I'm An Anarchist, I Don't Own Myself
No, I do not "own myself." It is not possible for myself or any other person or entity to "own" me, because I am not a piece of property. I am not a what, I am a who. I will resist any attempt to replace my humanity with a marketable equivalent.
Likewise, I reject any attempt to classify my activity as "labor." I do what I find useful and beneficial; to myself, the people in my life, society as a whole, and the earth and nature which sustains us. "Labor" is an abstraction; a feature of the capitalist mode of production.
As I reject any suggestion that I am a thing which can be owned, I reject the idea that my autonomy is a marketable commodity. I recognize any attempt by another to dictate my activity as an impingement on my freedom.
To put it another way, any effort of another to appropriate my personal autonomy is inherently coercive. I am inseparable from my autonomy. Denial of personal autonomy requires force or the threat of force.
Persuasion is the method of influencing another's behavior in a way that respects and reinforces their autonomy. While I reject any claim of another to "own" my autonomy, they are always welcome to persuade me to adopt a certain course of action.
If somehow a person has allowed me to sell them the opportunity to attempt to persuade me of something, well.... I also have a fine selection of bridges.
Well said. And now for the real question:
How do we implement this gobally, given the current state of society?
Do we buy an island and expand from there?
Can the system be changed by education and bottom-up revolution?
Do we play by the rules and destroy it from within?
I think this is the only way that is compatible with anarchism.
Agreed. That's the solution that I'm trying to implement. Currently, my team is building SteemIQ, which initially is a simple and imperfect tool to predict the quality of posts, but the future implications are much greater: https://steemit.com/development/@nphacker/steemiq-me-how-smart-is-your-writing-find-out-your-steemiq
If we can incentivize people to free themselves from public education through a bottom up approach, we can actually make this happen. There are a lot of problems that distract us about Statism, but I would say education is the root of many of the other problems. If you can free yourself from state indoctrinated schooling and state approved certification, you can completely free your mind and free yourself from the state. This requires a massive grassroots educational overhaul blockchain style.
Well, certainly one can not force it onto people. But I believe all of the above have some merit to them.
By leaving society and starting over (say on an island), while you certainly have to deal with the external environment, you are not under direct control of any state. It sets an example people can look at, and compare to their current ways and whoever wants to join is welcome to do so. Eventually, it could take over the world.
If you play by the rules to gain support that is deemed legitimate by the existing system, you can also implement changes in small increments. For example, you could switch from representative democracy to direct democracy. It would encourage people to think for themselves, teach them that they are in control of their own lives and anyone could step up to bring about the change they want to see. You could then move from compulsory taxes to voluntary support of worthy initiatives. And so on. Eventually, people would realize there's no need for state.
One of the problems with going off and doing it in some other place is that typically such experiments have been crushed by outside force. Especially if it began to spread and threaten the status quo, I think they would send in the armies pretty quickly, or just use drones.
And the state itself is incapable of reforming itself into a vehicle for our liberation. They tried this in the USSR and while some good things happened, it fell well short of anything of the sort... Even though the intention in creating state socialism was to bring about the withering of the state and the emergence of a truly egalitarian society.
Yes, unfortunately, this would be the most likely outcome.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think it's important not to force the ideals onto people and promise to give them power later. Instead, give them the power first, and watch them all learn to wield it. The only thing is, the learning ramp is pretty steep from the point we're at right now, so it may not be so pretty to watch as people initially try to figure things out.
Actually, I think the upcoming, inevitable mass automation that the current system failed to prepare for may be an opportunity to jumpstart this process. Unfortunately, it will not be pretty either.
No, anarcho communism cannot be applied, except for one big communist government owning and controlling everything.
If you "bought an island" or some other land, you agree that land can be owned as property. Also to earn that money, you need to work and sell your products and services, meaning you agree that your labor has market value.
Anarcho-communism is a totally self-conflicting ideology that cannot possibly be applied and achieve anything good.
See:
https://mises.org/library/death-wish-anarcho-communists
I have to disagree. Not only can it be applied, but I believe it be a more sustainable, efficient and free form of anarchy than capitalism. If you are interested in my reasoning, see my comment here (I don't want to repeat myself).
I don't agree with either proposition, but as with any ideology, you have to start somewhere. Otherwise, the system will use force to oppress your ideas. I don't think any anarchist pays taxes or submits to the force of the state to some degree because they believe it's the ideal thing to do, but because not doing so would simply be foolish and counter-productive given the state of things.
A communist complaining about words like "ownership" and "labor" spends his/her own time on his/her own device writing an article to submit to a site where he/she can earn money from other people for that content.
You've earned nearly $300 by complaining about things that have given you the opportunity to earn that $300 - property and labor.
Excellent post on the absurdities and contradictions of communist ideology! I hope that was the intent!
Hahah.. this made me laugh. Kudos, sir. :)
Oh, wait, did you intend to make me laugh? Did you just make an "attempt by another to dictate my activity"? Did you just initiate "an impingement on my freedom"???
(Sorry @bacchist, just having a little fun at your expense).
I actually believe that communists are funny people. They exist to entertain us. That's probably why so many actors and comedians are commies.
Now, philosophy and economics? They're not so good at that. Even still, when they try talking about those subjects, it's quite entertaining. I always laugh at them.
Interesting article.
