/liberty/ - Liberty

>>18846

From what I understand, the basis of Syndicalist/AnCom logic is that you must inherently change human nature, something something, absence of currency and for-profit trade, except trade will still exist, something something, peer pressure/social ostracization… Something, something, collective ownership of the means of production, something, something, post-scarcity that we're already in, something, something, if you create a superior product, no one will buy it because there's nothing to trade, something something we're all equal.

Did I miss anything?

>>18850

Post-scarcity is something we can talk about in a thousand years or so. You can't give every citizen his own submarine and an entire coral reef to explore? Congrats, but you haven't arrived at post-scarcity yet. Someone wants to blow up a billion asteroids, but you have to mine them for the mothership? Still no post-scarcity.

>>18846

You could always create a state. But seriously, voluntary communes can exist just fine in a capitalist framework. The Isreali Kibbutzim, for instance. The main reason the hippie communes failed is that they were full of hippies.

>>18866

tl:dr anarcho communists reconize that the nation-state is not the only form of dictatorship existing in society. Every dictatroship from every sphere of society must be abolished.

>>18866

If I live alone in an island and a bunch of commies invade it and impose their socialist bullshit on me, how is that NOT hierarchy? how is that NOT dictatorship?

>>18860

>The main reason the hippie communes failed is that they were full of hippies.

Its catch-22 really, the people you would need for an AnCom society to function are the people who want it the least and the people who want it the most are those who you need to get rid of for it to work.

>>18866

>everything you just said

That is one of the most fucking stupidest things I have ever read.

How are you going to enforce this non-hierarchical society? last time I checked there are biological differences between men and women, whites and blacks, smart and dumb, etc. Do you propose some kind of Harrison Bergeron system turned up to 11? where everyone at birth is surgically rendered non-gendered and then fitted with devices to physically or mentally cripple them? how do you expect such a system to be administered without a select group of people being given power to administer such 'equality'?

>>18865

>AnCap is an ideology while AnCom is a movement

Top kek. Tell that to the Agorists and Voluntarists actively undermining the state via black markets and grey markets.

>>18866

>Property requires organized, violent enforcement to protect it.

Isn't it organized, violent enforcement that's used to seize my means of production in the first place?

How is protecting my farm with a shotgun any different than a mob telling me that they own my farm and will remove me via force because I allowed them to work on it in exchange for immediate but lessened returns instead of unstable long-term returns from my management?

Arguments all ancoms and ancaps should stop using

1. the statist implementation of your economic policy killed over 6 gorillion people

2. b-but that would create a state!

>>18891

>He wasn't really suggesting full on equality with his post…

But hes talking about all hierarchies being based on some form of coercion which implies that they need to be removed.

In his own his words

>Anarcho-communism seeks to abolish all hierarchy in every sphere of society.

He didn't limit the abolishment of hierarchies to one sector of society such as the production of goods, he said every sector.

>>18866

You know it is possible that the 1% are job creators in some way that the leaders of feudalism weren't

Hence your image is in my opinion cancer

Also separating an individual from the product of his labour sure seem like the initiation of force

>>18910

Someone can sign a contract that says they will work a plot of land for the rest of their lives, but this contract cannot be transfered to their children.

>>18921

Do you mean property rights end with death?

So when I die I can't leave the house I built to my children?

>>18925

No, he's saying that if you sign a contract, then your children are not bound by said contract.

>>18958

Yeah I realised that after I posted

I thought he was talking about feudalism somehow when I did the post

>>18891

>AnCaps largely ignore whatever happens in the creation of the good by substituting the laborer's labor with a contract that was voluntarily agreed to

You are oversimplifying here. The ancap rebuttal is not just "lol dude you signed a contract". Commies claim that the worker would be better off if he owned the full product of his labor. Ancaps contend that there are clear advantages in working for a wage as opposed to being a worker-entrepreneur. In primitive societies everyone is a worker-entrepreneur. Later on, most people become wage workers because it's a better deal for them.

I'd say two of the most destructive myths in Western economic thought (Luddism and socialism) were caused by the transition from a pre-industrial to an industrial society within the British Feudal system. In a pre-industrial society, it doesn't matter so much if a few aristocrats own most of the land, so peasants didn't pay attention. The agricultural and industrial revolutions changed everything. Only a few agriculture workers were kept, the rest were expelled and they gathered in cities to small to house them all. Most people blamed industrialization, free-market capitalism or both, when the real culprit was the pre-existing land ownership pattern.

On top of this, the commons were basically stolen from peasants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts

Saging because it's a little off-topic, but I thought this would be a good thread to ask:

Does anybody remember that quote about Socialists' refusal to define Socialism? I keep looking for it, but I can't remember which economist said it. It could have been Rothbard or Mises or any of a number of other folks. Any help pinning this one down would be appreciated.

>>19041

>Does anybody remember that quote about Socialists' refusal to define Socialism?

I have come across this many times when debating leftist faggots, they never will define what they mean and when backed into a corner will resort to either the tactic you are talking about or "everything I like is socialism and everything I don't like is capitalism".

Its fucking annoying to say the least and I have found its often better to just call them out on it and leave the discussion than to try and further argue with them.

>>18866

>There is no such thing as voluntary hierarchy

Yes there is. Apprenticeship is an example.

>>18846

>agreed with AnCap ideas

I swear, ancaps are /liberty/'s version of the /pol/ stormfaggots.