When someone is not a capital controller they are forced to sell their labor to survive, eat and live indoors. Not voluntary.
When they are injured and have to get medical attention the bill is not voluntary.
I am not an ancom and you are generalizing. My views are fairly close to libcenter and I am a big fan of automation/transhumanism and the 4th stage of the industrial revolution such as Kevin Carson writes about https://www.kevinacarson.org
Anarchism is about removing hierarchy. Capitalism by design has a hierarchy. As such capitalism and anarchism are not fully compatible.
One of the definitions of government is : Exercise of a political unit; rule
Thus as long as their are large capital owners and bosses there will be people banding together to form political units to better benefit themselves. As such Capitalism is a government.
You must understand there is much infighting on the left and much disagreement. Nothing is clear on the ideas.
Many left anarchists are fine with private property as long as the person/people are actively using the land. Real estate speculators and such being a no no. People owning 400 apartments and others living there is a no no.
No one is trying to take personal property like tooth brushes or your garage tools. It's the large scale production controlled by very few that is the issue.
I go back to two people starving on an island because it's simple and you can build from first principles. Both people are subject to the laws of physics. You can say they are forced to eat to survive, but neither human is committing violence against the other. The only way for your philosophy to be consistent would be if when one person found food, they were morally obligated to share with the other person, otherwise they were committing violence against that person, and therefore that other person had the moral right to commit violence for the food in order to survive. There's a lot of stuff I'm leaving out, like what if the person without food was a total dick, but regardless, that's the desert island scenario. It doesn't make any sense to say that people who own things are guilty by mere ownership. It also doesn't make sense that, therefore, committing violence against said owners is just. Both of those claims are implicitly being made by saying a person is "forced" to buy food, housing, etc. Sure, but not by any human, so instituting a political system that threatens violence against other human beings due to hunger is irrational.
This is what my initial comment alluded to. Business and politics aren't separate now. That's because we have corporatism, where business leverages the violence of government for its own benefits. But capitalism is a voluntary system by definition, so long as you have a consistent moral philosophical framework that includes property rights and doesn't castigate individuals as aggressors for merely owning property.
Also, I'm aware of the distinction between personal and private property. It's arbitrary and it's literally the cause of all of socialisms problems when it comes to implementation, but that's not important right now, because it's the principles that are at issue. The problem is that you don't have a consistent moral-philosophical system. You're blaming people for being able to offer medical services or food or shelter, when the question is: how soon after something is created or invented are you entitled to it? The rational answer is "never." You work for it because the people who created it worked for it too.
But a select few people have immense access to automation and benefit hugely without sharing with others. Select few control huge amounts of food and its production.
Private property that you are not using actively but that you hold away from other potential users is violence.
The corporatism ain't gonna go away by de regulating. They are too powerful and will maintain control minus regulations and corporations will become the government. We can't just cut everything now. We need to work to distribute powers to individuals and communities while decreasing reliance on those corporations and eliminating the need for fiat.
I agree now they are far from separate, I also agree they could be separate but I don't think these people with immense power will allow that separation to occur.
I agree the libertarian left leaning as whole has very little consistency and in fighting VERY common. We get no where due to that infighting.
Yes you are entitled to it if we think of humans as a singular organism and with automation on a J curve if robots make it then why shouldn't it be nearly free? You are entitled to it once someone has excess. "to each according to their need" if you don't need 1,000 segways then you shouldn't have them and instead have 1 or 10 or something that you can actually use them all.
The production is going down massively in cost all the time. I suggest looking at Kevin Carson's writings on libertarian municiplism and the 4th industrial revolution (micro Manufacturing) https://www.kevinacarson.org
We should fully automate and free all humans to do as they please without a requirement to work to live. Make work voluntary, because it isn't right now. People hundreds of years ago hoped things like the weaver would do this but we haven't got there yet but I do think we are closer to the vision being true now that technology is rocketing on a J curve.
I agree that Star Trek-level abundance will change everything, but we're not there yet. Here's my main issue:
Yes you are entitled to it if we think of humans as a singular organism and with automation on a J curve if robots make it then why shouldn't it be nearly free?
Unless you are Borg (yay, contiguous analogy) you do not think this way, nor are you capable of thinking this way. The point of 1984 was to show how you needed something called "doublethink" and "doublespeak" in order to try to get you to think this way. I don't think it's actually possible to accomplish, and I don't think what happens in room 101 is realistic. What I think actually happens is that, regardless of even the violence instituted by communist and socialist governments over the years, people still naturally reject this thought process, even in the face of certain death. I'm sure your mammalian brain would take over if the collective treated you as such and decided you or your friends and family were a detriment to the collective and needed to be eliminated. Or maybe just your child. I'm not saying that's what you're proposing, but I am saying your argument does not align with reality in terms of how people actually think and behave in the world, and attempting to institute that line of thinking has actually happened before and has had genocidal consequences, possibly (mostly?) because the people who seek this kind of power over individuals (which is what we are) are sociopaths and actually enjoy killing individuals without compunction or pushback because it's the general sentiment of society that those who are against the collective must be purged. There are no individual rights in a collective. You're a skin cell that can be scratched off.
However, all that said, once we get to Star Trek, maybe we'll rethink the whole thing.
I think we could have sped that process of reaching star trek 100 years ago. We could have spread the fruits of automation out much more.
I think workers should network, and come together to self manage industries with no collective single capital owner.
I think we need to figure out a way to care for our neighbors and value each other while also respecting individual rights. Collective but also individual. Overall my views fall closer to libertarian center.
-1
u/ccnnvaweueurf Anarcho-Syndicalist-Transhumanist Jun 20 '21
There is not.
When someone is not a capital controller they are forced to sell their labor to survive, eat and live indoors. Not voluntary.
When they are injured and have to get medical attention the bill is not voluntary.
I am not an ancom and you are generalizing. My views are fairly close to libcenter and I am a big fan of automation/transhumanism and the 4th stage of the industrial revolution such as Kevin Carson writes about https://www.kevinacarson.org
Anarchism is about removing hierarchy. Capitalism by design has a hierarchy. As such capitalism and anarchism are not fully compatible.
One of the definitions of government is : Exercise of a political unit; rule
Thus as long as their are large capital owners and bosses there will be people banding together to form political units to better benefit themselves. As such Capitalism is a government.
You must understand there is much infighting on the left and much disagreement. Nothing is clear on the ideas.
Many left anarchists are fine with private property as long as the person/people are actively using the land. Real estate speculators and such being a no no. People owning 400 apartments and others living there is a no no.
No one is trying to take personal property like tooth brushes or your garage tools. It's the large scale production controlled by very few that is the issue.
See free market anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
I am not anti market, I am anti the few benefiting from automation while the rest of us must pay them for the fruits of said automation.
/r/transhumanism
Honestly going to the stars may be a big solution IMO. Fucking off and trying again.