Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I don't understand about ancoms; their ideas make no logical sense.
Just because you're not currently using a plot of land doesn't mean you don't own it. Maybe you are tending to one 2000 miles away.
You can grow what you want on land used for production, the problem arises when you claim the capitalist owner controls all that land. There control is limited to their physical area of operation. Now if an anarchist-communist society where all workers are offered freedoms, then capitalism can exist in so far as the workers agree to offer tribute to you for their own labor and to listen to your commands. That is fine and anyone can come into an agreement with a person to do that (I don't see much incentive, but that's your problem, not mine) but then the capitalist controls only the area he and all his workers operate under, and only to the point the workers agree to this. Once one worker chooses not to pay tribute or listen to the command of the capitalist owner, they are free to operate on that land without having to worry about the capitalist owner kicking them out.
I'm fine with capitalist existing, but it can't limit the rights of everyone else. If you read Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin explains the natural limitations capitalist would face in a free society (they can convince workers to operate under their control, but the owner has no direct control over the land/production that he is not responsible for, only the accumulation of all his other workers).
I was about to respond to your previous post; any land that has growing crops can't be destroyed or utilized by anyone else;
Nonetheless, that operation is under the sole ownership of the person who worked the fields, so if they no longer wish to pay tribute to the capitalist owner or listen to their commands, that area of operation is free from control and said person can't be kicked off the field by the owner or anyone else.
No. If someone is growing something there you can't take it away and grow something else. But if the land is CURRENTLY not growing anything, even if it was harvested before, then anyone can use it.
Public access to labor the only way to allow freedom of work and production for every individual. As for the capitalist owner, he has no claim on the land he is not using, the extent of his claim is the number of people he has who claim to work for him and their total production space. If any one of these people no longer want to participate with the agreement of controlled labor, their space of operation is no longer controlled by the capitalist.
So what you're saying in effect is that you're going to need to follow "Normal Steps" to see whether someone currently "owns" that means of production.
So you can't just use something if it's not currently being used. Which means that we're quibbling about chain of ownership and abandonment. Otherwise someone plows over your pumpkin patch to grow corn.
Oh and you don't discuss adverse land use affecting your means of production.
I can only speak for myself, but I would find it helpful if you would explain, in very clear terms, what it means for land to be mixed with labor. Do you mean money? Do you mean physical work? Do you mean work others do for a wage? Do you mean work done by an ancestor?
I'll ask a question, just to get some feel for what you mean.
Let's say that I rent or own a house. Next to my house, there is a vacant lot. Clearly, someone owns it, but they don't take care of it. Weeds begin to grow, and it's an eyesore. I start to mow it. No one thanks me or pays me, I just do it, because I don't want to live next to a weedy, overgrown vacant lot. This goes on for a few years. Eventually, I decide to plant some vegetables on the lot. I work hard to maintain the garden, and some of my neighbors help out. We all buy and plant the seeds and enjoy the harvest.
One day, I hear a loud noise, and when I look out my window, I see someone bulldozing the garden. It turns out that the person who originally purchased the lot died, and left the lot to a relative.
I did not pay for the lot, but I put work into it, and invested in improving it so that it would be an asset to the neighborhood, and not a liability. On the other hand, the other party's dead relative did pay for it years ago, but never used it or even maintained it.
Both arguments are true, so who had the right to claim the lot as their own, because of the mixture of land and labor?
This is not meant to be a "gotcha" question, it is something that actually concerns me, even if some of the details of the scenario are hypothetical. At what point does labor, or "sweat equity" outweigh other factors?
Good to see ya Catgirl. Let's sink our teeth into this one.
Can we think of any measures to rectify this situation before you start to work the vacant lot? You recognize that someone owns it so that's a start.
First thing I would do (and feel free to decide what you would do) is try to find the owner to notify him/her of the situation.
If I can't find the owner maybe I would get together with my neighbors and explain the problem. They agree that it's an eyesore and that since we can't find the owner we should start to care for it and hell...let's plant stuff on it to put it to use.
