So, if the baker becomes successful and hires salaried employees the socialist dream dies?
Clovis: [Dumb thing]
Me: Thatâs dumb because [reason]
Clovis: Thatâs CRAZY I donât even UNDERSTAND what youâre SAYING good grief
Me: I can explain if youâd like?
[silence]
[time passes]
Clovis: The trouble with people ITT who disagree with me is they donât want to look past the surface. No interrogation of their positions, tut tut.
This sounds a bit like youâre thinking Anarchism is stealing something from Anarcho-Capitalism.
Anarcho Capitalists looked at Anarchism and said ânot being ruled is cool, but letâs keep property, you know, the thing that ruling is all aboutâ.
Itâs generally both written and verbally explained to as well as agreed upon as well as additional notices and sometimes with added leniency.
Yes.
And if he simply made them shareholders in the enterprise: still socialism?
Maybe it isnât clear, but Iâm generally on the âanti-abolishing landlordsâ side of this argument. I was just trying to answer your question from the pro side, as I understand it. I donât think that eviction is always inherently and necessarily unjustifiably violent. Iâm sure I think some evictions are. I do think there are real social problems involving exploitative landlord-tenant relationships.
I havenât read enough anarchist philosophy. I was just talking about posters in this thread, not making a general assessment. Also I think two groups of people can have similar ideas without one having stolen from the other. NAP is pretty intuitive, I can think of other similar concepts in very different spheres, like AhiášsÄ.
1 Like
First of all, this isnât the thread to discuss âmoralityâ or macroeconomics. Start another thread if you wanna talk about that shiz.
Second, you donât have even a rudimentary understanding of what would be in an Introduction to Philosophy 1 text book chapter on Ethics (what grown ups call what you imagine as âmoralityâ).
In such a textbook, you would find such ideas conveyed: a naive greater good policy would approve of 10% of people living in absolute misery, as long as the other 90% of people were marginally happier to a sufficient degree.
Thatâs your âmoralityâ in a nut-shell.
You are a whiny, little bitch, arenât you? Real Marxists would keep you around just to fetch the tea and borscht.
âMarxistsâ? Dunno. But Marx himself would have had problems with Sabo and Lenin would have persecuted him when he cancelled socialism in 1918.
You donât have to be this way. Itâs up to you. All you need to do is settle down, and stop acting like a child.
If you were interested in having a civil conversation, youâdâŚ
(a) not go around gratuitously accusing others of acting in bad faith, which is what you just did to me.
(b) be happy to explain who I was âstraw-manningâ.
(c ) be happy to explain how I was âstraw manningâ them.
But we all know you arenât going to do any of that, now donât we. Whoâs the whiner, again?
Anyways, fool, I made a statement of the form âSome people believe Xâ. I didnât say âJoe said that some people believe Xâ, or âJoe believes Xâ, or anything about any other Joe at all. I canât misrepresent someone elseâs views, in bad faith, or confusion, or in any other way⌠if Iâm not referring to someone else at all.
Thatâs why I asked if you were just stupid.
The issue is effective control of the means of production.
The legalistic paperwork, or even if such legalistic paperwork exists, isnât at all what is relevant. Iâll give a couple of examples:
In the movie Goodfellas, the night club proprietor had legalistic title to the business. But he was so far into the mob, that neither him, nor his employees, had effective control of the means of production.
In the movie The Take (2004), the workers at the recovered factory do not have legalistic title, but do indeed have effective control of their means of production.
Or purge me like they tried with G.Orwell and his wife in revolutionary Catalonia.
Of course, out here in reality land, peeps in say the PSL actually like me just fine⌠even though I mercilessly tease them for being in, say, the PSL. They really like Sabo doggy too.
Thatâs because they donât have power. Trotsky was cool until he commanded the Red Army.
Communists in Spain were cool too until they needed Russia more than they needed Anarchists. Or thought they did anyway. Or decided, what good is winning if you donât get power.
Worrying about groups like the PSL coming into power is orders of magnitude more silly than worrying about prohibition coming back. Thatâs what makes the silly red-baiting ITT so funny!
ETA: Communists were relatively non-existent in pre-revolutionary Spain, and the ones that were around then were far from cool. A standard reference isâŚ
True.
Had not heard of the movie The Take. Will look for it.
Iâll just continue posting the way I want.
Iâll assume youâll have the occasional tantrum.
Easy-peasy.
Liberal: letâs ban private for profit health care!
Conservative: how did that work out with Stalin?
Liberal: haha red baiting fool!
Sabo: letâs ban private for profit housing!
Liberal: howâd that work out with Stalin?
3 Likes
tbh I also donât see why we should actually ban private health care (which is not the same as saying that I canât see why we should provide public not-for-profit health care, to be clear)
1 Like
Hey me neither, but so?