• poVoq@slrpnk.netM
    1·
    1 year ago

    Sure, but (contrary to the article linked) the headline here is “Anarchists should…” when Anarchists are actually the ones that have probably thought about this the most already and the article (without mentioning Anarchy even once) basically just re-invents 100 year old anarchist ideas.

    • DaSaw@midwest.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget that the anarcho-capitalists have been muddying branding. Some folks may not realize that anarchism is not the same thing as absolute landlordism.

    • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      Most anarchists are opposed to private property in the products of labor, so my re-contextualizing the article for this community was valid. Personal property does not cover all products of labor because it excludes the means of production, which can be a product of labor. The anarchist closest to Ellerman on this matter was Proudhon. Ellerman acknowledges him in his other work as a predecessor. Ellerman’s critique applies even if wage labor is voluntary unlike many anarchic critiques @anarchism

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
        1·
        1 year ago

        Personal property does not cover all products of labor because it explicitly excludes the means of production, which can be a product of labor.

        This isn’t quite true. A means of production can become personal property if it is actively used by the person that produced it. It is just that no property right is thought to be absolute and actual usage usually trumps other means to derive personal property status.

        • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
          01·
          1 year ago

          Oh, you mean the occupancy and use sense of personal property. That does not allow one workers’ collective to rent out means of production to another workers’ collective and retain ownership. It is different from what Ellerman is arguing for. I also edited the comment to add another point

          • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
            1·
            1 year ago

            Not quite. Personal property can also be thought of as a group ownership. In fact often it has to be because it is difficult to manage in larger organizations otherwise.

            Renting out the means of productions seems like a non-issue as when you are not using them why not give them to someone else to use? This is well established in Anarchist library economics texts.

            The article also seems to be more concerned about investments into future returns from the means of production, but again this is basically just repeating the staking concept used in Mondragon for this, which is not uncontroversial, but benefits might out weight the risk that it creates a two class system within the company.

            • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
              01·
              1 year ago

              Renting out means of production is another way for workers’ collectives to exchange products of their labor, and receive something else that they value more. Giving away the means of production would mean forgoing compensation. It isn’t clear whether the person you’re giving away the means of production to will use it in a socially efficient manner. Prices provide a rough approximation of social cost especially in an economy with common ownership of natural resources @anarchism