Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

12

ziq wrote

Money is theft.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

go1dfish wrote

Is voluntaryism a forbidden ideology here?

1

Lenny wrote (edited )

Not on this sub, but you'll get flamed to bits if you try to spread capitalist propaganda on f/anarchism.

1

go1dfish wrote

Voluntaryism isn't necessarily pro-capitalist though it is necessarily tolerant of the practice to the extent it is non-coercive.

It is accurate to describe me as an AnCap, but I do not think of myself as specifically pro capitalism.

The only strong favorable argument specifically for capitalism that I have found is the "information theory of capitalism" and even that to me is more of a strong argument for freedom and individualism in the generic sense over centralized control than a specific argument for capitalism as an economic model.

1

BlackFlagged wrote

No, the only people the terms of service excludes from using the site are fascists. But each particular subforum can make its own rules.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I've actually never heard of them, but I don't frequent their spaces so I wouldn't know any of them.

0

go1dfish wrote

Even if that money is communally developed?

5

ziq wrote

Any system of trade that enables a few entrepreneurs to stockpile resources and use this wealth to control others in order to accumulate yet more wealth and more control is theft.

1

Lenny wrote (edited )

Wouldn't that just be barter with debit notes? If the note represents actual goods on a shelf, then it's not money so much as direct trade.

3

ziq wrote

You're talking about a society where everyone contributes goods and services to a market, whereupon their contributions to the market are valued, and then they are allowed to receive other goods and services for equal value?

2

sudo wrote

What you described is very similar to the period of "Lower Communism" that Lenin describes in State and Revolution.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

3

mofongo wrote

He's just sort of quoting Marx's labor voucher ideas, he proppsed in Critique of the Gotha Program as a method of rationing. This could be used in case the production forces took a big hit during the revolution; of course this is not necessary for the inmediate communist society to function.

3

sudo wrote

Yeah, I figured it sounded a lot like labour vouchers.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

It would appear to be a good stop gap measure, but I'm sure corruption would ruin it, as with anything the USSR touched, and your value as a worker would end up being determined by your social status in relation to the party, rather than the quality of your work.

2

sudo wrote

Lenin wasn't referring specifically to the USSR, he was referring to any society that advanced past capitalism, and the early phases of socialism. Measures could be taken to prevent corruption, but preventing corruption in the government is another topic entirely.

0

go1dfish wrote

The note doesn't have to necessarily be a direct representation of any specific good or service.

I was thinking along the lines of cryptocurrencies specifically.

4

Lenny wrote

cryptocurrencies don't create hierarchy and power imbalances? Isn't the whole point of them to expand your wealth?

1

go1dfish wrote

That depends on who you ask.

For many that is the entire point, for others the bigger point is to deny the state the power of money creation and the control that facilitates

3

blackrev wrote

That's an ancap/libertarian saying the truth is property is theft

0

go1dfish wrote

How can you have a notion of theft without a notion of property and ownership?

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

The best answer I have for this is one that seeks to reframe the question.

Answering the question straightforwardly requires anarchists (to some degree) to fit within the framework of property.

Anarchists seek a world without property and so without theft. At most, if anything, what 'theft' is would be something completely different in an anarchist world.

So it's a false question and I think it's important to note that so that we don't accidentally conserve the values we are trying to destroy just in the everyday ways that we engage with people.

Anarchists do not 'believe in' government or property so they don't believe in taxation.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

We reject private property, yes. But personal property is all good.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I don't think we necessarily have to accept this.

I don't mind much if anarchists like the idea of personal property. For example, I wouldn't feel the need to destroy a society that worked like bolo'bolo, where each person gets a box of a certain size (same for everybody, and small enough to carry when backpacking, I don't remember the exact dimensions) and whatever they keep in that is theirs.

But there are other ways of keeping things dear to you with you that need not invoke the relation of property. When you have a dog as a companion, to make an example, people are not going to take 'your' dog from you because it is not your property; they recognise a bond and respect it. Similarly, if you're busy cooking a meal for yourself, somebody isn't going to come take your food as you've made it just because you don't own it, it's just common consideration. With these two sorts of things, namely the respecting of a bond, or common consideration, you cover a lot of ground that personal property would with less baggage around ownership and enforcement. I think.

And either way, it would require a difference sense of the meaning of 'theft'.

Edit: missing word, deleted some repetition

3

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't think the idea of property on its own has a negative connotation. Property that generates profit is private property, anything that belongs to you and isn't used to control others is personal property.

The best example of personal property is your home. You shouldn't be forced to share your bed and bathroom with random people. But then if you have 2 dwellings and you rent one of them out - that's private property, and you're participating in exploitation for profit.

Privacy is very important to humans, if you insinuate they need to share everything with strangers, they're not going to be very open to your ideology. Some things need to be just for ourselves.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I am interested in why you think people would be forced to share beds with other people without the property relation. I live in a house with a handful of people and we treat things communally but none of us expect that this means people will just get into bed with us. I'm not sure why anybody would. If somebody needed a bed, there would be talk about it, and an arrangement would be made that was considerate of everyone's needs.

I think homes are not even personal property, but private. And I think an anarchist would would look very very radically different from the kind of thing we have now.

