I mean, we'll never do it under capitalism, Gore. So you good with dismantling capitalism?
(Crickets, I'm sure.)
I was going to make a funny or meaningful comment, but fuck: look at this shithole full of liberals. Place is getting worse than Beehaw, TBH. Might as well be back on Reddit.
May take a look at the material later, though probably not going to participate in the game.
TBH my initial thought is that it would make more sense to produce source material for an existing genre-neutral system like the Hero System than to create a whole new system unto itself. Still, I guess if the system is going to be FOSG (Free and Open-Source Gaming 😉) then it would still make sense to do the extra work.
Hmm. Yeah, that's a possibility. I do other stuff that's similar, like working on community gardens and helping comrades who are interested in learning technical skills I'm practiced in. But collective remote work situations...that's an interesting think to ponder!
That's funny, because it literally does work in many places. You might want to refine your idea of how everything works, since you are simply wrong. 🤷
In IDK like the 2015-2017 timeframe some really edgy people started taking over in /r/metanarchism (the private sub where moderation decisions are made for /r/Anarchism). They formed a clique—a cult, really—and managed to force out anyone else who weren't part of it, totally ignoring even the rules they'd setup themselves for how people were to be banned. Their notion was basically that you had to subscribe to and promote the most violent possible solutions to every situation, and if you didn't jump on board enthusiastically, you weren't a "real anarchist". It was basically the most dark aesthetics of anarchism without any of the actual philosophy.
There were whole drama wars about it, where the people they banned congregated in /r/LeftWithoutEdge, /r/AnarchismOnline, and other subs, and in response the edge cult setup /r/LeftWithSharpEdge, trolled those subs their victims fled to, and harassed people with things like bloody cannibalism fantasies about their victims. Those are the folks still moderating in /r/Anarchism, and they have at least a couple moderators in subs like /r/LateStageCapitalism as well.
One of the most prolific and obsessed trolls is the guy who setup Raddit. He was caught having whole conversation trees with himself in order to fake participation on the site and set its tone. A number of times he declared he was "stepping back" from moderating it and would just run the server...and then didn't.
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.
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.
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.
Many anarchists criticism of private property rests on the idea that it is the root cause of the capitalist’s legal right to appropriate the fruits of their employees’ labor. The article shows that it is not. It is the employment contract that is to blame for this violation.
Those are the same thing, though. The author is really putting a lot of stake into the separation of owning capital vs. renting it, and trying to make both of those things distinct from decision making. But ownership is fundamentally about decisions and control. Rent changes that very little. You rent a home, and perhaps get a tiny measure of control over the decisions regarding it, but the landlord retains ultimate decision-making power (buying, selling, renovations, kicking you out, etc.), and capitalism is 100% geared toward ensuring that stays true even in the most wild scenarios we can conceive of regarding tenants' rights under capitalism. And the same remains true of owning a "company"—and, of course, the means of production that are a part of it and keep you from just walking next door and creating a new one if you don't like how the capitalist runs things (yes: this is the part—the enforced scarcity—that makes "owning a company" actually worth something, so it is fundamental to the system).
if you don't think that ownership and control are intrinsically linked, think long and hard about what it would mean to "own" something but not be able to make any decisions regarding it (including where anything produced by it goes). WTF does that "ownership" mean? It's like donating to an infrastructure project to get your name put on a sign by some stretch of highway: it means absolutely fucking nothing.
StrayCatFrump
joined 1 year ago
Poor people can't afford to lend money when they're struggling just to eat and make rent. It's not a viable way for them to "keep up" with inflation.
But in a sense you're right: inflation (by itself) isn't the problem. The problem is that wages don't keep up with it. Because the labor movement has been failing not only to make gains, but to prevent failures (e.g. keep our effective wages from going down). Most forms of capitalist passive income keep up with inflation by design, which is no accident.