unfreeradical

Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.

Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?

You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I’m wrong or what is right.

The reason is because of much of what you have written, for example…

in many countries that have applied communism people still get exploited.

Various examples occur throughout your comments appearing as reactionary or liberal obfuscations of communism, and its differences with capitalism, or that seem unaware of general criticisms of capital.

You may feel my characterizations are inaccurate, and you may be correct, but I feel that they are representative of your argumentation, by its heavy assimilation of various tropes common within bad faith engagement with leftism.

I am not rejecting the sensibility or agreeability of the principle on its merits as a moral principle, but I do reject your characterization of any representation of responsibility as being a “descriptive fact”.

I feel, unfortunately, that such conflations represent a thematic flaw latent throughout the argument.

Simply because we approve of particular facets of social relationship and social structure, we may not assert them as facts, transcending our preferences, whether individual or shared, except as that they are facts of our preferences.

No one is rejecting human rights in the sense you are suggesting, but some may object to human rights in the sense of its being merely a packaging for norms and values that are generally shared, as would be the same sense of an objection against moral theories.

Ellerman appears to be rejecting private property by replacing it with a construct designated as inalienable responsibility. He assumes we will accept the construct, but ultimately, he gives us no reason more convincing than that it affirms the conclusion he wishes to uphold, and that he assumes we will want him to reach, of equitable relations of production.

Ultimately, there is little to be remarked about one or the other, except whose interests they serve, or which consequences they produce.

The rulers’ function has been to repress workers.

The workers’ struggle has been to protect each other while seeking to overcome the conditions of oppression. In that, I see no need for us of either particular construct, private property or inalienable responsibility.

Well, money generally has been used for exchange of material items and ordering specialized services.

Above the availability of such, relations in community have represented the difference between living decently and living meaningfully.

I see. I think the particular case is just one event revealing a problem that is much older and deeper.

If worker exploitation has not been overcome, then communism has not been achieved.

As I say, I feel doubtful that you genuinely understand communism.

Arguably, housing should be accessible without toiling to make a rich person less unhappy and more wealthy.

Private property is a construct.

Natural rights is a construct.

Neither represents a transcendent truth.

The best account for natural rights is that it provides elegant packaging for values and norms already shared. The danger emerges because whoever controls the packaging is the one who also determines what becomes elegantly packaged.

By some measures, Musk’s decisions managing Twitter/X should earn him one million lifetimes of homelessness.

I know no one personally who would remain secure after losing billions of dollars, yet I keep hearing that owners take all the risks and workers are always protected from hardship.