Alright leftypol...

Alright leftypol, as a former rightist libertarian (ancap) I've done some introspection and I think I'm kind of realizing the dystopian nature of capitalism, and the fact that most right-wing cultural beliefs don't align with my values. I've always considered myself a libertarian in the sense I want to assure freedom for all, but after being exposed to breadtube, and working a wagie job my political identity has kind of been shaken up. Capitalism is obviously hell to live in, but the only thing i'm caught up on is the natural rights aspect of capitalism, and I was wondering if you could possibly give me an answer from a left anarchist perspective, whether it be communist, syndicalist, mutualist, etc. So here we go, through discerning Aristotelian ethics, we know that man has the right to own himself, because he homesteads his body. Because man has the natural right to own his body, he can decide whether he consents to things like sex, and does mostly what he wishes with his own body as he is the sole arbiter of his actions. Therefore, if one has the right to own their own body, one can procure things like the land through homesteading and have them as his property, just like one's body. The answers I'm looking for are solely on the basis of natural rights, I already understand private tyranny, and how a select few oligarchs will own the means of production, and ancap corperations will just turn into states. I just need a simple worded answer on why private property is a spook. Thank you, and if you guys could point me to anything else that I should look into to regain political literacy other than the wiki that would be great.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 55.14K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Son, you are drowning in ideology.

What does this mean?

You can have personal property in socialism

as in rights provided by nature ?

Attached: disentary.jpeg (630x420, 11.2K)

I don't understand this ancap fascination with "homesteading". That shit hasn't been relevant since America was first colonized.

Private property depends entirely on someone else defending the property holders claims. Which can only happen when there exists a power that can legitimately use violence to enforce property claims (the state). If everyone is authorized to use force then the rule of might makes right prevails.


Attached: 41zDJYvJdPL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 17.1K)

You don't see private property in nature - only humans devise this bizarre legal fiction where you can own something that you don't actually hold in your hands or defend yourself. Personal property is natural and sensible because many animals build nests and some even use tools, but nowhere in nature will you find landlords or CEOs.

There's no such thing as a 'natural right', rights only have the power we give them. Unless you enforce it a right means nothing.

It will become relevant again, once Elon Musk takes them to Mars, and they are able to stake their claim, just like their great great great great grand pappy.

Very materialist take.

No such thing, tbh. Each "phase" of societal development hitherto has bought with it a ruling class that enforces its own set of rights based on its class interest - what we call today "natural" rights ("life, liberty, and property", for example) are, in reality, bourgeois rights.
It's no more a "spook" than, say, feudal property was, or social property will be. All forms of property are the product of definite levels of the economic and cultural development of society; it's why there were no communist revolutions (excluding small-scale experiments like the Diggers in England) until capitalism had become the dominant mode of production and the proletariat the largest class - there was no class for whom such a state of affairs was of immediate interest.

It's not from a left-anarchist perspective, but .pdf related is a decent place to start.

I wasn't trying to be materialist, as far as I'm aware spook = socially constructed, which private property is and personal property isn't.

It is according to Stirner, and communists seek to abolish all kinds of property, including "personal property".

Attached: Rafiq property.jpg (1846x557, 290.05K)

Define what a spook is.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this but Rafiq did not in fact create Marxism.

Stirner is a distraction OP, don't bother with him. Anyway your own OP defended the kind of property you can personally work with, NOT acres of "private property" in some place you haven't even been in. So you've kinda given your own answer?

You know Marx never used the phrase "personal property", right?

Sure. It's a post-hoc clarification, as far as I'm aware that is what he meant.

That Rafiq post is just retarded, just a lot of supercilious words. All objects are not interchangeable, we recognise that your sketchbook has value because it's /yours/.

I should probably add "and were capable of making revolution", even.

v0v. I just consider approaching the question from a historically-materialist angle more useful than claiming private property to be invalid just because it's a social construct - which applies also to social/communal property.

All things are nothing to me.

There is no such thing as ownership there is only naked self interest that we all dwell in. The relationship between other people and myself is simply one of voluntary interactions that result in the greatest benefit for all parties involved.

Taken to its extreme a Communist society is the only logical conclusion. One with out the interference of any authority above or below; only that which we create mutually of our own mutual self interest.


