Oh, I’ve somehow remembered that weird period when I was kinda leftist. (Usually I’m ancap.)
Not because I stopped believing that people are not born equal or that people deserve and need different things, and that voluntarism is good, but because evolutionary mechanisms, which are one of the main arguments in favor of markets, invisible hands, bootstraps and such, are skewed by inheritance and starting with different base.
This led me to believe that the Marxist division of private property and “personal” property (doesn’t sound right in English, private seems more personal than “personal”, while it’s less in Russian), where the latter was what formally existed in USSR and the former was some bad, bad capitalist concept, has the right to exist.
The former shouldn’t be inherited or gifted. The latter is complete property.
This would kinda make sense by removing generational wealth, but there’d be a question of criteria separating these two things. I guess it would involve the concept of “means of production” and land and resources would be something that can’t be personal property. But it’d be all a question of amounts anyway.
And then there’s a question of whether such a society will or will not be eaten by another, where not only wealth is accumulated by clans, but also sometimes knowledge of power.
EDIT: It feels so good to put the A-word in any comment involving politics. You just know that every fool out there won’t think further. It’s as if you had a dam defending your little cozy town from sewage sea around.
Ancap is called anarcho-capitalism because it’s usually considered that you can make capitalism with it. But it’s not one of the axioms.
Its components are voluntarism, non-aggression and property as a simple concept, because otherwise taking anything forcibly from another person is not clearly aggression. Property on knowledge is generally not recognized in ancap (so no trademarks and patents), property on resources in usually disputed in ancap (because you haven’t made those resources and have the same right to them as everyone else).
You have also answered the wrong post, this one was not about ancap at all (are you a buggy bot or just came here through my post history?).
Actually the opposite - some compromise between Marxism and our world which for me personally seems better than all those complex wealth redistribution systems. Simply abolish inheritance of a kind of property that some call means of production, some something else etc. Then that material value may be used in some socially useful way, while the society becomes much more egalitarian and market mechanisms start working again. Naturally this means that companies won’t grow big, so cooperatives will become plausible form of organization.
It’s some kind of Trotskyist socialism, I’m just trying to extract it from my memory of the short period when I was excited by such stuff.
Oh, I’ve somehow remembered that weird period when I was kinda leftist. (Usually I’m ancap.)
Not because I stopped believing that people are not born equal or that people deserve and need different things, and that voluntarism is good, but because evolutionary mechanisms, which are one of the main arguments in favor of markets, invisible hands, bootstraps and such, are skewed by inheritance and starting with different base.
This led me to believe that the Marxist division of private property and “personal” property (doesn’t sound right in English, private seems more personal than “personal”, while it’s less in Russian), where the latter was what formally existed in USSR and the former was some bad, bad capitalist concept, has the right to exist.
The former shouldn’t be inherited or gifted. The latter is complete property.
This would kinda make sense by removing generational wealth, but there’d be a question of criteria separating these two things. I guess it would involve the concept of “means of production” and land and resources would be something that can’t be personal property. But it’d be all a question of amounts anyway.
And then there’s a question of whether such a society will or will not be eaten by another, where not only wealth is accumulated by clans, but also sometimes knowledge of power.
EDIT: It feels so good to put the A-word in any comment involving politics. You just know that every fool out there won’t think further. It’s as if you had a dam defending your little cozy town from sewage sea around.
No, it’s because you mentioned ancap. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and unmitigated capitalism does not result in freedom.
Here is one resource to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cnxky5ZjQM&t=22
Ancap is called anarcho-capitalism because it’s usually considered that you can make capitalism with it. But it’s not one of the axioms.
Its components are voluntarism, non-aggression and property as a simple concept, because otherwise taking anything forcibly from another person is not clearly aggression. Property on knowledge is generally not recognized in ancap (so no trademarks and patents), property on resources in usually disputed in ancap (because you haven’t made those resources and have the same right to them as everyone else).
You have also answered the wrong post, this one was not about ancap at all (are you a buggy bot or just came here through my post history?).
Actually the opposite - some compromise between Marxism and our world which for me personally seems better than all those complex wealth redistribution systems. Simply abolish inheritance of a kind of property that some call means of production, some something else etc. Then that material value may be used in some socially useful way, while the society becomes much more egalitarian and market mechanisms start working again. Naturally this means that companies won’t grow big, so cooperatives will become plausible form of organization.
It’s some kind of Trotskyist socialism, I’m just trying to extract it from my memory of the short period when I was excited by such stuff.