Daily Anarchist Forum
October 27, 2021, 11:50:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 70793 times)
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2012, 01:01:14 PM »

Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control

The weird, weird backwards land of ancom: 

Give me what I want and need or else you are coercing me.



So you can't work if you not a wage slave.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2012, 02:20:13 PM »

Its the idea of working for someone i dont like selling your time to anothers control

The weird, weird backwards land of ancom: 

Give me what I want and need or else you are coercing me.



So you can't work if you not a wage slave.

Let's try to hash this out one point at a time instead of jumping all over the place.  I think you and I can make a fair attempt at understanding each other's positions and having a fair and rational discussion.

First, let's lay down some ground rules.

1. We give evidence or logical arguments for our assertions.

If I say "Taxes are theft!" I must then defend this position with evidence and/or arguments as the situation warrants.

2. We refrain from inflammatory statements and ad hominems.

We will treat each other with respect and civility despite any frustrations we have debating with each other.

If you agree to these or any have others, let me know.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2012, 03:05:53 PM »

ok
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2012, 05:29:17 PM »

Excellent.  This should be instructive for me as I wish to learn more about socialist anarchists and their positions on matters.  I don't feel I understand their positions well enough right now so I expect to learn things from this discussion.

Where shall we begin?  It seems like one of the major sticking points is the definition of coercion and what justly falls under this category.  Does economic coercion exist?

Why don't we begin there.  You can explain your position and why you think economic coercion is immoral, if it justifies a violent response, what wage slavery is and why you think it is harmful and unjust or whatever other thoughts you have on the matter.  Sound ok?
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2012, 07:28:23 PM »

I'm relatively new to anarchist communism, being a recent convert from anarcho capitalism, and have limited array of knowledge, so I will rely heavily on the works of others.

I usually consider economic coercion like smoking, be an idiot, I'll defend your right, but don't blow it in my face. I would try to educate people on why its wrong.

When violence is allowed is when leaving is made difficult, like when if I don't pay the rent, I'm homeless, and even then non violence is preferable. Or if I quit I starve.

The same way, "love it or leave it" isn't a justification of statism.

Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2012, 07:57:43 PM »

When violence is allowed is when leaving is made difficult, like when if I don't pay the rent, I'm homeless, and even then non violence is preferable. Or if I quit I starve.
The fact that people can starve and not have homes is part of being alive. If you don't build your own home, you need to get permission to use someone else's...or be homeless.

If you don't grow your own food, you need to pay someone else for it.

The biggest problem is that you seem to be arguing that the very state of our existence is somehow coercive. I don't consider biological necessities to be "coercive".

Somehow or another, you have to bear the costs of supporting your own existence. It's just that with markets, it's a lot cheaper. It used to require a 70+ hour work week to get by on a subsistence diet with no medical treatment (where a simple infection could kill you). We no longer have to worry about dying just because it doesn't rain for a few months. We can get sick, take some days off and not jeopardize our family's food supply. We still have to support ourselves, it's just a lot easier, because we get more per hour worked (yes, even if you work at McDonald's).

Markets don't "impose" a need to work for a living. That's part of being alive. It takes effort to sustain yourself. If that's not "fair", then I don't know what fair even means. How can trade, and the opportunities it provides to increase your material well-being and longevity be exploitation?

@ Script: Sorry, I didn't want to butt into your conversation, but sometimes I can't help myself.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 08:13:08 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2012, 08:58:39 PM »

I really mean not so much violence as the extracontractural termination of the relationship, say if a guy is paying to much in rent to feed his family, he has the right to stop paying rent and squat his house, or if a guy can't leave a job because the market is weak, and a strike or other method of protest is impossible he has the right to occupy his workplace and run it for his benefit
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2012, 09:58:02 PM »

Quote from: JustSayNoToStatism

@ Script: Sorry, I didn't want to butt into your conversation, but sometimes I can't help myself.

I wouldn't want to coerce you to stop engaging in the conversation, carry on.  ;-)

Edit: Corrected quote author
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 10:17:07 PM by Script » Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2012, 10:04:06 PM »

I really mean not so much violence as the extracontractural termination of the relationship, say if a guy is paying to much in rent to feed his family, he has the right to stop paying rent and squat his house,
Why does it make sense for someone else to bear the costs of his actions? Why should his decision to raise a family on a knife's edge cost the land owner his property? The whole point of understanding economics is to see how incentives affect people's behavior. Do you think it is efficient, in any sense of the word, to reward the man (with a free house that he didn't build) for his lack of foresight and punish the landowner (via lost rent) for renting the property out to him in the first place? All the incentives are set incorrectly here.

Quote
or if a guy can't leave a job because the market is weak, and a strike or other method of protest is impossible he has the right to occupy his workplace and run it for his benefit
Why does he have the right to his workplace? Did he make it? Of course not. Again, consider incentives. If employees can just occupy and takeover your business, then the entrepreneurs really have no reason to start the business and create the jobs in the first place. The owner takes all the risk in starting up a new project. The variance of his returns are extreme. If he isn't guaranteed to reap the benefits when he's successful, there is no reason to ever do it. It's a punishment for innovation. That's the wrong incentive.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2012, 10:11:02 PM »

We're arguing ethics, not economics

now onto the arguments:

why should the family suffer, and what if he's just poor and lives in a poor area (say a small town in West Virginia, where their only room for 3 apartments and the 3 owners collude to keep prices high), and he must pay rent as soon as he can, and must leave if another option shows up. (look up Kirby Rent Strike)

Because he's a slave to the boss, and he only has the right until other options show up, and the occupation has to be a last resort.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2012, 10:27:39 PM »

Sounds like we are arguing fundamentally about property and property rights. 

Assasin7 can you describe to me your beliefs on property and property rights?  Do you believe property rights exist?  If so, to what extent?  (Personal possession, private property, no property what-so-ever, etc.)
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2012, 10:34:07 PM »

My honest answer is that ethics is bullshit. Just an attempt to make your preferences look "correct," whatever that means.

But I'm fine with "playing that game" if you want. I agree with Script, explain the nature of property, and how it fits into your ethical picture.

PS: I take your response as an acceptance of the economic side of my argument.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2012, 10:46:41 PM »

I need to bone up on economics before debating them.

property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2012, 10:47:09 PM »

If employer/employee relationships are all slavery, and if selling something is just stealing from the buyer, but occupying someone elses land or taking their property is fine as long as you "need" it, what's the upside to living in society?  We can't trade, but we can take.  In your world, is every man an island until and unless his need justifies robbing his neighbor?  
Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2012, 02:55:43 PM »

property rights: same as smoking, fine be an idiot, just don't blow shit in my face, use the power addiction to tobacco gives you over people to dominate them. If you use them in a coercive manner, rent domination, wage slavery, I'll help the people resist.
I honestly don't understand half of what you wrote. Can you use standard English conventions?

How are property rights the "same as smoking."
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!