Attached: valid view.jpg (825x635, 92.55K)


really, that's the rebuttal you're going with?

Attached: smug fruit.jpg (620x986, 230.12K)

Just pointing out how shit your logic is.
What does the phrase "To each according to his need" mean to you?

The problem with private property is that the number of people on Earth is always increasing. And also that the wealth concentration keeps getting higher meanwhile the ammount of avalaible primary resources stay for the most part static. . So the majority get fcked in both ways, they have a thinner share of the pie and the world gets even more competitive. This imply two possibilities, the first, everyone is using their share more efficiently as the process goes on, or resources stay in the same hands, and a greater ammount of individual are left behind, which imply more crime and mental illnesses. The later being more probable for obvious reasons, this is why private property can be considered as bad and communism good.

How about you just say what you wanna say instead of this mealy mouthed shit?

I just did. Personal property is a meaningless term in a communist society where we consume based on need, not based on ownership.

That's your argument? LOL

You don't have to retreat into this theoretical speak. People want to own their personal items. Maybe we should be a bit more lax with that kind of thing but this line of argument is just silly.

The population on earth is projected to stabilize, and there is no indication we will end up short of primary resources

Is my dick my personal property?

I disagree, I don't believe population will stabilize, pro-life being such a big trend in general media and in population. And resources will be lacking because cash keeps getting in fewer hands, account on top of that climate change, you get a hot mess.

Assuming we can become better and more efficient at getting what we need to survive, as well as I guess basically infinite possibilities for intellectual resources and the vast supply of natural resources, the future doesn't need to be bleak at all

How is pro life really related, other countries that ban abortion don't have high birth rates

Pro lifers aren't just against abortion, they're generally also against anti-natalism.

No it's my personal property.

The fuck? You started this by claiming difference in spookery between private and personal property.
And they will until it becomes meaningless to own anything.

Yes and so is the pope so what, most people do what actually suits them and rationalize it

There a limit to efficiency,, sure there are lots of stuff I.Q. can do, but the math behind mating makes it impossible to keep forever. Climate change is also fucking up with harvests and avalaible land. We are in a time never seen before.

Attached: wtf did i just read.jpg (288x175, 4.93K)

Yes, it suits them to have babies, but this scheme can't keep up forever.

Let say you have two persons, a men and a women, they have two babies and it keeps going on, how much will there be after n generations? If you don't factor deaths, 2^n,which can easily go out of hand.

We don't need efficiency it's just a nice to have. Though I think if you measured theoretical resources, not the ones we are using now, we have enormous resources for food and energy potentially available

That's why we need to program death into their dna so they can't live forever and will have to keep breeding

Right… If no one ever died then there would be a lot more people…
In reality everyone dies.

Or do you mean, like, assuming we conquer death?

I understand what you're saying by theoretical resources, however given this new ammount, how much is actually reasonable to exploit? What would be the consequences? Just because we haven't reached the maximum doesn't mean we should risk it.

Yeah everyone dies but the rate of birth is faster than that. Stats being given higher up by another post.

If we just keep doing what we are doing now, i don't think we are approaching any hard limits… population is stabilizing, lot's of untapped food resources, we already took risk mitigation by stabilising the population

I'm at a complete loss for what point you're trying to communicate, so I'll just stop.

I believe we do, one example of it is insectivorism
being pushed on us. They say it's nice for efficiency purposes,. Okay, but damn how can it get worse than that? Feels like we're close to an edge. Also climate change is increasingly destroying crops, lands that used to be farm able won't necessarily be later on.

And we can't remove too much forests either for that, we'll just make our case worse.

We can probably just grow different crops in different areas. If it becomes a serious problem food will be more difficult to produce and therefore more expensive, but there are loads of ways to solve it. Also who is pushing insects and if we can do it why shouldn't we?

Media's, and yes we could, but is life really a gift when all you can eat is bread crumbs lefts by past generations?

I don't like insects because they have a big range and it's kind of gross, but algae, bacteria, fungi, produced from basic ingredients in bulk would be nice

Yes, because human knowledge will still be developing, we will be discovering new things about the world and inventing new technologies to make our lives better

Look at our planet, it's still mostly natural. We are no where near fully adapting that shit

These are some interesting alternatives, but we still need to get our essentials vitamins to make it an option.

