• J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not the same thing. If workers need a factory to produce trains, they can either (1) rent the factory or (2) the factory owner can hire them. In case 1, the workers retain ownership over the produced trains (fruits of their labor). In case 2, the employer owns the produced trains.

    Private property in land is different, and should involve common ownership.

    A distinction exists between positive and negative control rights. Property only confers the latter, which can be weakened

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the owner decides he doesn’t wind up with enough of the value of producing the trains, he can kick out the train builders.

      Same thing.

      Anyway, again, owning the means of production shouldn’t just be considered on the micro level like that. Like I said above, the MoP being privately owned also keeps workers from just going down the street and starting a new enterprise on their own (effectively “firing the boss”). Try it under capitalism and you’ll all be seeing swift jail sentences for trespassing, vandalism, and theft at the very least.

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The train builders can go somewhere else collectively under this system.

        Property norms can be set up so that the buyer can compel a sale. This would work by having a community digital ledger that keeps track of property claims. The owner would state the price at which they would be willing to part with the property, and they would pay a percentage fee on that price into a common fund. Anyone that paid that price would get the property even if the owner objected @anarchism

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, workers can always allegedly “go somewhere else”. You realize that private property and capital accumulation and market distribution have, in actual practice, kept us from doing so very, very effectively, right? Like, there’s one or two large enterprises that are worker-owned and allegedly democratically managed. And even on the local level, co-ops are incredibly difficult to establish. You sound like a fucking propertarian, telling people to “just go somewhere else/start one yourself if you don’t like it.” I’m not sure why you expect anyone to fall for that shit here.

          Are you sure you’re an anarchist and not a liberal? Because you’re working awfully hard to propose market-based solutions in order to seemingly protect private property relations against anyone who might want radical, use-based community ownership.

          • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The difference is that workers can take the entire company with them when they go somewhere else.

            You are confusing the difficulty of establishing a co-op today with the difficulty of establishing a co-op under a system where co-ops are the only firm. The employment contract’s pervasiveness has caused the former. Ellerman advocates abolishing the employment contract and private property in natural resources.

            There have been anarchists that do not oppose markets such as Proudhon

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There have been anarchists that do not oppose markets such as Proudhon

              They didn’t propose those markets as a way to preserve private property relations for the sake of capitalists, as you are doing.

              And even those anarchists (and socialists more generally) who don’t wholly oppose markets usually want to decrease their influence, especially regarding necessities like food, water, housing, health care, etc. “Here’s how markets will fix that,” is a galaxy-brained thing for any leftist to say at this point in history.