Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[Raphael]

I think people here are getting tied up in the definition of 'private property' -- I myself have been using it specifically in the socialist sense of the term, i.e. title to capital one does not use or land one does not live on or work, and not the sense most people seem to have.

Well, outside of very technical contexts, I tend to think it makes the most sense to use terms with the meanings most people usually see them as having.

[Travis B.]

I think people here are getting tied up in the definition of 'private property' -- I myself have been using it specifically in the socialist sense of the term, i.e. title to capital one does not use or land one does not live on or work, and not the sense most people seem to have.

Well, outside of very technical contexts, I tend to think it makes the most sense to use terms with the meanings most people usually see them as having.

The problem is that in common usage by most there are no simple terms that really make the distinctions made by 'private property versus possession' as used by socialists.

[Raphael]

The problem is that in common usage by most there are no simple terms that really make the distinctions made by 'private property versus possession' as used by socialists.

"Property in economically significant things", or, if you want to go all Marxist, "Property in the Means of Production", versus "Property in personal belongings"? More intuitively understandable than what you're using, IMO.

[Travis B.]

The problem is that in common usage by most there are no simple terms that really make the distinctions made by 'private property versus possession' as used by socialists.

"Property in economically significant things", or, if you want to go all Marxist, "Property in the Means of Production", versus "Property in personal belongings"? More intuitively understandable than what you're using, IMO.

The key thing, though, is not merely being means of production or land, but being means of production or land one does not use oneself. For instance, my own personal computer definitely counts as 'means of production' (after all, I use it to program), but it is means of production that I myself use rather than means of production someone else uses that I hold title over, so it does not count as 'private property'.

Edit: Also, 'property in personal belongings' has a similar problem in that people might not realize that that includes their house.

[Torco]

hear ye, hear ye, the tankie is going to criticize marx

the boundary between means of production and personal posessions, though it might be fairly clear in some cases, is very much impossible to distinguish in other, especially in practical terms. Like, sure, the pack of cigarrettes i have on my desk is absolutely a personal possession: we'd have to start fabulating some extremely weird situations in order to say I can produce anything with 'em. but how about the computers i'm sitting in front of? one I own, the other is nominally the property of the company I work it, and I use both to do my work, for which i'm paid. are laptops means of production?

next room over I have something like 1k USD in tools: electric drill, various attachments for it that do various things in various measures, a motorized jigsaw, a vibratory sander, handsaws, chisels, planes, sandpaper, straightedges, dimensional lumber, varnish and all the rest of it. though these function, currently, as personal posessions that enable me to do my hobby of making furniture, i could in principle make money off of them. (hopefully i will, i don't wanna be a sodding office monkey my whole live, and 15 years is starting to feel like enough). and I'm fairly sure i've saved myself more than 1k since, well, i don't have to buy furniture anymore, I can just make it, so in a way, they are capital... are woodworking tools means of production?

then there's my car. it's not fancy by any means, but it does get you from here to there, if you give it gasoline. i never use it to make money, but i certainly could. is a car means of production?

I went to a nice lady's house in chimbarongo not two months ago. she had chickens and rabbits. these were mostly used for personal consumption, eggs and birdflesh and rabbit meat (is there a french word for the meat that's different from the animal in eng? like venison or beef). them animals, their cages, and all the rest of it however do make money for this woman, not only in unbought goods but also, people buy rabbits and eggs. i have no idea what share of eggs she eats and which she sells. are chicken ranchs means of production?

My mother owns something like half a hectare's worth of olive trees planted in her land, as well as various fruit trees and vegetables, a small plant nursery and all the rest of it. the little estate has produced exactly zero units of currency, but the whole thing could probably produce more money in a year than I can through working my job. is land means of production?

I think the solution is banning concrete behaviours. I know i've been told "private property" is not a vague term, but it sure does allow a lot of "is it though?" for a concept what isn't.

[Travis B.]

The key thing about 'private property' is not whether you could use it to make money. If I chose to I could try to make money off the software I write in my spare time by either charging for licenses or charging for support; my own personal computer definitely counts as 'means of production' by any reasonable measure. However, it is not 'private property' because I make use of it myself. Conversely, the laptop I use for my day job counts as the 'private property' of my employer, because they have title over it even though I use it exclusively in practice. And on the gripping hand there are the MR scanners and targets at my day job, which are also the 'private property' of my employer, because a large portion of the workers at the company I use them collectively to do their jobs.

