butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You are an authoritarian as your favoured system is based on the theft of the property of the labourer. You support what you are decrying in others.
Libertarian and Liberal
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
You are an authoritarian as your favoured system is based on the theft of the property of the labourer. You support what you are decrying in others.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Furthermore, my quote is in any case one of the most famous aphorisms of the most famous mutualist.
are you going to take the 1/2 acre of land I live on ? after all you 'could' grow a bit of rice on it .
means of production ? in my case since I am a 'knowledge' worker that would mean all my pens,papers,books and computer -are you going to take those ?
Since most wealth is service based in 1st world countries exactly how do you take the means of production into your hands since most 'machinery' in service industry is well within the means of the average worker.In which case why not just go and buy it rather than take it by violence ?
Marxism just doesn't mesh with post industrial economies.Its meaningless to talk about factories and workers since so few actually work in these places.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No.
No. Are you self employed? (I am). It makes us petit bourgeois. Like Proudhon.
Who owns the call centre? What is produced? How is profit made? Who appropriates the surplus value?
Well, like Marx, I'm not a 'Marxist', but I think your understanding of a class analysis is a bit too materialistic. You don't have to be in a place called a factory to have your surplus value appropriated.
No. Are you self employed? (I am). It makes us petit bourgeois. Like Proudhon.
Petty Bourgois -me to a tee-
Who owns the call centre? What is produced? How is profit made? Who appropriates the surplus value?
since any group of workers could set up their own call centre with a tiny bit of effort then its really their fault if they feel themselves exploited-of course that might entail risk that they might NOT get a contract etc. entrepreneursip -which is NOT something I posses much of to be fair ,is a very important skill -something SEKIII was very keen on. A Team of call centre workers would ideally (in my world) set up shop and then deal directly with an entrepreneur who would find contacts for them (ie be their agent) or use several agents.
Well, like Marx, I'm not a 'Marxist', but I think your understanding of a class analysis is a bit too materialistic. You don't have to be in a place called a factory to have your surplus value appropriated
That assumes that an item has an intrinsic value. If I was entrepreneurial I could take advantage of buying items of clothing from stores here in Thailand and selling them in the UK. I have created the added value by moving them from Thailand . Value is based on utility and scarcity.
Petty Bourgois -me to a tee-
Who owns the call centre? What is produced? How is profit made? Who appropriates the surplus value?
since any group of workers could set up their own call centre with a tiny bit of effort then its really their fault if they feel themselves exploited-of course that might entail risk that they might NOT get a contract etc. entrepreneursip -which is NOT something I posses much of to be fair ,is a very important skill -something SEKIII was very keen on. A Team of call centre workers would ideally (in my world) set up shop and then deal directly with an entrepreneur who would find contacts for them (ie be their agent) or use several agents.
Well, like Marx, I'm not a 'Marxist', but I think your understanding of a class analysis is a bit too materialistic. You don't have to be in a place called a factory to have your surplus value appropriated
That assumes that an item has an intrinsic value. If I was entrepreneurial I could take advantage of buying items of clothing from stores here in Thailand and selling them in the UK. I have created the added value by moving them from Thailand . Value is based on utility and scarcity.
There is merit to what you are saying; however everything really hinges on the origin and development of the term "anarchism". It's meaning and understanding have gone in various directions over the centuries. It just so happens that the collectivist anarchists in recent decades have explicitly associated the term with particular social goods and/or goals. Charges of "misappropriation" are extremely relative.
Consider Proudhon for example - often regarded as one of the "fathers" of modern anarchism. His definition of anarchism hardly looks like *any* of the modern understandings (even the definition for the "anarchism" (i.e. sans government) part of "anarcho-capitalism")) and - in fact - looks very much like miniarchism.
The real mystery for me is the fact that all of the various groups involved in this pointless spat over the ownership of the term (not that the right-libertarians particularly care - they just provide a definition and use it; it's definitely a left-libertarian wont to try to define the former out of existence) have something so important in common (including the miniarchists, who just get off the same journey at an earlier point) - namely a fundamental opposition to government and corporatist power. The right-libertarians can appear able to overlook the differences to work in common cause, whilst the left-libertarians apparently cannot and will not, as this thread aptly demonstrates.
Mutualists and Agorists are not sufficiently anarchist? Now that is very interesting.
Please explain why.
You mean this quote:
"Property is theft. Property is freedom."
(my emphasis)
And what of Stirner's criticism of this:
(p. 331 The Ego and It's Own, author's emphasis)
No shit. It doesn't even remotely resemble what you claimed. I brought some people down with money who had no interest afterwards because the "lifestyle anarchists" put them off. You understand which direction the rejection went, yes?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yes, you approached some socialists (ime, anarchists are also socialists) and whinged when they rejected your advances. Quite why you think your brand of free market capitalism would appeal to anarchists, I ain't got a scoobie.
You're claiming the complete opposite of what I wrote, so you're either mind-numbingly stupid or a trolling cunt.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Except (as I keep telling you!) we don't actually have anything in common. You oppose the state because it prevents capital accumulation. I oppose the state because it helps capital accumulation! The sticking point is property and capital. That you can't work this out is bizarre!
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Oh the ironing! You approached some anarchists and they rejected you. Get over it already!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, I do.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I agree.
But I'm worried that this might be abusive or offensive language. Please advise.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Why, all of them, of course!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Isn't it?
I've lost count of the amount of times I've explained to posters (and brasicritique) that if I say "racist" I mean someone whose "personal philosophy" is based around treating people inequitably by dint of their "race", and that if I call someone a fascist it's because their ideology is either directly fascist or leans heavily on fascist ideas.
I had a great "debate" with tbaldwin once, after I said that some of his ideas on immigration were reminiscent of 1930s-vintage Mosley and Chesterton. He couldn't get his head round the fact that I hadn't called him a "racist" or a "fascist", and accused me of doing so!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I find that astonishing.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
When I say "great", I mean "it provided me with hours of harmless amusement at his self-righteous indignation".
Hey, I'm petty, what can I say?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Hey, this is a clear case of "one law for them, another for us". Al's allowed to be offensive, it's only those who disagree with Al who aren't allowed.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I think it's more ridiculous to argue that mutualists are capitalists as Darios appears to be doing.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
To be fair, Marx implied that mutualism couldn't exist outside of capitalism, so perhaps Darios is just following the party line.
You think you'll be able to stop accumulation do you? Good luck.
I see. Smear and deceit. Lie and repeat.
Each time you say this I'm going to have to also repeat something:
"You're claiming the complete opposite of what I wrote, so you're either mind-numbingly stupid or a trolling cunt."
I think I already explained why.
Havent seen it on this thread.
Similar threads