Then someone at the meeting (me ) speaks up and says: Let's take a measure to protect ourselves in case the rightful owner finally returns. How about we set up an insurance company specifying a compensation package for those who do work on vacant lots in which the rightful owner is known to exist and eventually returns (then gets out that bulldozer destroying the work as you noted).
We decide that for ALL the vacant lots in a specified area we agree on fall into this category shall be worked on by a designated local who receives some sort of compensation in return for working the land or if the owner returns. We each agree to pay X amount per month to put into this fund. It maybe covers the cost of labor and materials to improve the land and also acts as a severance package of sorts on the backside if that owner returns.
How does this sound? I like it. It's one idea. Any tweaks to it? Any ideas of your own on how to remedy a situation like this?
The beautiful thing about anarchy is the competition of ideas among a free populace makes society function at light speed. Instead of everyone being bogged down by involuntary edicts from Uncle Sam that we are forced to navigate, thus exhausting our mental and physical labor, we can all try to improve a situation because when we do...we enrich ourselves.
Hell, I just created several jobs in that scenario. The insurance company is one and maybe another resident stands up and says he'll do all the vacant lots for X amount per month.
So what you're saying in effect is that you're going to need to follow "Normal Steps" to see whether someone currently "owns" that means of production.
So you can't just use something if it's not currently being used. Which means that we're quibbling about chain of ownership and abandonment. Otherwise someone plows over your pumpkin patch to grow corn.
Exactly.
He's arguing for the sake of argument.
Even us AnCaps quibble over chain of ownership and abandonment protocols but since we recognize contractual laws through private insurance and private courts we usually just accept that as a universal remedy and move on.
So what you're saying in effect is that you're going to need to follow "Normal Steps" to see whether someone currently "owns" that means of production.
So you can't just use something if it's not currently being used. Which means that we're quibbling about chain of ownership and abandonment. Otherwise someone plows over your pumpkin patch to grow corn.
Like I said, operation has nothing to do with presences, just the question of whether it's being operated under. If the fields are currently growing something then no one can come in and destroy your harvest. Living in a house is similar, you live in one place at a time. Even if you're away from your house, it is still occupied being as it is lived in (conversely you can't have two houses at the same time because you only have the ability to live and operate in one at a time, but I already went over all that with Recess).
The problem I'm arising is the nature of how capitalism could operate in a free society. Anarchist-communism (or more specifically syndicalism) are fine if people choose to operate similarly to capitalism, but it will be naturally limited by personal ownership.
As to why, I'll put it like this, Each worker can individually choose to pay tribute to a capitalist owner and follow their management restrictions, but the second they don't wish to participate is the second they don't have to (no matter what some written contract says), furthermore every persons area of operation (and production abilities) is their own, so once they stop working FOR the owner that area of operation is no longer controlled by that owner being as the owner has no natural right to the entire land area that he does not physical operate under (or have physical control over). That means the capitalist owner can't kick him off the field for working for himself and not paying tribute to him.
Even us AnCaps quibble over chain of ownership and abandonment protocols but since we recognize contractual laws through private insurance and private courts we usually just accept that as a universal remedy and move on.
But it's very important to know that if a worker is operating land but is offering control of his labor to someone else, the second he decides to stop participating in this relationship (regardless of what any contract says) is the second that that capitalist owner no longer has any control over that workers land (or capacity) of operation, and if the worker so wishes to remain in control of it without paying tribute to the owner, that is his right.
It's similar to what we agreed upon in terms of owning a second house. An individual must be in physical operation of a certain area/capacity to claim ownership (and once again this extends pass presence, so your jokes don't qualify as accurate examples). If a capitalist owner can get all these individual workers to operate their land based off of the former's desires, then it is as if the capitalist controller owns said land, but the second a worker decides to longer pay tribute or listen to the demands of this owner, is the second the owner losses control over their area of operation.
