what if? (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 75 points 3 years ago (36 children)

the point is not to explout others labor by expropriation of the means of production, no one cares what you do with your own labor

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • load more comments (33 replies)
    [–] 34 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Than he/she keeps it. You just can't keep others work...

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Then so be it, but it seems like it would be beneficial to do so

    I could go out in the woods right now and try to live on my own, but I'd have a much better time in a community with other people

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    If an individual wants to gain an individual benefit from their work instead of giving it to the community, what would prevent them from bartering for more personal good than they'd get otherwise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Sharing one's fruits with the community not only benefits the community itself, but the individual as well. This is anarcho-communism. I'm not the best person to describe it since I'm not that knowledgeable about politics, but I'd encourage you to read The Conquest of Bread, it's actually a pretty straightforward read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    But why would some people not benefit more than average by bartering then by sharing? They would get benefit from both, but it seems like some people could get more benefit than the average community benefits through alternative channels, since not everyone will produce the exact same amount of value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago (19 children)

    Well then they do not get the benefits of society? Idk im not Communist but that seems like the best option to me

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (18 children)

    What keeps individuals from benefiting from society without contributing to it? Who determines appropriate contributions? I don't know if you can do that in an anarchical framework

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    The community itself would make those decisions in a way that works for them. Us telling them in the future now from the past how to live their lives is tyrannical

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    The community themselves decide. If it's enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That's the whole point of anarchism. We don't have all the answers and we don't claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago

    I mean sure, but what we have now are people not sharing the fruits of other people's labor. Your favorite billionaire did not earn that wealth through their own labor.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago

    Just my own $0.02, but...

    If people are hoarding and stockpiling, at least part of the response needs to be to look at the motivation these people have to stockpile and address that motivation. A hoarding problem is probably a valuable signal of some deep societal issue of distribution that needs resolved.

    The vast majority of scarcity we face in this capitalist-controlled world is manufactured, so I wouldn't think actual scarcity would often be an issue, but if hypothetically it was and someone was stockpiling more than they could use of some basic need like food allowing others to starve, I'd say the starving taking the surplus (the portion the stockpiler can't use) by force would be justice.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    Communism isn’t just about division of labour so fruits are spread equally, and is far more about the worker getting screwed in the deal that is capitalism, and a better way to actually divide the fruits of labour so the people actually DOING everything get a fair share.

    Capitalists and their supporters won’t read any actual books about this that aren’t written by other capitalists and their shills generally, and it’s far more complex and has many different ideas of how this works even within strictly communist circles, so whatever. People just gonna do buzz lines and memes because of what Ben Shapiro said on Joe Rogan this week or whatever, and I get why it’s so much easier to do that, because theory is boring and exhausting, but it is frustrating to see sometimes.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    Wondering how they expect to have the ability to produce anything to be their fruits if they refuse to cooperate with society

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago

    They will be lined up with the other anti-revolutionaries.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    I think "his labor" and how you define it is the key here. For example it's different if it's an individual or the manager of a factory.

  • source
  • [+] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I'm no specialist in communism or anarchism but it's the first time I see the term "Anarcho-communism". And AFAIK anarchism and communism are movements that are looking for different paths to their means (or even different means).

    Is "anarcho-communism" a thing? Or is just a made-up term to be a counterpoint to anarcho-capitalist? or just strawman?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Well, that's new.

    Anarchism is a sub-ideology of communism that seeks to abolish all kind of unjustified hierarchy, including capitalism. It's the farthest left ideology.

    "Anarcho-capitalist" is a strange concept that's very recent and only seem to exist in the USA, that tries to reimagine feudalism in the industrial age, meaning that very rich people are free to have their own army and own massive area of land, where people living there will subjected to the laws of that lord, with no possibility to remove them through voting. It really doesn't have anything in common with anarchy.

    You can read more on the wikipedia page, it seems to be pretty good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Anarcho-communism is just the longer name of what came to be called anarchism by most observers. The tenets of anarcho syndicalism are fairly close to Marx's 'ideal' communism in theory but obviously Marx, Bakunin and Kropotkin all had differing views on how to achieve those goals.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›