How can there be freedom in a big government, tightly controlled economy and no personally owned possessions?

How can there be freedom in a big government, tightly controlled economy and no personally owned possessions?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

So you don't own a toothbrush because Obamacare, or what? What're you even on about? This is a shitty post. Kill yourself.

This was a question about pure communism, not socialism.
Nice ad-hominem summer kid.

Half of this board are anarchists.

And were opposed to private property (owning the means of production) not personal property (your shit)

There isn't.

In communism there is no "big government" because the state doesn't exist in a classless society. So, no, this isn't about pure communism. It's about your little petty issues that you couldn't consult the FAQ for, nor read a fucking entry-level book about.
Kill yourself.

Obamacare isn't even socialism famalamalam

I dont understand how anarchists believe that anarchy is possible. A vacuum of power always prompts organised ower struggle.between warring militsary groups . It transitions into monarchy when eventually one group wins, or some feudal society.

Written from phone with my fat thumb.

Read a book, nigger.

Personal property is fine. This includes the things you use every day such as your computer, your house, your car, your food, etc.

Private property is what we oppose. That is anything which you don't use yourself but instead rent out or employ people to use. If you own a second home which you rent out, that's private property. If you own a factory or an office, that's private property. If you own intellectual property, that's private property.


The closest you can get is to have an extremely powerful "government" which enforces no rules except to prevent anyone else from filling that power vacuum.

...

Sounds more like libertarianism.

But.in practice it would end up more like the soviet union with a totalitarian state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

It is libertarianism.

The original libertarianism.

by having a neatly organized system of worker owned industries collaborating to create policies in a way based off of free association and democracy

Well, that's the big risk. We've got to figure out a way to implement a government or societal structure which minimises that risk. Capitalism just replaces kings with billionaires, and power still ends up in the hands of the corrupt few.

The best solution would be a system where there is no highest authority and everyone is ultimately accountable to someone else, but I'm not even sure if such a system is possible, let alone feasible and stable.

at what point does shit become the means of production?
at what point does the means of production become shit?

Well is it used to produce some kind of goods or service?

Means of production = used to create value through labour.

Use of leisure.

Here are a couple of simple questions to help determine whether something is personal or private property:

Do you use it yourself, or do other people use it on your behalf?

Do you earn money from using it yourself, or do you earn money from other people using it?

If the answer to either of those is "other people", then it's probably private property.

...

dropped.

So the enigma anarchy have to solve is "How make sur no one outpower anyone else?"

I mean, I could go full reductionism and claim a right to seize your means of toast production.

See, this is more concrete, but it's a little unwieldy to frame it as property rights when really you're describing doing away with wages. It always seemed a little awkward to me that in theory you could have a widget machine that you operate yourself to make stuff and some fucker could just walk up to you demanding use of it, and you'd be obliged to say yes.

It's like 30% at best

This board is not for anarchkiddies

Do I hire people to make toast for me that I sell off for a profit?
Do I rent it out?

Then it is not private, but personal property.

When "the direct producer" is "the possessor of his own means of production" then he is "a non-capitalist producer." This is "a form of production that does not correspond to the capitalist mode of production" even if "he produces his product as a commodity."- Capital III: 735, 1015
"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker." When the producer owns his "conditions of labour" and "employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist" then it is an economic system "diametrically opposed" to capitalism. Capital 1: 938, 931

ayylmao

Actually, the main thing we'd be getting rid of would be rent or, more generally, returns on investments. You shouldn't earn money simply for having something. Money should be earned for doing things. Returns on investments are just free money, but it goes to the people with the most money. They're the people who need it least, and it makes the whole economy inherently unstable. The wealth of the top 0.1% grows exponentially compared to everyone else.

Statists in denial

le private property = personal property meme
read a book
or better yet,kill yourself you retard

that example is moot because toast aren't goods and services since it's not destined for people to acquire but for personal consumption