• DaSaw@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just because some people have known about something for more than a hundred years, doesn’t mean all people have known something for more than a hundred years. I am a fan of Henry George’s work, but I wouldn’t be all “ho hum” if someone who was ignorant of George’s work (and derivatives) nevertheless managed to figure it out independently and present it to new people. I would be thrilled to see the idea spreading.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, but (contrary to the article linked) the headline here is “Anarchists should…” when Anarchists are actually the ones that have probably thought about this the most already and the article (without mentioning Anarchy even once) basically just re-invents 100 year old anarchist ideas.

      • DaSaw@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget that the anarcho-capitalists have been muddying branding. Some folks may not realize that anarchism is not the same thing as absolute landlordism.

        • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Anarcho-capitalists do not even correctly apply their own principles. They accept the principle that people have the right to appropriate the fruits of their labor. However, they do not recognize the routine violation of that principle embodied in the capitalist firm. They, in fact, defend the right of the employer to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of the workers’ joint labor in the firm on the basis of consent missing the point about inalienability

          • DaSaw@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure Anarcho-capitalism is intended to be applied consistently. I’d be willing to bet it was originally crafted with the deliberate intent of fooling some would-be anarchists into allying themselves with authoritarians.

            EDIT: Ha! It appears I am not alone in this. From the article:

            Classical liberal thought has done its job well to get much of the Left to use the consent/coercion framing and to quibble about what is “really” voluntary (or whether the payment is big enough to compensate for all the “alienated labor-time”)—as if the whole institution for renting people would be acceptable if only people had other choices (like a guaranteed basic income) or were paid higher human rentals.[11]

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah. A couple of “timeless” quotes by the propertarian Murray Rothbard:

              One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy…“Libertarians”…had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety.

              We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines…we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists…We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

              They knew damned well what they were doing. At least Rothbard didn’t fully accept the appropriation of the latter term, even if others from his shitty movement have since then.

              • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                “This is my proposition: the laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced.”
                -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

                Ellerman’s modern version of this analysis was first stated in 1984. Rothbard in 1950 saw the employment contract as vital to private property and swallowed the fundamental myth of capitalism that Ellerman mentions. He would include Ellerman’s position on this matter as collectivist and anti-private-property.

                • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m pretty sure I made obvious in the other comment tree that I’m not interested in your takes, and how defensively not-propertarian you insist you are while advocating for propertarian ideas.

                  When I say I’m done interacting with you and then start conversing with somebody else, that’s not an invitation to jump in and continue with me. Fuck off.

                  • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago
                    1. I replied to that comment for anyone reading to provide relevant context to place the ideas presented within the anarchism’s intellectual history.

                    2. Capitalist accusations for having a different analysis and critique of capitalism are not productive.

                    3. It is a thread I started, so any reply could be interpreted as a reply to me. I was not sure of the etiquette here. I apologize if my commenting did not align with commenting etiquette here.

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget that the anarcho-capitalists have been muddying branding.

          I hope there aren’t any in this particular forum where that the title was editorialized for, though. “Anarcho-capitalists” (propertarians) aren’t anarchists, and this whole forum (plus its moderators) should be very clear about that, and become very clear about it if they aren’t. I mean, the very first thing in the “sidebar” info is a link to an essay by David Graeber which should inform any propertarians that we most definitely are not talking about them (especially the last two sections on listening to your mother from your early childhood and believing in people’s better natures).

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most anarchists are opposed to private property in the products of labor, so my re-contextualizing the article for this community was valid. Personal property does not cover all products of labor because it excludes the means of production, which can be a product of labor. The anarchist closest to Ellerman on this matter was Proudhon. Ellerman acknowledges him in his other work as a predecessor. Ellerman’s critique applies even if wage labor is voluntary unlike many anarchic critiques @anarchism

        • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personal property does not cover all products of labor because it explicitly excludes the means of production, which can be a product of labor.

          This isn’t quite true. A means of production can become personal property if it is actively used by the person that produced it. It is just that no property right is thought to be absolute and actual usage usually trumps other means to derive personal property status.

          • DaSaw@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personally, I think Locke’s provisio on occupancy and use applies: The use of land confers ownership if there is enough just as good left for others to do the same. If there is not, then those who acquire such a privilege should be required to compensate those excluded by this privilege.

          • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh, you mean the occupancy and use sense of personal property. That does not allow one workers’ collective to rent out means of production to another workers’ collective and retain ownership. It is different from what Ellerman is arguing for. I also edited the comment to add another point

            • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not quite. Personal property can also be thought of as a group ownership. In fact often it has to be because it is difficult to manage in larger organizations otherwise.

              Renting out the means of productions seems like a non-issue as when you are not using them why not give them to someone else to use? This is well established in Anarchist library economics texts.

              The article also seems to be more concerned about investments into future returns from the means of production, but again this is basically just repeating the staking concept used in Mondragon for this, which is not uncontroversial, but benefits might out weight the risk that it creates a two class system within the company.

              • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                @poVoq Renting out means of production is another way for workers’ collectives to exchange products of their labor, and receive something else that they value more. Giving away the means of production would mean forgoing compensation. It isn’t clear whether the person you’re giving away the means of production to will use it in a socially efficient manner. Prices provide a rough approximation of social cost especially in an economy with common ownership of natural resources @anarchism

                • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, sharing the means of production is ultimately to the benefit of all (see for example the open-source movement).

                  What you propose is akin to monopolizing or creating an artificial scarcity of them. Obviously in a library economy that prioritizes sharing of the means of production there would be a process so that people borrowing the means of production both contribute to the maintenance of them and not hog their use over other people’s more productive use-cases, but the exact process would likely be sector specific and not based on an artificial abstraction like prices that gives an unjust advantage to the people that control the currency.

                  I think more interesting is anyway how to incentivize people to “invest” in the creation of additional/improved means of production, which is harder to solve when future returns from other peoples work are not possible to capture through private ownership of the means of production like in a capitalist society.

                  • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Software is something that can be freely duplicated without cost to its producers, so what applies to it cannot be applied to all capital. Open source is largely developed by a few dedicated contributors or employees of large corporations. Regardless, there needs to be an incentive for people to work on socially valuable projects even in open source rather than on their pet projects.

                    What could this process look like in a sector such that it wouldn’t be basically prices?