Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@log
I don't think private ownership can be justified, even for "unnecessary" items. Any form of private ownership perpetuates hierarchical power structures and inequality, regardless of the perceived necessity of the owned items. Concentrating power in any form, whether through ownership or otherwise, makes such things as individual autonomy and equality impossible.

15 February at 4:04 | Open on mastodon.social
9 comments
Log 🪵

@Radical_EgoCom Okay, cool. We have a long way to go before we need to argue about that, when the important stuff is still controlled by capitalist oligarchs.

15 February at 4:10 | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@log In order to deal with the capitalist oligarchs we have to deal with capitalism and private ownership of the means of production.

15 February at 4:27 | Open on mastodon.social
Log 🪵

@Radical_EgoCom I am far more concerned about robotic welders and sheet metal presses and chip fabricators and electronic marketplace websites than desktop 3D printers and self-published author websites and the oxyacetylene torch some artist uses to turn junk cars into dragons. I am not going to play tool cop on anyone's workshop. And neither are you, not until long after all the transnationals are dismantled. Purity battles don't help.

15 February at 4:38 | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@log
Prioritizing large-scale industrial technologies over smaller-scale tools ignores the potential for decentralized production and community empowerment. Individuals and communities should be empowered to control their own means of production, including tools like desktop 3D printers and self-published author websites, rather than relying on centralized corporations. It's important to challenge systems of oppression, even at a smaller scale.

15 February at 4:44 | Open on mastodon.social
Log 🪵

@Radical_EgoCom When an individual is "empowered to control their own means of production", that means they own their tools. That's property. If it's not property, they do not own the tools, and someone else has power over their production.

In the case where a township library owns machine tools available for public use, the system that allocates the resource has to have rules that limit any single person's use. That's not oppression. It's just scheduling.

15 February at 4:57 | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Log

@log
The concept of ownership within Anarcho-Communism is different from traditional capitalist notions of property. In an Anarcho-Communist society, individuals would have access to the means of production collectively, rather than through individual ownership. Therefore, while individuals would still have control over the tools they use, it wouldn't necessarily equate to private property ownership as understood in capitalist systems.

15 February at 5:03 | Open on mastodon.social
Log 🪵 replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom The concept of ownership in anarcho-capybarism rests on three pillars:

1. How much are you able to use a thing?
2. To what extent can others be prevented from interfering with your use of that thing?
3. To what extent do others voluntarily respect your exclusive use of the thing?

Title in law is just a way to goose 2 and 3 in one's favor. Same with patent or copyright.

15 February at 5:32 | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 replied to Log

@log
The emphasis of ownership should be on communal use and equitable distribution rather than individual control and exclusionary rights. Legal titles, patents, and copyrights aren't just tools for manipulation, but they're inherently oppressive mechanisms that reinforce capitalist power structures and limit access to resources and knowledge for the common good.

15 February at 11:16 | Open on mastodon.social
Log 🪵 replied to 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧

@Radical_EgoCom I think it's great that you have an ideology that you believe in. But I don't do religions or dogmas or in-group jargon. It's not for me. And I already did my arguing with other anarcho-hyphenations way back in the 2000s. So as you are the OP in this discussion, I'm going to step out and give you the last word, defined however you like, if it isn't the common dictionary meaning.

15 February at 11:53 | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
Go Up