Gregory's Server@Radical_EgoCom it depends on what you call private.
I don't mind if the workers own a company, but not the whole society.
|
12 comments
@Radical_EgoCom I disagree somewhat. I guess it depends on how you describe a hierarchy. I'm an anarchist without adjectives because I come at anarchism from a deontological position, not a consequentialist one. I think there might be many possible social orders without hierarchy (institutionalised coercion), although I might prefer a given social order (prob some very decentralised communism), I don't advocate it as a model, just my moral right to willingly implement it with others @rsf92 @Radical_EgoCom I don't think you can have an oppresive structure without coercion. People will just leave. My take is that If communism is the only nonoppresive social form of organisation, people wil organically come to it. Highly debatable, I know. But I still think you can defend anarchy and communism as separate things. @rsf92 @rsf92 @Radical_EgoCom Economic exploitations is unfeasable without coercion, so with social hierarchies. IMO @rsf92 You are right in saying that economic exploitation is impossible without coercion, but there are also other systemic barriers that prevent people from just leaving their exploitation. @Radical_EgoCom poverty is one, prob. But, absent institutionalised coerciΓ³n, I don't think anything can stop the organic development of societal forms Either way, we probabhy agree on many things, let's not Focus on what separates our thougth @Radical_EgoCom How do you account for a tyrannical majority or an unjust society? If society owns the means of production, but 90% of society is (for example) Christian, white, homophobic and whatnot... can this society still be just to the other 10%, which in itself consists of a multitude of minorities? Thanks @MORAL_BASELINE That's already how it works under the current thing And worse. Sometimes the 90% owns 99% of wealth. Sometimes a 20% minority owns 90% of the wealth and oppresses the 80% majority like they're the minority, as in apartheid South Africa There's nothing to lose on that front by transitioning to collective ownership |
@rsf92
Private ownership of the means of production, even if it's owned by workers within a company, still perpetuates hierarchical structures and inequalities inherent in Capitalism. Collective ownership of the means of production by society as a whole would ensure that resources are distributed and managed democratically without exploitation or oppression.