Anarcho-communism and computers

[Helloworld]

Anarcho-communist are aganist private ownership of the means of prodcution. What would happen if a single person uses a computer to produce something of value? Would he be forced to give up his computer?

[kour]

A person writing a program didn't use the computer in the program's production. The program is purely a piece of information, that has no mineral value. The money that goes into the program's production is $0, except for the power running the computer, which would be owned by society anyway.

Yes, the computer is directly involved in the program's compilation, but this is a trivial process. The meaningful part of the program's creation is the creation of ideas that go into the source code, which goes on entirely in the mind of the programmer.

[Smyg]

No intellectual property, remember?



which would be owned by the government anyway.



What government?

[xub3rn00dlex]

I don't get the problem? A computer is personal property is it not? So if a bunch of people get together and write a program, what is the problem? If they try to profit off of it only then do i see a need for intervention, but if they finalize it and publish it why seize their computers? Let them move onto maintaining the code or starting a new project.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

there is a difference between personal property and means of production...
if you make anything worthwhile on a computer, your probably going to release it anyways, correct?

[thriller]

Anarcho-communist are aganist private ownership of the means of prodcution. What would happen if a single person uses a computer to produce something of value? Would he be forced to give up his computer?

Look up "open source" for the way programs would be produced and distributed in a communist society. The computer itself was built by labor, so it is personal property. The program, like others have stated, is just information, 1's and 0's.

[Catma]

This question is obviously about where the line is between personal and private property.

I guess what is being said is that there isn't any, except inasmuch as property is used to make a profit/create commodities. I don't know how society would deal with such occurrences, but taking away property (assuming property still exists) probably wouldn't be very helpful.

[Tjis]

A personal computer is a tool which is operated by one person. Collectivizing it would be pointless. Compare it with taking away someone's shovel. Only one person can operate a shovel at one time, so as long as that person uses it there's really nothing to be gained from taking it away and letting someone else use it instead.

More powerful computers or computer clusters, such as the server parks that big companies such as Google have right now are a different story. They have far more computing power than one person needs, and should be operated collectively.

So the distinguishing factor between private and personal property is that the first requires multiple people in order to use it to its fullest potential, whereas the second one does not.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, but, comrade, what if I took my shovel that can only be operated by me, and dug a well... can I not charge people for the water?

Such is the mind of the 'anarcho-capitalist' for I recognise this very same proposition from someone called 'Baron Von Darren' who resides on Facebook (some kind of 'an-cap', I could never sort out which brand of that crazy 'philosophy' he believed in, he was a sort of DNZ for the capitalists).

Not that our friend here is necessarily an 'an-cap'. But, by their works, you will know them, and all that. Seems odd that their first post is a classic 'hey socialists! what do you do about this?' "dilemma".

[CommunityBeliever]

In communist society, information technology will be organised by through open collaborative design (http://www.adciv.org/Open_collaborative_design) based upon the principles of the free and open source software movements. Computers are personal tools of collaborative design and not means of production so their ownership is a non-issue.


Ah, but, comrade, what if I took my shovel that can only be operated by me, and dug a well... can I not charge people for the water?

I suppose you could, except no one will buy it because they will already be getting water, energy, information, and all other necessities automatically delivered to them through a global smart grid.

[Smyg]

I really don't see why this question is asked anarcho-communists specifically. :lol:

[Blake's Baby]

Seriously?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that our friend and comrade Helloworld is in fact an 'anarcho-capitalist' and a troll. Not saying she is, but let's assume as a thought experiment. Now, 'anarcho-capitalists' like to spend their time proving how much cleverer they are than regular 'social anarchists' by giving them conundra like 'why would you take a child's lemonade stand away, don't you know that's fascism?' and such like. What they really mean is 'why would you stop us being fascists, don't you know that's fascism?' but they never say it.

So, when someone turns up on RevLeft and the first question they ask is one of those 'dilemmas' that looks designed to get socialists to admit the illogic of their position, directed specifically at anarchist-communists, then I start to smell a propertarian rat, personally.

[GPDP]

Seriously?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that our friend and comrade Helloworld is in fact an 'anarcho-capitalist' and a troll. Not saying she is, but let's assume as a thought experiment. Now, 'anarcho-capitalists' like to spend their time proving how much cleverer they are than regular 'social anarchists' by giving them conundra like 'why would you take a child's lemonade stand away, don't you know that's fascism?' and such like. What they really mean is 'why would you stop us being fascists, don't you know that's fascism?' but they never say it.

So, when someone turns up on RevLeft and the first question they ask is one of those 'dilemmas' that looks designed to get socialists to admit the illogic of their position, directed specifically at anarchist-communists, then I start to smell a propertarian rat, personally.

Look, I understand why you'd "smell a rat," but until we have sufficient proof to purge the undeserving, your posts only come across as antagonizing and hostile. What if the poster really is just someone who's sympathetic to anarchism but doesn't understand some of its nuances? On the off chance this is the case, you'd be scaring away a potential leftist.

[Blake's Baby]

True.

I could defend myself by saying that if they're really interested in socialism they'll need to be able to put with a lot worse than me being snide about them. But that's not really much of a defence. I guess it would be more honest of me to say, I'm defensive and hostile. I could again try to claim that is because nasty capitalists have abused me so, but... really, it's because sometimes I'm just not very nice.

So, Helloworld, if you are genuinely interested in socialism, and anarchist-communism in particular, I'd advise you to study the 'Anarchist FAQ' - google it, it will explain what you want to know, with no sarcastic quips from me.

If you are an 'anarcho-capitalist' however, you've just taken advantage of GPDP's trusting nature and that would make you a total git (on top of being an 'anarcho-capitalist', which would mean were twice the git, a total fool and a liar to boot, for not turning yourself in at reception. Let's all hope you aren't, eh?)

[Decommissioner]

That person would then share that item of value they produced.

Just as if someone made a dress and decided to share (or sell, depending on if it's a moneyless society or not).

Communists are against the exploitation of labor. You don't exploit yourself when you produce a good, so why would it be illegal to produce goods under communism? I imagine a lot of goods will be produced in this way in a communist system, as these sort of things are a product of labor of passion, hobbies and such. For bigger projects, a coop or council of workers can be formed around the commidity or service you are providing.

There will be grey areas I am sure, and honestly I wouldn't doubt if exchange markets continued to exist under communism (ie trading rare collectibles for other rare items and such), but I don't see anything wrong with that so long as the golden rule of keeping the mop under collective and democratic rule and the abolishment of exploitation stands. Under such a model, I doubt that rule would have to be enforced much, since what worker would want to work as a wage slave when they have the option to form their own ventures alongside other workers? (or in the case of the scenerio in this thread, on their own)