You can grow what you want on land used for production, the problem arises when you claim the capitalist owner controls all that land. There control is limited to their physical area of operation. Now if an anarchist-communist society where all workers are offered freedoms, then capitalism can exist in so far as the workers agree to offer tribute to you for their own labor and to listen to your commands. That is fine and anyone can come into an agreement with a person to do that (I don't see much incentive, but that's your problem, not mine) but then the capitalist controls only the area he and all his workers operate under, and only to the point the workers agree to this. Once one worker chooses not to pay tribute or listen to the command of the capitalist owner, they are free to operate on that land without having to worry about the capitalist owner kicking them out.
I'm fine with capitalist existing, but it can't limit the rights of everyone else. If you read Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin explains the natural limitations capitalist would face in a free society (they can convince workers to operate under their control, but the owner has no direct control over the land/production that he is not responsible for, only the accumulation of all his other workers).
IT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM.
How many times do we have to say this?
If the hired worker refuses to uphold his end of the deal and wants to claim that land is now his the private resolution council and private insurance companies will make the real owner whole again.
And this d-ickhead who decided to pull the stunt is going to get his a-ss non-violently shunned back to the stone age. Not unless he thinks he can cut his own hair, pull his own cavities, service his car, and set his broken wrist all in the same day with no help.
That's why I suggest you take Rose's quote to heart. Capitalists consider you a freeloader thus worthless. That's why I keep telling you that you wouldn't even be acknowledged. You would walk up to capitalists and try to talk to them and you'd get completely ignored. You have nothing to offer them.
But it's very important to know that if a worker is operating land but is offering control of his labor to someone else, the second he decides to stop participating in this relationship (regardless of what any contract says) is the second that that capitalist owner no longer has any control over that workers land (or capacity) of operation, and if the worker so wishes to remain in control of it without paying tribute to the owner, that is his right.
It's similar to what we agreed upon in terms of owning a second house. An individual must be in physical operation of a certain area/capacity to claim ownership (and once again this extends pass presence, so your jokes don't qualify as accurate examples). If a capitalist owner can get all these individual workers to operate their land based off of the former's desires, then it is as if the capitalist controller owns said land, but the second a worker decides to longer pay tribute or listen to the demands of this owner, is the second the owner losses control over their area of operation.
I just answered. Private resolution councils and private insurance companies will make the rightful owner whole again.
The a-hole who pulled the stunt will be shunned to near death if he doesn't cease and desist then get the hell out of there.
Then that land would probably go to the original owner depending on the personal contracts of the capitalists involved. A minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. You're going to have a scarlet letter next to your name for the rest of your life if you try to pull it.
EDIT: And that scarlet letter will probably make you unable to ever get insurance or be part of a resolution council ever again. Insurance companies aren't going to take on clients who they must pay out claims on for being freeloaders.
But it's very important to know that if a worker is operating land but is offering control of his labor to someone else, the second he decides to stop participating in this relationship (regardless of what any contract says) is the second that that capitalist owner no longer has any control over that workers land (or capacity) of operation, and if the worker so wishes to remain in control of it without paying tribute to the owner, that is his right.
If the worker stops production then he no longer has ownership either no? If ownership is tied to utilization then is the contractor the logical owner, or the contracted? If the contracted then as soon as he chooses to end production (during or at the end of a contract) he loses right of ownership of the means of production. If the contractor then he retains ownership until completion (or until he bails out too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
It's similar to what we agreed upon in terms of owning a second house. An individual must be in physical operation of a certain area/capacity to claim ownership (and once again this extends pass presence, so your jokes don't qualify as accurate examples). If a capitalist owner can get all these individual workers to operate their land based off of the former's desires, then it is as if the capitalist controller owns said land, but the second a worker decides to longer pay tribute or listen to the demands of this owner, is the second the owner losses control over their area of operation.
But again how is ownership retained if production ends? Regardless of whether it's a "capitalist" or just someone needing goods or services, and the provider chooses to not provide?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
