You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Response to A "Letter" Addressed to Antifa/Anarcho-Communists
Where would you say anarcho-communists disagree with anarcho-capitalists?
And I mean actual AnCaps aka voluntaryists who hold to the NAP. It seems the same as what you're describing (just with a different loaded term that people often misunderstand hehe)
If it's complicated you could consider a separate blog post sometime (I realize it isn't exactly the point here, I'm just curious)
Essentially voluntaryists say that it is not a violation of the NAP to claim you do not use and then refuse access/shelter/development/passage to another person, even if it's life-threatening.
So essentially if somebody cannot find a job, they're left to starve, but also cannot simply go out into the wild as private property is a thing and in the eyes of voluntaryists they would be violating the NAP if they crossed into their land during travel or simply to make a camp and basic shelter.
Anarcho-communism essentially anyone part of the collective will have a say, potentially more or less depending on their contributions determined by the collective it's self (essentially delegated voice), and no private property is respected, only personal property. That means if the collective has a plot of and of 2000acres, and there's a few houses on the eastern side of it, taking up about 10acres, you cannot go set up a tent right next to them, however you can always ask the collective (or the people there) if you can build and join in next to them, and until then you can always go stealth-camp (leave no trace camping) out into those 2000acres, as you will not be disturbing anybody. You could also of course ask to camp next to the houses, which likely they'd be okay with, but even if not because the other 1500+ acres aren't pretty much ever even visited you will not be disturbing anybody and thus you can do as you please as long as it doesn't damage the land.
In voluntaryism or really any "an"-cap subset everybody is an individual and private property does exist, which means you cannot simply go stealth-camp and everything is based off money rather than the feelings of the residents.
Because of this, an-coms say that they're violating the NAP because it is aggressive to bar someone from using land that you are not using that they need to use to survive. It is also aggressive to restrict movement over said land if movement is needed and nothing is disturbed in the travels.
There's also some problems with the economics and classes and how private property would function (they could simply keep buying and become a mini-state in due time, forcing rent payments with force and creating rules because it's "his land") which scream that it wouldn't actually be voluntary for long, and it'd only be voluntary for the people who were treated correctly.
Because an-coms see it as a violation of the NAP in general, that means defensive actions are permitted if need be, which obviously may end up a commie militia overthrowing local capitalists and their mercenaries, unless they agree to not use the NAP as a justification and instead have the collective simply economically suffocate the capitalist/voluntaryists by acting as a single capitalist their self.
Woops I made it long :)
I hate re-writing because there's no way to capture the original flavor. But I can't find it, my general points were something like:
I agree with your attitude about how the world should work and whatnot.
Once a pack of dogs chased after me while I was bicycle touring and thought it might be ok to cut through a yard to get back to the street. This annoyed me and did not seem peaceful or civil etc
Land is unique because it was here in the first place, it's nobody's creation, there's just a fixed amount of it that by default we share. So it should follow different rules than things we produce and create ourselves like pencils
To me it seems like what you're describing for the AnCap position is just people who have a bad view of how claims to land ownership should work and who misapply their own principle .. like, when the dogs chase after me, that IS an act of aggression .. so to me the issue doesn't seem like voluntaryist principles but rather the way some people apply them. And when people start blocking the ability to pass through and whatnot, you'd just regard that as an act of aggression.
I mentioned that I was making it long too, lulz
Then I said it seems like you're maybe conflating AnCap with love of money, and I mentioned how there are AnCaps who do this, like Jefferey Tucker loves glorifying consumerism and weirdly talking about how great McDonald's is (even tho it doesn't exist without govt aid) .. but that I don't think this is actually what flows out of volntaryist principles or what a voluntary society would look like
In my mind a voluntary society looks essentially like you're describing, driven by social esteem and perceived contribution.
Money may actually just be a figment of the scarcity that the current order of things creates. When you have everything you need, money seems moot. So voluntary societies who keep what they produce and it doesn't all get drained by powerful leeches .. seems like money (as we think of it now anyways) naturally stops mattering
That's the problem though, I've never met someone who wasn't an an-com who agrees with that. Every non-commmunist anarchist seems to think private property is #1 and it's not aggressive if someone owns the property, as it's their choice what goes on in the property.
That's the reason I have a problem with people who identify as "an"-cap as because of machines and the robotics that are here and easily implemented there's simply no role for money or capitalism.
Unless the capitalist artificially makes things worse, like they do in this society, and then essentially "farms" everybody else, then he must make them all die in the streets as they provide no value in a traditional capitalist sense.
I agree voluntarism should be the same as what I'm saying, but most I see still think capitalism can be voluntary when they force things like private property on people who have no capital, which thus puts them in the position to work for the capitalist or die.
That's not voluntary. You need basic human needs given or the ability for someone to find it on their own, such as out in nature, but with private property that isn't really a thing, at least without "muh nap" being brought up as an excuse to enslave.
@@ -1300,32 +1300,42 @@
u're describing
+for AnCap
is people who ho
Jfc, I edited something and it changed my post to this 😡😡
My original post should be on the blockchain right? I'm looking on steemd.com but only see this bizarre post and not the original
"property is theft" - the first self-proclaimed anarchist. We disagree with you on every level.