What do you guys think of the horseshoe theory...

What do you guys think of the horseshoe theory? Is it possible that by further democratizing the capitalist economy and decentralizing the means of production so that it belongs to people rather than big companies, we can eventually live in a society where commodities are really cheap or even free?

For example, if you take something as simple as apples, if you planted an apple tree in everyone's yard instead of having big companies sell you them at artificial prices and instead of forcing people to give them to you for free in communism-which-doesn't-work, then theoretically everyone will have free apples since everyone owns the means of production of apples right in their yard. What's wrong with this?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/Rocker - Anarcho-Syndicalism Theory and Practice.pdf

bad bait stopped reading at the first sentence

Nope. Read Marx.

Ok, what capitalist in their right mind would do this? Or would it be on the government? What would they benefit from doing this?
Dog so long as the means of production can be owned, none of these things would ever happen. The means of production won't just magically decentralize so long as somebody can profit off their ownership, that goes against logic so hard its not even funny. And you say communism does work, lol

I dont even know why I am taking this garbage bait and responding to this, but worth saying in the event you are genuine. But what you are advocating for is essentially what we advocate for, "decentralizing" the means of production by seizing them. The only difference is we have 100s of years of theory and praxis. Drop the lolbert flag and join us. Read:
libcom.org/files/Rocker - Anarcho-Syndicalism Theory and Practice.pdf

I didn't say anything about seizing the means of production, if what you mean is taking it by force and redistributing it, if we're talking about 100s of years of theory and practice then it's obvious that rash actions like this almost never work.

Your normal every-day working capitalist. All men are capitalists, they benefit from having the means of production, the capitalists that own big companies and have a significant market share on things obviously won't benefit.

If you could generate free shit for yourself, instead of working for a capitalist, then there would be no need to buy things from capitalists, but this differs from communism or socialism since you don't seize anything from anyone and redistribute it.

Why is this saged? It seemed it could be a good thread.

I like this idea actually, the important thing is that the workers have the means of production, not necessarily that they take it

Yes, digital piracy is an example of a decentralized sector of the economy, the only people who are butthurt about it are the porky publishers who rake in all the money, while the developers find new and
ways to fund their games (crowdfunding), this is also good in the sense that if a company is selling us products that we don't want (eg: EA/Ubisoft putting SJW propaganda into their games) then they will be forced to compete with the products that people are actually buying (the crowdfunded ones without the SJW propaganda that people don't like).

Take all of that and apply it to 3d printers, in 10-20 years you won't be buying your Iphone from porky, you would be making it yourself.

Ok, this is why we here on lefty suggest reading books all the time, why it is a meme. That is not the defintion, not even remotely, of a capitalist. A captialist is (from Google's defintion generator thing:
a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
"the creation of the factory system by nineteenth-century capitalists"
synonyms: financier, investor, industrialist
The average person is a "proletarian". In modern terms, we refer to them as the working class. The difference between a capitalist and a worker is their relation to the means of production. The capitalist own the means of production, the workers must essentially "rent" the means of production from the capitalist class. This is not exactly how Marx puts it, but suffice it say largely describes the relation. Because of this relation, however, workers never see the full fruits of their labor, and the capitalists make money off of simply having a bunch of money to buy these things, and it results in capital accumulation with the rich and wealth disparity.

Now, having said that:
So the primary issue with this is you are assuming the average proletarian can actually do this. Marx speaks a lot on this very issue. Before the industrial revolution, this was exactly how things played out. Families made most of their goods in house. Now, that has become neigh impossible given the division of labor necessary to do so. Do you need drugs for that terrible infection you have? Good luck getting your Phd in Biochemistry and synthesizing them. Need a car? Good luck mining the necessary ore, smelting it into car parts, getting a degree in mechanical engineering and then building the damn thing. You see my point? What you are talking about already exists for simple commodities, tens of millions of people in the US grow tomatoes, as an example. But that doesnt collapse the tomato market

To summarize though there are problems inherent in the capitalist system that cannot be solved by what you are offering. The means of production must be collectived. Since you have a lolbert flag I am willing to say you should really look into anarcho communism. It is not iron-hand state seizure of the MoP. It is simple collectivation within municipalities. Decentralized as possible and remedies all the problems inherent in your offering.

Also worth simply mentioning that leftism isn't all Russian revolution-esque state seizure of industries. There are many various tendencies, I REALLY think you should look into both anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-mutualism since they seem to be right up your ally OP.
But there is a praxis (like it or not) that thinks you can unionize workers and take control of businesses directly. Others advocate for worker's cooperatives, a form of business which is not owned privately, but by the workers themselves. Highly recommend you look into these forms of MoP control. And best yet, cooperatives are becoming increasingly popular. While it can be argued these are not socialism (and they most certainly are not), I don't think this would matter to you

If and orange-and-black could expand on mutualism it would be appreciated.

You need to take a chillpill bruh, and get off your high horse, it's getting in the way of actual discussion. You wrote all of that based on incorrect assumptions and preconceived ideas of me. And about the lolberg flag, you're right, maybe I shouldn't have posted with a flag since it's causing a lot of trouble for you and distracting you from what I was actually asking.

It's not like I am posting my idea as some kind of ultimate truth and everyone else is wrong and sucks dicks or anything, the whole reason why I'm putting it here is to get constructive criticism and maybe some discussion but you are being too prejudiced for that.

So basically everyone is self-sufficient like a sort of Mutualism?

Can't tell if bait, or if you're just an Americlap.

Yeah, everyone should have a mine, car-factory, lab, and farm in their backyard.

Or you could do the practical thing and just seize the means of production and own them communally.

Your ancap utopia would just lead to what we have today.

Even decentralizing most production is a ridiculous premise. This is like preschool tier understanding of business.

the problem is that your fundamental understanding of both the economy as a whole and the marxist terminology you are trying to use is somewhere between faulty and wrong.
you should also note that people here aren't going to care about the 'immorality' of 'forceful appropriation of the MoP', leftists generally consider the SEPARATION of the proletariat from their means of labour an act of despotic violence. Enforcing property relations and private property ownership is more violent and arbitrary than a revolutionary rejection of the relation itself.

That looks like a German person

Can confirm, this is what your average Kraut looks like in the wild.



It's true in exactly one sense, the sense that both the far right and the far left agree the status quo is wrong and needs to change to avoid unnecessary suffering. Reactionaries want to take us back to an idealized past but with the comfort of things like dishwashers, the left want to transcend all cultural baggage and really give the whole of society a clean slate, a fresh start, an era where no one has to worry about bills being five minutes late or lying in just the right ways on your resume