• Napain@latte.isnot.coffee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    the point is not to exploit others labor by expropriation of the means of production, no one cares what you do with your own labor

    • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if a person creates a new type of clothing that has high demand because it’s better than what exists before?

      What if that person starts getting interest from other people who want the clothes and they try to trade currency (I’m not sure if in your communist system this exists, so consider other items people have or something) and then transactions start to happen?

      What if the person gets so busy, he gets another person to help him with the trades in exchange for a fixed amount?

      In which of these steps does it turn from “no one cares what you do with your own labor” to “give us your business or else”?

      • Nia@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This simply wouldn’t happen because an anarchist society wouldn’t recognize intellectual property and so it would be trivial to just… make more of this kind of clothing. And no, there is no currency, and barter would be pointless as access to goods is common anyways.

        This whole point to me signals a deeper (but common) misunderstanding as to what the point of it all is, though; there would be no incentive or reason for someone to act this way in any kind of postcapitalist society, because the assumptions you are making that even make this situation possible are false.

        Labour is not a repulsive act that people have to be paid to do; for virtually any “job”, even the most repulsive, there are some people who are truly passionate about it. But in a society where doing said work is demanded under threat of starvation, any appeal it may have had is soured by the reality of this situation and it shifts from a fulfilling and desirable action to a repulsive one.

        As an extra point that not all anarchists will agree with, increases in productivity thanks to automation and technological progress (often spearheaded not by corporate projects under NDA but by the open-source community and individual hackers, only to be commercialized by corporations) mean that the real quantity of work that needs to be performed to uphold humanity at a good standard of living is drastically less than the amount currently being performed. Capitalism is inefficient, both in that it doesn’t allocate resources where they’re productive (accumulation of capital) and because of work duplication and artificial barriers (tech and engineering firms keeping code/designs private or patented, industry keeping trade secrets, etc.)

        tl;dr that scenario is impossible.

  • arthur@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m no specialist in communism or anarchism but it’s the first time I see the term “Anarcho-communism”. And AFAIK anarchism and communism are movements that are looking for different paths to their means (or even different means).

    Is “anarcho-communism” a thing? Or is just a made-up term to be a counterpoint to anarcho-capitalist? or just strawman?

    • CurlyWurlies4All@prxs.site
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anarcho-communism is just the longer name of what came to be called anarchism by most observers. The tenets of anarcho syndicalism are fairly close to Marx’s ‘ideal’ communism in theory but obviously Marx, Bakunin and Kropotkin all had differing views on how to achieve those goals.

  • NewDark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean sure, but what we have now are people not sharing the fruits of other people’s labor. Your favorite billionaire did not earn that wealth through their own labor.