After Teh Revolución, nothing would change w.r.t. my own personal computer -- it may be 'means of production', but it would remain my personal possession. As for my laptop for my day job, either personal laptops would be allotted out to the individual workers who use them, or they would be considered collectively owned by the medical imaging collective that my workplace would be transformed into. And as for the MR scanners and targets, well, they are large and, particularly in the case of the MR scanners, extremely expensive pieces of shared equipment requiring much in the way of specialized support infrastructure, so they would be collectively owned by all the workers at the medical imaging collective.

[Raphael]

my own personal computer definitely counts as 'means of production' by any reasonable measure.

I mean, there are fairly large subsections of tax law that deal with the question of what counts as personal belongings and what counts as business property.

[Travis B.]

my own personal computer definitely counts as 'means of production' by any reasonable measure.

I mean, there are fairly large subsections of tax law that deal with the question of what counts as personal belongings and what counts as business property.

If we are seeing this from a tax law perspective rather than a socialist economics standpoint, the difference then becomes that I have not carried out any kind of formal incorporation of a business or other organization that would own my own personal computer.

[Raphael]

If we are seeing this from a tax law perspective rather than a socialist economics standpoint, the difference then becomes that I have not carried out any kind of formal incorporation of a business or other organization that would own my own personal computer.

Interesting. Over here, people can get themselves registered as non-corporate individual businesspeople, and then, some of their financial transactions can, if they have good enough tax advisors, get counted as business transactions for tax purposes. Or at least that's how I understand it; I'm not a tax lawyer.

[Travis B.]

If we are seeing this from a tax law perspective rather than a socialist economics standpoint, the difference then becomes that I have not carried out any kind of formal incorporation of a business or other organization that would own my own personal computer.

Interesting. Over here, people can get themselves registered as non-corporate individual businesspeople, and then, some of their financial transactions can, if they have good enough tax advisors, get counted as business transactions for tax purposes. Or at least that's how I understand it; I'm not a tax lawyer.

People here can start their own individual, one-person corporations, actually. That is one way contractors can operate, in addition to the more typical way of being an employee of a contracting company.

[zompist]

hear ye, hear ye, the tankie is going to criticize marx

I'm not sure what the criticism is, but I assume you're inviting us to conclude that these cases are minor. And surely they are! They also seem to be covered by the dictum that the workers should own the means of production... in all these cases it's one owner, one worker... acceptable to communists and capitalists alike!

The more interesting question is, how do you propose that someone without land, or tools, or animals, or land, acquire those things?

Land reform projects often fail because just giving out land does not give out experience in agriculture— or experience in the land market. Big producers can just buy the land back. So you need education too, and probably a whole structure of loans or grants (to buy seeds or livestock), marketing cooperatives, irrigation networks, pooling of heavier machinery, etc.

[zompist]

Interesting. Over here, people can get themselves registered as non-corporate individual businesspeople, and then, some of their financial transactions can, if they have good enough tax advisors, get counted as business transactions for tax purposes. Or at least that's how I understand it; I'm not a tax lawyer.

Here too. If you're careful with records, you can deduct a work computer and even the costs of a home office.

I could technically do that, but it's not worth it, due to what's called the "standard deduction". To simplify taxes, everyone gets a deduction— $31,500 in 2025 for a married couple. You lop that off your income before calculating tax. It's only worth itemizing specific deductions if you're going to total more than that, and I don't get anywhere near that.

[Raphael]

hear ye, hear ye, the tankie is going to criticize marx

I'm not sure what the criticism is, but I assume you're inviting us to conclude that these cases are minor. And surely they are! They also seem to be covered by the dictum that the workers should own the means of production... in all these cases it's one owner, one worker... acceptable to communists and capitalists alike!

The more interesting question is, how do you propose that someone without land, or tools, or animals, or land, acquire those things?

Land reform projects often fail because just giving out land does not give out experience in agriculture— or experience in the land market. Big producers can just buy the land back. So you need education too, and probably a whole structure of loans or grants (to buy seeds or livestock), marketing cooperatives, irrigation networks, pooling of heavier machinery, etc.

Given that you're talking to a tankie, this might be a good moment to point out that in many places where Communists took power, they did a two-step where first, they redistributed large landowners' land to small-scale farmers, and then, shortly afterwards, they confiscated the land they had just given to the small-scale farmers to form either state-run farms or legally cooperative but de facto state-run farms.

