No, it does not really depend on the definitions. Proudhon's idea of private property being theft is pretty much the same kind of lunacy that is a nail in the coffin of any dyed in the red anarchist. This while most anarchists make an arbitrary distinction between private property and personal property. So you're allowed to have stuff, you're just not allowed to own the capital goods that produces that stuff, nor are you allowed to own a place to keep everything.
pretty much the same kind of lunacy that is a nail in the coffin of any dyed in the red anarchist.
Yep, died in the wool.
I don't like to get lost in the rhetoric, when I can.
As rule by force is the disease, who and how are symtpoms, what does it really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
On any given Tuesday the workers can unite.
They can short circuit the paradigm by continuing to fill the shelves with crap, while refusing to buy it back from the banksters.
Keep working, stop paying.
The day is coming, it is only a matter of the ideas being spread.
As rule of force is the disease, ancaps at least have the non-aggression principle. Most anarchists have no issue with using force and many in fact encourage smashing the machine and so on.
What does it really matter who owns it? Would you mind working for someone without owning the means of production or the fruit of your labour? If you do not mind that, then isn't that exactly how Berkman and most anarchists view the capitalist system? Surely, being exploited for your labour is acceptable if it doesn't really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
The ideas are widely spread, they're just not widely accepted because most people like to own stuff.
Yes, of course it is. It's rather obvious and easy to see how you can clearly not be both anarchist and communist.
Depends on your definitions.
Both words have their roots in PJ Proudhon.
No, it does not really depend on the definitions. Proudhon's idea of private property being theft is pretty much the same kind of lunacy that is a nail in the coffin of any dyed in the red anarchist. This while most anarchists make an arbitrary distinction between private property and personal property. So you're allowed to have stuff, you're just not allowed to own the capital goods that produces that stuff, nor are you allowed to own a place to keep everything.
Yep, died in the wool.
I don't like to get lost in the rhetoric, when I can.
As rule by force is the disease, who and how are symtpoms, what does it really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
On any given Tuesday the workers can unite.
They can short circuit the paradigm by continuing to fill the shelves with crap, while refusing to buy it back from the banksters.
Keep working, stop paying.
The day is coming, it is only a matter of the ideas being spread.
As rule of force is the disease, ancaps at least have the non-aggression principle. Most anarchists have no issue with using force and many in fact encourage smashing the machine and so on.
What does it really matter who owns it? Would you mind working for someone without owning the means of production or the fruit of your labour? If you do not mind that, then isn't that exactly how Berkman and most anarchists view the capitalist system? Surely, being exploited for your labour is acceptable if it doesn't really matter who owns what as long as the work gets done and the needs get met?
The ideas are widely spread, they're just not widely accepted because most people like to own stuff.