[notch656a]

How are you going to take my means of production (in my case, my electronics manufacturing and design lab) and use it for something else (un-deny the access)?

Or say I have a full fledged industrial scale wave soldering, mass PnP, full inventory of millions of dollars worth of components. I need it to feed my family, I'm not going to just hand it to you after I gained it through consensual trade fair and square. Doesn't that require coercion? I'm not just going to give up my goods I worked hard for, what's going to happen when the comrades see the loaded barrel of a rifle protecting that which feeds my family? I think a lot of people needing to feed there families are going to have a lot of rifles, and they're not going to be very happy about someone coming along to "open up access" to means of production of their business.

When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

This all just sounds like a violent way of less efficiently allocating capital, under the guise of non-coercion. Access to property should require consent, otherwise you have coercion. Seems to me free market trading of private property fits a lot more neatly with the oxford definition of anarchism.

[beaconstudios]

Under an anarchist model you wouldn't "need" ownership of a factory to feed your family because the farmer also isn't withholding food from the hungry on condition of payment.

The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military. Its kind of ironic that you accuse anarchists of violence while simultaneously withholding resources with threats of direct violence.

You have to understand, we're talking about an alternative economic system here, not an immediate action. Anarchism in practice within capitalism is things like this article, or mutual aid - people helping out others in need,and cooperating on mutual benefit. Anarchists also squat unused properties to feed and house the homeless, or come together to form cooperative societies in a few places like Oaxaca and Rojava.

> When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

[notch656a]

I'm aware of Rojava. I don't bring this up often, and I don't expect you to believe this, although I have nothing to gain from it, but I fought there with the YPG. I don't think you understand Rojava very well, there is very much capitalist trade there. You would very much be in danger if you went in and tried to "open up access" of someone's vendor stall. I have bought from capitalist vendors in Qamislo and other parts of Rojava. It is true you can walk up to a bread line and get it for free.

>That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

>The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military.

No I own it through consensual trade. The only way it is taken away is either consensual, by giving my permission to transact it away or for someone else to use coercion and take it.

[beaconstudios]

Oh, that's actually really cool that you've supported them, I respect that. I know they're not fully anarchist but there are anarchist elements within their society, as you say.

There are a few different economic models within leftism, including market socialism, which still involves trade but replaces corporations with worker cooperatives. Obviously that's incompatible with anarchism but they can exist alongside each other and mixed together - these ideas don't have to be purist.

> So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

Again, under an anarchist system you wouldn't need to pay to feed your family. Imagine for a moment, our current society but instead of everybody withholding their goods with demand of payment, these goods are just available to those who need them. No currency, no trade, just sharing and cooperation. Operation of machinery can still be restricted to the qualified through a syndicate (kind of like a medieval guild) but the labour is performed cooperatively. You could still do the job you love (if you love it - otherwise, you're free to explore other options), your family would be fed, you would have a house and so on. I wouldn't be in favour of any economic system that increased the amount of human suffering. I like people, I have a lot of empathy.

[notch656a]

That all really sounds great, I just don't understand how it works without a lot of people just performing labor in the hopes others will do it and also do it for free. There aren't goods if people don't make them, and people have to have incentive to make them. We have a way of making sure people get value from what they put in, it is trade. Surely someone is gonna say "hey I made this widget so I would like to demand compensation for it." And someone else is going to say "I want that widget and I'm willing to compensate them for it." How are you going to get the masses to just make stuff and give it away? Personally I won't do it, except to maybe some charities I like or for the occasionally gesture of good will to someone I feel for. Guess people like me gotta be put in the gulag.

>Again, under an anarchist system you wouldn't need to pay to feed your family

Perhaps, but what if no one wishes to feed me for free voluntarily. Won't I be forced to either engage in trade, do everything myself, or take it by force? What if I want to spin up my PnP machine, make some boards, and trade it with somebody who's not down with the whole make stuff without money and hope it all works out. I'm not going to let you stop me, are you going to come kill me or what's going to happen?

My personal view of what ends up happening to leftist communities is their either become dystopian to ensure your property is now the public's property, slide into democracies, or go into limited-government libertarian type scenarios. The latter is basically what Rojava is in practice and kind of my experience with the Kurds in general who I would describe as basically very generous capitalists who just want to chill in the fucking mountains away from the 4 nasty governments surrounding them.

If you can keep it small like a family unit some communist like organization may stay together, although even families can have a hard time with it. You need the consent of everyone for that sort of thing to be non-coercive, and you may not be able to get it.

[beaconstudios]

Am important aspect of anarchism is community. Capitalism tends to atomise people, replacing community and cooperative relationships with work relationships and transactions. This erodes mutual trust and support, so without rebuilding communities I agree, you couldn't reasonably hope for cooperation and sharing. But people's attitudes are shaped by their environment, and with a greater sense of community and engagement, we are more willing to help each other out. I'm a lot more willing to lend or gift things to a friend or a neighbour than to somebody I don't know. Now, as you've rightly pointed out, that doesn't scale past Dunbar's number (the maximum number of people we can reasonably know personally), so the alternative to scaling this up is a democratic union-of-unions system where my community and your community both elect councils and delegates for coordinating with each other. That way the delegates can represent our communities' interests in a bottom-up fashion. Since there's no meaningful benefit to profit without a money system, we can support each other in a mutual/reciprocal fashion.

> Guess people like me gotta be put in the gulag.

Again, you're thinking of MLs. My primary value is decreasing human suffering and increasing preference fulfilment. Neither of those are fulfilled by senseless ideological violence.

> My personal view of what ends up happening to leftist communities is their either become dystopian to ensure your property is now the public's property, slide into democracies, or go into limited-government libertarian type scenarios.

I'd rather live under a social democratic capitalist society like I currently do than the USSR. Freedom is important - I want to increase it, not decrease it. There's plenty of room for democracy within anarchism, and anarchism is the original source of the term "libertarian" so yes I agree on the latter point - the main point of disagreement is whether capitalism can really be libertarian. I think that replacing a competitive, isolating economy with a cooperative sharing economy would be a positive thing for everybody.

I think the kurds are a good example of an incremental step in the right direction - their economy is more oriented towards sharing and cooperation, which is inherently a step away from capitalism because capitalism relies on individualistic trade negotiations rather than sharing.

Edit: I just thought, if you've watched the later seasons of The Walking Dead, the communities are a pretty good example of anarchist community, including the union-of-unions part.