[zompist]

Given that you're talking to a tankie, this might be a good moment to point out that in many places where Communists took power, they did a two-step where first, they redistributed large landowners' land to small-scale farmers, and then, shortly afterwards, they confiscated the land they had just given to the small-scale farmers to form either state-run farms or legally cooperative but de facto state-run farms.

I may have forgotten something, but I don't recall Torco advocating for the collectivization of agriculture with state ownership.

[Travis B.]

hear ye, hear ye, the tankie is going to criticize marx

I'm not sure what the criticism is, but I assume you're inviting us to conclude that these cases are minor. And surely they are! They also seem to be covered by the dictum that the workers should own the means of production... in all these cases it's one owner, one worker... acceptable to communists and capitalists alike!

The more interesting question is, how do you propose that someone without land, or tools, or animals, or land, acquire those things?

Land reform projects often fail because just giving out land does not give out experience in agriculture— or experience in the land market. Big producers can just buy the land back. So you need education too, and probably a whole structure of loans or grants (to buy seeds or livestock), marketing cooperatives, irrigation networks, pooling of heavier machinery, etc.

Agreed. A big part of the economic structures of the new society will have to be public investment in the cooperatives, especially early on. Many things won't simply get off the ground by themselves, especially considering the nature of modern agriculture and like.

[Torco]

I'm not sure what the criticism is, but I assume you're inviting us to conclude that these cases are minor. And surely they are! They also seem to be covered by the dictum that the workers should own the means of production... in all these cases it's one owner, one worker... acceptable to communists and capitalists alike!

not really. i'm saying that even in the case of a plot of land of extension enough to keep fed dozens of people, the distinction is vague.

The more interesting question is, how do you propose that someone without land, or tools, or animals, or land, acquire those things?

Land reform projects often fail because just giving out land does not give out experience in agriculture— or experience in the land market. Big producers can just buy the land back. So you need education too, and probably a whole structure of loans or grants (to buy seeds or livestock), marketing cooperatives, irrigation networks, pooling of heavier machinery, etc.

they often succeed too, but they're not the only option: you can buy them, of course, i don't think you can buy selling stuff -and you shouldn't, you can make them yourself [not the chickens or the land, but the tools], but there exist also non-market solutions, which we see happening even in capitalism: you, the representative of a bunch of unemployed agro workers, could go up to some town council and go

- "yo, mister mayor, how'd you like to have cheaper vegetables? we're a bunch of able-bodied dudes and our farm just went bankrupt over in Aliceville, doesn't Boburgh have some bit of nowhere we might farm? we're great at growing kale"
- "oh, lovely, and there's an old abandoned datacenter where you can live in the meantime, leftover from the butlerian jihad, you see. might you also want to fix it?"
- "we'd prefer it to be indefinite... sure, we'd prefer houses but beggars can't be choosers"
- "sweet. i'll try to convince the council to gift yall some cement and two by fours, i really hate the way that ruin looks"
- "i'll check with my people, let's talk tomorrow"

problem is, there has to be organization for such conversations to occurr. tribes, unions, whatever, groups of people who can deliberate together and, most importantly, see those decisions through. the more i think about it, that's the biggest hurdle, given current capitalist atomization.

[Ares Land]

I've watched a back-to-the-land cooperative organic farm not far from where I live with interest.

I think the 'organic' part helps; the point is to be small scale and not so intensive agriculture, which translates into limited need for equipment.

Funding comes from some crowdfunding, farming subsidies, a bit of local council helps, their own savings and possibly a bank loan. They didn't start out wholly unfamiliar with agriculture; one of them is an agronomist; others went WWOOFing before.

The land they bought from a farmer that was sympathetic to the project, eager to retire, and not keen to sell to agribusiness; he provided some training as well.

It's working out pretty well; though if you engage in such a project, it helps if you can be frugal. I think that right now, after a few years, they're barely getting a living wage.

[Raphael]

Glad to hear that it hasn't collapsed into infighting yet.

[Ares Land]

Glad to hear that it hasn't collapsed into infighting yet.

There is probably a lot of drama I'm fortunately not privy to.

To be fair, more traditional workplaces are prone to infighting too, and in my experience, it's usually at the level of a kindergarten class or worse.

[Travis B.]

To be completely honest, I don't envision agriculture in the new society as being primarily based around little organic cooperatives like this, as nice-sounding as they are. In practice I would expect the big agribusinesses to still exist, except they would be worker owned and self-managed unlike in most cases today. This would be the case for many businesses -- they would not be abolished, as after all things do need to be produced and done one way or another, but rather would simply be reorganized along socialist lines.