Sure, but what I mean is, let's say we currently live in a marxist society engaged in peaceful cooperation. Then, one day, I decided to start saving some of the resources I have in a secret stash and I also encourage others to do the same. Is this against peaceful cooperation?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't know much about marxism, haven't read him.
I came at communism through Bakunin and Kropotkin.
So, if you are asking if someone piles up a hundred cars in his secret stash, I'm sure that his neighbors might look askance at him, but he isn't hurting anybody, and when he dies the cars persist.
In an environment where you get what you ask for, when available, rather than a scarcity mindset, hoarding would be frowned upon, but not a serious issue.
You'll have to flesh that out a little if you want more.
This short story makes an effective an-crap outline.
So that's interesting to me. He isn't hurting anybody by hoarding resources and this wealth would be released when he dies. It seems like his actions would be discouraged, even by calling it "hoarding" and frowning upon it, but otherwise, it's ok.
If he also has freedom of association and therefore decides to ramp up his store of wealth by creating contracts, building a secure facility, and hiring protection forces that he pays for from promissory notes secured by his stored resources, is that ok too?
Yes, but what is wrong in the general population that makes the fella defensive like that?
Nobody robs in a world where talent is the passage way to fulfillment, and nobody is denied based on its absence.
It is up to the system to find each his place, yes?
Proper management decrees it?
Why would you want to secede from a working federation?
One that lacks the impetus to control others.
You see what I'm doing, right? I'm describing a capitalist who finds himself in a peaceful, socialist society. He decides to store resources and protect them for his own purposes.
He pools his own resources, as well as anyone else's resources if they decide to buy in, and they save them for the future so that one day, they can decide to release those resources however they wish. And that might mean they pass them along to the next generation, complete with its own protection system already in place.
The next generation might decide to liquidate it or expand the system was originally designed. But at no point has anyone violated anyone's individual rights.
Inside this system, some people have more ownership than other people. It is unequal, in terms of ownership, primarily due to when people joined as well as other factors. But because they are voluntarily part of this system, they don't worry too much about this unequal distribution.
It's my opinion that we take what we have, end rule by force, and move forward.
Of course, the fed ends, those folks get what the crowd decides to give them, and then it's up to whatever federations take place as to how you/me/we fare in the time it takes to return to 'normal'.
Once the transition to freedom occurs, it would be illogical to go back, iyam.
Really, in a real money environment, the difference between anarchism and crapitalism mostly disappear.
Either the free stores of the communists persist, wage slavery returns, or some happy medium is reached.
This book, printed in 1887, but omitted from the syllabus at all my skools, is what clued me in to why the anarchists hated crapitalism sooooo much.
After reading it, I began to identify as communist, having been ancrap for 3 decades.
So, to be clear, we use the supply lines already in place to continue distribution, but we cut out the banksters, most accountants, lawyers, politicians, and any other parasites on the working class, and we manage this world in the interests of us all rather than in the interests of the few.
How soon do you think we can build a base on the moon if we no longer have to account for profits in our motives?
Ok, so I get that profit motive seems short-sighted to you. Or more than that, that profit motive is a distraction, even predatorial.
But in order to have a base on the moon, there does need to be a concentration of resources. Who owns this concentration? Is it owned equally? Is it directed by a group? How does this group know if it is making the right decisions? For example, one way to determine if the decisions are correct is if that concentration of resources grows over time. Isn't that kinda like a profit motive, at least in some way? Or is that kind of profit motive ok because it's not owned by a small group?
If so, then profit motive is actually ok, right?