Have you read The Dispossessed? If you haven't, I highly recommend it. Le Guin's characterisation of property in it is intriguing and I think shows one of many ways that desirable anarchist worlds might not have housing in the traditional sense you're speaking of.

3

ziq wrote

I was just explaining what personal property is, I didn't make up the definition.

Your argument is that we don't need the term 'personal property' because you don't like associating with the concept of property in any way, but I don't think having your own space and your own things is a bad thing.

The idea of personal property has always allowed anarchists to explain to liberals that we're not going to take away their toothbrushes. If anarchists start rejecting the concept of personal property it's not going to help with propaganda.

I built my home myself and it's an illegal structure that doesn't legally exist and is worth nothing to anyone other than me and my partner. I don't see how it's private property when I don't profit from it?

Yeah I've read The Dispossessed.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Yes I agree completely about the point of appealing to liberals. But it's the same kind of approach I take to someone like Chomsky. He appeals to liberals, calls himself anarchist, and gets people in the door of anarchy. When you're through the door, you can look back and say that Chomsky wasn't that anarchist after all. (this is not to say I am better than him at anything)

I think it's awesome that you built your home. I wish I had those kinds of skills. What I do think though is that an anarchist world would have room for people to be attached to things that they care about without it being property in any way associated with capitalism.

I feel like new things we create in a revolution or 'after' one would exist in a different way to how they do now, but also that things like your home are treasures that would be considered as such by people.

I have always understood personal property as movable, and am not really one to argue semantics because I don't think anything has fixed meaning. Wikipedia seems to agree with both of us - you more than me.

Anyway, I suspect our positions are closer than they appear. My interest from the outset has mostly been one of framing.

4

ziq wrote

I lean more individualist than collectivist, but I'd much rather live adjacent to (anarcho) collectivism than adjacent to neoliberal capitalism.

The great thing about my home is it can be disassembled and moved : )

0

go1dfish wrote

Property at some level is unavoidable.

Certainly the clothes on me belong to me in a sense and it would be wrong for someone to take them forcefully from me.

Similarly the contents of my own thoughts are unavoidably my own in the absence of violent coercion.

Cryptocurrency has shown, that this form of secret, combined with voluntary social process and interaction is sufficient to bootstrap an economy and maintain (virtual) property.

Property and the concept of property will always exist so long as the things and labor we value are scarce and people believe them to be scarce.

3

sudo wrote

I believe taxation as it exists now under capitalism is theft, because workers have no control over where that money goes (plus a large portion of it often goes to the police and military, which is against the interests of the workers). Taxation under socialism and communism would not be theft, because the money would go towards public projects and services for those who need the most.

-1

bshur wrote

because the money would go towards public projects and services for those who need the most.

Do you have an example of a communist country where this has worked in the way that you've described?

Are there examples of capitalistic countries that don't spend a large portion of their budget on military?

Are there examples of any country ever in history that actually allowed workers to have control over where their tax money goes?

2

sudo wrote

Do you have an example of a communist country where this has worked in the way that you've described?

There have been no communist countries, only socialist ones. But I assume you mean socialist countries. I do not know the answer to that - I haven't studied enough of the government structures of existing socialist countries to determine how much control the people have over where their taxes go.

Are there examples of capitalistic countries that don't spend a large portion of their budget on military?

I would assume the small, non-imperialist ones, but I don't know for sure.

Are there examples of any country ever in history that actually allowed workers to have control over where their tax money goes?

See my answer to the first question.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

I think it's safe to say anything taken from you under threat of imprisonment is theft. Taxation only works because of the monopoly on violence the state enjoys.

But that being said, the rich should be paying taxes through their noses simply because this whole mess of a world is their doing and if we're going to live miserable lives as their subordinates, while they sit pretty in their mansions... All of capitalist society is theft, so there's no reason the biggest thieves of all (the rich) should be complaining about having to pay taxes.

1

go1dfish wrote

I think there is an argument to be made that taxing/stealing from those who directly benefited and controlled the violent apparatus of the State to their own gain.

This would include bailed out bankers, state enforced/encouraged monopolies. Large businesses subject to tax subsidies or other governmental market manipulation.

To the extent that a capitalist owns enough capital to resemble a State (i.e. locking out all viable alternatives to food/shelter/water outside of the domain of their presumed claim) I agree that the situation is untenable and ought to be resolved through whatever means necessary.

I am a voluntarist, but if you truly own so much that nobody can own anything except through paying you rent, you have effectively become a State with property tax.

2

Defasher wrote

IMO every 20%er directly benefits from the State's violence. Their wealth wouldn't exist if it weren't for the state enforcing the value of it.

1

jarboot wrote

Since the government is providing services to the people it is not. They are the largest organization in the country and have the ability to provide services at scale. However, the government as it stands in many counties (I'm looking at my home country, the US) is too bureaucratic and there should be an effort to decrease the amount of regulation and cut back on administrative levels.

1

alexander wrote

If your primary concern about taxation is semantics, you should probably think about it in a bigger context.

0

go1dfish wrote

That's not my primary concern with taxation but it is the level that the majority of people are willing to engage the topic if at all.

Taxation is much more worrisome as a means of social control than funds appropriation.