative. These two things are not contradictory and they don’t predetermine any particular social outcome.
"Free markets" are a myth, I agree. In order for a market to exist, there must exist some sort of systemic structure supporting it. Most importantly, someone must be instilling the concept of private property into people and then enforcing the idea of private property through some sort of threat.
Precisely. People have exchanged things since the begging of our species, and people in free societies have even made use of markets, though not in any way as pervasively as we do now. But no society has ever voluntarily adopted capitalism, and the concepts of “free market” and “private property” are diametrically opposed.
@OneEyeKing@estelle The term "capitalism" was coined in the early 19th century in reference, specifically, to the actually-existing capitalism the writers lived under at the time -- the capitalist political-economic system that had supplanted feudalism several years before. It wasn't until the early 20th century that capitalist polemicists like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises attempted to recuperate it as a name for "free market capitalism," and right-libertarian dudebros have been using it in that new, ahistorical sense ever since. And incidentally, half the things right-libertarians consider spontaneous and natural incidents of a so-called "free market" -- like fee-simple commodity ownership of land, specie currency, etc. -- were actually the product of massive state violence in the early modern period.
@violetmadder@estelle Yes. Unlike most communists I acknowledge the flaws of human nature. I understand that monopolies form because of it. I also understand the role of small, accountable government and the need for it to represent people.The monstrosity of unelected governmental organizations are passing laws written by the lobbyist which benefit banks and corporations, creating monopolies.
That is not capitalism
How do you propose to regulate the market in your communist society?
You've played Monopoly, right? That's not "human nature". It's a specific system, whose design accelerates the wealth accumulation of those who have wealth.
No matter what regulations you try to place on that system, sooner or later inequality tilts the playing field steeply enough that the regulators fall into the hands of the wealthy. They bribe their way out from under any restrictions placed on them, and the whole mess inorexably devolves into corporate feudalism.
People with the power to change the rules will change the rules to give themselves more power that makes it easier for them to change more rules, round and round we go.
So, the anarcho-communist approach is to prevent the centralized concentration of power in the first place. Break the enclosure of the commons, and stop giving absentee rent-collecting vampires the right to own things that aren't their own personal property.
I'm certainly not the least bit happy about Trader Joe's executive management's union busting and court action, but at the same time, I'm more than happy to support their workers union organizing.
So I'll continue to drop a few $ in the union's coffers and pick up a few odds and ends at our local store to keep those workers employed.
@joeinwynnewood I would think TJs has a customer base that would organize to support their TJs unionizing.
I wrote the union to add a section on how customers can help to their FAQs on their website. I hope they come back with something more than "donate to the union". I think if customers threatened a boycott we might get far.
@joeinwynnewood@estelle Market Basket in New England. It is family owned and one family member got control and was going to do things to change the beloved stores and customer backlash was so severe that the ownership control flipped. (I am simplifying because I wasn't fully in tune with it as it happened, but it was only a few years ago.)
"Employees, as well as state politicians, began to call for a boycott of Market Basket stores. By mid week, Market Basket's sales had fallen about 70%."
Add comment