Just curious, have you ever met an anarchist in his or her 40s?
I have met anarchists well beyond their 40s!
Capitalism is not a "mode of production". Capitalism is a means of disseminating production that does occur on a voluntary basis.
Labor is work, work is "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result."
Way to make a distinction without a difference.
"It is true that under the wages system, the individual is not free to choose permanent unemployment. But no other imaginable social system could grant him a right to unlimited leisure; that man cannot avoid submitting to the disutility of labor (work) is not an outgrowth of any social institution. It is an inescapable natural condition of human life and conduct"
Ludwig Von Mises
I think you're just arguing semantics. While I agree that the meaning of words is important and their misuse can lead to dangerous ideas, I don't think this is the most important fight to be had.
It's quite important, because if ownership of external objects can be considered an extension of this idea of "self-ownership" (which seems to exist only to justify the idea of private property) then it can be used as the justification for violence framed as "self-defense."
Ah I understand what you're saying more clearly now. I'll have to think about that.
How do you live without private property? Do you own a house? A computer or smart phone? Clothes? Tools? Or do you live in a cave like a cavemen? Even cavemen had property, the tools made from wood and stone, the food they gathered or hunted, and the cave they lived in...
How do you live without any property?
It's just stuff, really. We don't have to go inventing categories to justify violence.
So, if I picked your pocket to steal from you, you won't feel justified using violence in self defense?
I think we disagree. For clarity the claim I'd make is: You own your body. In that sentence the 'You' refers to what I loosely call the animating intelligence, that's whatever component or system, in a human, that exhibits intentionality - that's the thing that can be a property owner. The brain has a much closer relationship to 'You' than does your little finger. Though both are parts of your body, and are (I claim) owned by 'You'.
'Your body' includes the physical substrate that 'You' (the animating intelligence) emerges from.
And 'Own' means that you have the exclusive right to determine how the physical stuff that makes up your body may be used. For instance, you (and you alone) have the right to decide who else - if anyone - gets to use your spleen, and how.
Yes, we disagree.
Can you be more specific about where the disagreement is? What claim in my comment do you contest?
The part about me owning my body.
Do you just prefer a different definition of 'own' or do you disagree that the term applies, according to the definition i'm using? (if so, why?)
In terms of philosophy you are absolutely correct:
ANARCHY means no ruler, you do not have any ruler but neither you are your own ruler. on the other hand you should call yourself an AUTARCHIST.
AUTARCHIST means you rule only over yourself.
in practical terms, we, the anarchist use this term because most of the free thinkers identify themselves with anarchy and very few even know the term of AUTARCHISM or they confuse it with AUTOCRACY which is the complete opposite. however no matter the word you use to identify yourself, you are a free thinker and this makes you a great person who loves freedom.
I sort of agree with this. Property one owns can be sold. People can't sell themselves, because they can never give up their own autonomy. They can receive money for agreeing to do what someone else says, but that's not a sale.
Another ancom self-conflicting confused person.
Go be autonomous in a cave somewhere, without trading or interacting with anyone. Because even when you are posting here, you are conflicting with yourself.
You own your body as well as you own your labor. You made your labor of posting this article a capitalistic commodity to trade. In a Capitalistic free market of content and ideas. And congrats, you got 62 votes and $28 paid to you for your labor in this marketplace. That's the value of your post and your labor. And no one have forced you for it. There is no violence or threat involved. :D
What is it that I'm confused about?
Trading is highly overrated.
I didn't produce any commodity. I produced nothing for exchange on the market. I wrote some stuff down in a blockchain, which is now a common good. Nobody has paid for it, and all are free to enjoy it.
You produced a commodity we call content. Steem is a free market of content and ideas. The action of writing that words is your labor. Sorry to break the news to you, but the $300 you got paid, someone paid it. You could as well publish the same words in a non-monetized blog, and putting it in public domain, but you chose to put it here, in a capitalistic free market, and you got paid for it.
And now you are the owner of $300 worth of steem.
(And well done, by the way, I have yet to make $300 with one post. More like +0.30)
Just don't claim you are against private property or trade or anything.
I produced no commodity. That's not really up for debate. It can't be bought and sold, because it is freely available for anyone to enjoy. Common goods are not commodities.
Steem is also not a free market, because it is not a market at all. In markets things are exchanged. Steem is not a market economy, it is a gift economy. Here things are freely given and shared.
You can clearly see this is the case, because the reward that I got for posting this was the result of actions that were completely independent from the act of consuming it. The people who voted on my post would have had the opportunity to fully enjoy it whether or not they voted on it. And by voting on it, they did not prevent others from enjoying it as well. It remains a common good.
It is actually up for debate. The fact that you're engaged in an economic endeavor by posting on Steem is a demonstrated preference for profit and property that betrays every claim made in the original post.
It is a free market economy. Since content is not a limited resource, my consumption or my likes do not restrict others from liking it. However, upvotes, do give your content more visibility, compared to other content that is not upvoted as much. And the reward you get $300+ is a limited resource, there is only a limited amount of money and steem going around. So... Content itself may be a common good, but upvotes, steem dollars etc are a total free market. And totally scarce, limited goods.
Welcome to agora! :D
Strippers are the perfect example of the fact that each person is their own currency. The fact that people throw money at women who behave seductively is a perfect example of being your own Labor.