Exactly, looking at how unadapted we are to our actual world, I doubt making it more stringent wouldn't make it hell.

For example, 60% of animal population has been wiped since the 70s

Of course we need our 'essential' vitamins, minerals, dietary requirements? Is there a reason you think that will be an issue?

We just need to adjust appropriately. When we fuck up, yep people will die and there will be shortages.

But as said I think we have everything we need to get through this

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it doesn't directly affect our survival. It's not like the animal population went down, the wild one did

Yes for two reasons, first the climate change modifying the production capacity, your idea about bacteria and fungi was quite brilliant, maybe it could do it, but at would the production be matching the needs? I don't know.,but it shouldn't be found when it's needed but before.

Some of them are absolute must, example birds eating insect preventing crops to be destroyed by them. Bees polenize plant, making plants spread, it's not pointless to care about them.

The absolute state of this board. Can't even defend abolishment of private property ffs

Well we can agree that we disagree.

a) I don't think we will have a shortage of food for survival and b) we can produce more and if food becomes more expensive we will. Like we can probably keep doing what we are doing. And if we can't there are layers of backup options and more expensive ways to produce food.

Regarding polinators natural process etc, lot's of solutions to these problems at a severe level if it happens, but a) I don't think they will b) expect it will be prevented if feasable

This thread has been completely derailed at this point.

unironically read Gerald Cohen
he BTFOS right wing ethics-based arguments in lots of his works

Not what you think it does

Attached: 45d847e9eb85ca782a1cea8bd3d6f8fd9a251a9b.png (1920x1080, 549.16K)

Is that a Willy Dickblast video? Link? (Since you didn't care to sum up his argument).

Not that guy, but here:
Still is from 11:55 ish.

People who post Cockshott videos or screens of his slides are brainlets who can't defend their position.

Attached: 160810_asiablog_C45-28_Mao-Tse-Tung-(Zedong)-toasts-Egyptian-Attache,-Egypt-National-Day,-Peking-(Beijing)-China-1956-(small).jpg (416x448, 26.08K)

I'm getting so fucking angry right now. Cockshott is flat out lying here, claiming that "according to need" was actually just about welfare, and then citing this paragraph as proof
How the fuck does this prove his position? Where is the argument for that in here? Someone please help me, am I losing my mind or is Cockshott literally retarded?

You could just ask him yourself, I guess. He's pretty willing to respond to comments.

And the "according to need" is there on the same page
Right here it says that "according to need" will be realized when labour has become life's prime want, meaning labour would no longer need to be exchanged for commodities.
I'm so fucking confused.

Yeah I will probably do that.

For what it's worth I had the same question some time ago and made a thread about it here; I forget exactly how it went but the general consensus was that Marx, Engels, Lenin and co. were speaking of free distribution when they spoke of full communism and that Cockshott is just being a bit weird. I don't know where he really gets it from, tbh; not sure I've ever seen him talk about it anywhere else.

I think cockshott is just unconsciously reinterpreting marx in an attempt to reconcile what marx has written with his (cockshott's) much more pessimistic view on the matter. I don't think he's being deliberately dishonest so much as not wanting to outright disagree with marx.

Fair, I didn't mean to imply that I thought he was being dishonest at all. I've just never heard him go in-depth about his argument here.

Yeah I shouldn't have accused him of lying, I just really don't get how he came to the conclusions he did.

I think it's obvious that "according to need" just applies in higher stage of communism where division of labor, and with it, law of value are abolished. No leftcoms; law of value doesn't just mean exchange value. Then it's something like described in conquest of bread in which people's work goes into a common goods store and you just pick something from there if they want. Obviously until that isn't realized the same thing that regulates commodities applies: law of value.

Well yeah, I'm just wondering how Cockshott came to define "to each according to his need" solely as the provision of special aid to those that need it alongside a labour-credit economy.

Revisionism because he's afraid of utopianism that statement brings with it.

he's an idpol troll.

I think the idea you are looking for is called historical materialism. You can find a really nice explanation in chapter 3 of socialism: utopian and scientific by engels. There is also a video by the yt channel communist current that helps make it digestible.

Communist discourse is overwhelmingly materialist. Which might mean you might not get answers based in terms of something as ethereal as "natural rights" again see the first paragraph of ch.3 utopian and scientific.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."