@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
> _“Anarcho-Communists don't support the human rights violations and oppression that occur in state socialist and Marxist-Leninist countries because we prioritize individual freedom and autonomy”_
Yet you are against the “individual freedom and autonomy” of a person to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas.
You are against the “individual freedom and autonomy” of a group of people to decide to pool their work, their creations, or their ideas to do something with them; like keep them for themselves, or ask for something specific in return.
Someone turns a useless rock into a tool, and they can't sell it. Someone writes the best novel ever, and they can't expect to be rewarded more than an illiterate amateur. (What incentive do I have to plow this little plot of land any harder than you work on yours, if your crop is not yours anyway but a shared resource?)
I see a lot of “human rights violations and oppression” there…
"Yet you are against the “individual freedom and autonomy” of a person to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas."
Just want to note here that that is not what capitalism is. Capitalism is a system that enforces, generally with coercion, the transfer of value produced by people from those who produce it, to those who are registered with the state as the "owner" of the means required to produce the value.
Being against capitalism does not mean being against any and all exchange.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
I was not saying that #capitalism is defined by that (although capitalism _includes_ that).
What I meant is that the system that @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social described _forbids_ that.
"What I meant is that the system that @Radical_EgoCom described forbids that."
Does it? I don't think that has been established.
The main question at issue here is, I think, whether anyone is actually anti-capitalist. And being anti-capitalist does not mean being anti voluntary exchange of any kind; it just means being anti alienation of value from labor to owners.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
What @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social advocates “is the elimination of private property and the creation of a system in which resources are shared equally”.
And I said that under such system it would be impossible for a person “to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas”.
Isn't it obvious?
How could anyone ask for something of value, or give away something of value, if nobody owns anything privately? How could person A “give” item X to person B, if both A and B (and C!) “share equally” X under that system?
I really will try to stop responding to this thread. After this one more post. :)
'And I said that under such system it would be impossible for a person “to ask for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas”.
Isn’t it obvious?'
Not obvious at all! A person contributes those things to the community, and asks for (expects, receives) what they need in return. For instance. :)
Whereas under capitalism, they have to ask the "owners" for some fraction of the value that they themselves produced, but which was redirected to the owners by the state mechanisms that capitalism requires.
@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social
@ceoln
Again, @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social himself:
> _"All individuals would have **equal access to resources**. [...] Goods and services produced within each commune would be **shared equally among all members**. This would ensure that everyone has access to the resources needed to live fulfilling lives, **regardless of their level of contribution** to production."_
So, no. Not "asking for something of value to them in return for their work, for their creations, or for their ideas".
(I mean — sure. I guess they can ASK.)
I can't conceive of a better killer of ingenuity, industriousness and ambition than such a system.