That’s a very rudimentary anarchistic concept but power is so inherent to human relationships that anyone would either quickly abandon it or find themselves very frustrated.
If you are interested in a short and easy to read article that goes through the whole idea of “no powerful people”, look up Freeman’s Tyranny of Structurelessness. A classic text particularly among anarchists.
But which crow is the owner
These conflicts are irreconcilable because it is the nature of the relationship. This is the concept of “class war”. It is inherently violent.
People who are pro capitalist are not on the left.
They might be liberals. Liberalism is not a left wing project.
Far from being no-true leftists, there are many millions of leftists globally. Every one of them works in their way for the abolition of capital.
Whether you agree with the ideas or not is no issue here. The question is where they are characteristics of the Left. If you disagree with the ideas, you are not on the left.
Certain breeds of dogs have been intentionally made to be that way by humans. The comment I responded to was regard to an unqualified statement about animals in general and as a whole. That there is some inherent sense of “ownership” present to all animals. The argument being best backed up by a domesticated animal shows how silly it is.
In all honesty the argument is silly because the concept of “ownership” has a lot of human fluff on top. Animals use a certain area. From a large territory to a single small nest.
Consider the seagull with her nest on the North side of a beautiful artificial garbage island. Her wife and her have their eggs and babies there. They do not also go to the South side of the garbage island and build (or take over) a bunch of other nests that nobody can use without paying rent. The modern human concept of property encompasses this situation. In this example we could also have the gulls refusing to fix defects in the nest while prohibiting the tenants from doing so. Does this sound like typical bird behaviour?
If #2 isn’t true, how can #1 be true?
As to #3 not being true… that’s just a Negative Nancy.
A person with any beliefs can describe themselves with almost any label. I can call myself a Brony even though I’ve never watched My Little Pony, don’t know anything about it, I’m no Bro, and don’t intend to change. But would I be accepted by the other Bronies?
In other words, those people are wrong. They might be proto-leftists. :) Or just libs.
I don’t entirely agree with it but I heard once that the left wants powerful people to work in a context of commensurate accountability, whereas the right wants powerful people to be safe from accountability.
Don’t worry, you can keep your razors and brushes. :)
I think this is on the right track. I’d like to make a clarification that will probably be agreed with. (Caveat: Haven’t read Proudhon; am describing the colloquial use.) Which is that “thing” here doesn’t apply to personal items or work tools of everyday life.
When I was a kid I recall being told that under communism you didn’t own your own socks. That is not it.
“Property” certainly refers to land, infrastructure, large equipment, intellectual property, factories, buildings, large vehicles like cargo ships. You could also include housing, personal vehicles, livestock and other substantial but personal Capital as anywhere between public and personal.
On the other hand, while “property is theft” does not disallow personal items, that only goes so far as what one can reasonably use. Hoarding up valuable items is not appreciated. And it would certainly not be allowed to claim
The tragedy of the commons demonstrates how things owned in common or public use can become quickly destroyed.
False. Invite you to further investigate both the historical basis of that idea and any contemporary example you can find.
Capital which is publicly owned can be and often is well managed. There are all sorts of structures to get this done. Depending on the context, the people involved can have their pick. If you heard a public good you appreciate — a school, road, software, utility like power or water, library, museum, park, transit system, hospital — was getting “privatized”, how do you expect the experience to be? Generally it fucking sucks. Whereas when the opposite happens it’s generally awesome.
I am confused by the question.
The Left is defined by an understanding that
The whos, hows, whens, wheres and whatsafters are the details that divide the Left.
The left has been substantially defined by Marxist and other communist ideas. The only other other broad tradition are anarchists. And most left anarchists are influenced by communism if not communist also themselves.
“the robots should take over”
Which one do you mean?
deleted by creator
Oh ya what happened to that site? tap tap tap
Tildes is currently in invite-only alpha, and you must be invited to be able to register.
I assume all the elitists complaining about the eternal september (including the 20 years olds) have sequestered themselves there which is best for everyone.
posting on lemmy from 1948… wow
no f ing shit
Indyref was broadly supported by the left but brexit was a right wing project. And indyref was pro-EU, which was reflected a few years later when the same voters who wanted to leave UK voted remain in EU.
The concept of leaving a union of nations has no inherent other political implications.
More like Indyref.
This is the argument you are defending:
How much roaming territory does a magpie express?
Silly argument.