Land inheritance

[JRR883]

My family owns a tree farm, about 1000 acres to be exact. We don't hire any workers; we plant our own trees whenever we sell grown ones. Timber companies pay us to come in and take the trees. My father owns about 250 acres of it, to be split between my sister and I (though if my childless uncle dies before my father, my sister and I will have about 500 acres to split). After the revolution, if I am alive to see it, I'll happily relinquish ownership for the community to till and farm on.

Assuming that I am not renting the land or hiring laborers (obvious exploitation) and living a proletarian lifestyle, would owning land and selling the trees we grow be against anarchist doctrine? If so, what would you guys recommend I do with the land once I inherit it?

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by JRR883
Assuming that I am not renting the land or hiring laborers (obvious exploitation) and living a proletarian lifestyle, would owning land and selling the trees we grow be against anarchist doctrine? If so, what would you guys recommend I do with the land once I inherit it?

As an anarchist, you should obviously surrender the land to the collective and let the masses decide what to do with it after direct democratic elections or something like that.

Inheritance and private land-owning goes against basic marxism (at least) and should not be promoted by any leftist revolutionary - marxist or not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I agree with Marukusu. However, I think JRR883 was also asking what to do with the land after he inherits it but before the revolution.

Obviously, there is no democratic collective for you to surrender the land to before the revolution. No matter what you do, the land will still be owned privately. So I see nothing wrong with keeping it as long as you don't use it to exploit anyone. It's the only thing you can do before the revolution.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by Marukusu+April 17, 2007 06:40 pm--> (Marukusu @ April 17, 2007 06:40 pm)
JRR883
Assuming that I am not renting the land or hiring laborers (obvious exploitation) and living a proletarian lifestyle, would owning land and selling the trees we grow be against anarchist doctrine? If so, what would you guys recommend I do with the land once I inherit it?

As an anarchist, you should obviously surrender the land to the collective and let the masses decide what to do with it after direct democratic elections or something like that.

Inheritance and private land-owning goes against basic marxism (at least) and should not be promoted by any leftist revolutionary - marxist or not. [/b]
But before the revolution, what should I do with it? I don't want to sell it, because then some other asshole could hire workers to work on the land for $5 an hour. I'm not going to rent it, because that's another obvious means of exploitation. What should I do?

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:27 pm
My family owns a tree farm, about 1000 acres to be exact. We don't hire any workers; we plant our own trees whenever we sell grown ones. Timber companies pay us to come in and take the trees. My father owns about 250 acres of it, to be split between my sister and I (though if my childless uncle dies before my father, my sister and I will have about 500 acres to split). After the revolution, if I am alive to see it, I'll happily relinquish ownership for the community to till and farm on.


Well thats nice of you.


Assuming that I am not renting the land or hiring laborers (obvious exploitation) and living a proletarian lifestyle, would owning land and selling the trees we grow be against anarchist doctrine? If so, what would you guys recommend I do with the land once I inherit it?

The idea that there is a rigid anarchist "doctrine," that must be "followed" is rather bizarre.

[JRR883]

There's not really a rigid doctrine, but there are some basic ideas that most left-anarchists subscribe to. I just want to do something that won't contribute to the system or any proletarian oppression.

[Boriznov]

If you don't use it for profit then it's okay man :)

maybe put houses on it and let poor people live in it ?

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:14 pm
I just want to do something that won't contribute to the system or any proletarian oppression.
Does not contributing to "the system" or proletarian oppression make one an anarchist? Is it possible to live within society and not contribute to "the system."

[JRR883]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+April 17, 2007 08:53 pm--> (Pawn Power @ April 17, 2007 08:53 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 03:14 pm
I just want to do something that won't contribute to the system or any proletarian oppression.
Does not contributing to "the system" or proletarian oppression make one an anarchist? Is it possible to live within society and not contribute to "the system." [/b]
I mean refrain from contributing to the system or proletarian oppression in regards to my land ownership.

[Delirium]

Stop farming it, then let it grow back to its natural state. You could also donate it to a local land conservancy

[Fawkes]

maybe put houses on it and let poor people live in it ?
I like that idea.

Perhaps---if rent is particularly high in your area, or if there is a large number of homeless people, you could---along with some friends---build homes on the land for people to live in for free or in exchange for helping out with work around the farm.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:26 am

maybe put houses on it and let poor people live in it ?
I like that idea.

Perhaps---if rent is particularly high in your area, or if there is a large number of homeless people, you could---along with some friends---build homes on the land for people to live in for free or in exchange for helping out with work around the farm.
Not a bad idea, but what should he do if the people that live on his land (I hate that term) decide not help out and scrounch off/exploit his generousity?

[Fawkes]

This thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63344&st=0) tackled that issue.

[apathy maybe]

"would owning land and selling the trees we grow be against anarchist doctrine? " No.

So long as two conditions are met:
One is that you don't employ anyone (setting up a collective is different however, and I would encourage something like that if you felt like it).

Two is that you use the land.

So long as those two conditions are met, I'm perfectly content (with what you have told me) that you wouldn't be exploiting anyone (though I'm not sure about your families status as being exploited...).


However, you should consider whether you would want that land to continue to be used for tree farming, or whether it should be used for something else. If you are near a city or town you could set up a farm for people. They get a plot to work on, and then get to use what they produce. Or something. I'm sure you can work something out.

[JRR883]

I like the idea of giving housing to poor/homeless people, but the town it's in is a very bourgeois, all white area with limited job opportunities and the location of the land is in the middle of nowhere, so I don't know how useful it could be for a residency.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:29 am
I like the idea of giving housing to poor/homeless people, but the town it's in is a very bourgeois, all white area with limited job opportunities and the location of the land is in the middle of nowhere, so I don't know how useful it could be for a residency.
Here's my idea, turn your farm into a workers collectives. Get a group of freinds and ask people from within your community if they want to help. Grow your own fruit, vegetables, crops ect and sell them. Spread the profit out equally amongst all members of the collective.

This is far eaiser then building homes for the homeless and you won't have to donate the land to a conservationist. Everyone could find days were they are free and able to pitch in, plus your still working within the frame work of Socialism/Anarchism.

[Janus]

Provided that you do not need the land for financial reasons (of which you can never really be sure), you can either donate it or put it to collective use by the community.

[redcannon]

it sounds to me like you have a few hundred acres of a great opportunity. make a commune! get some friends, build some houses, work on it, irrigate it, etc. If done correctly, you could live outside of capitalism. me and the mates plan on doing that later in our lives. (in arizona if anyone else is interested)
just be sure that you don't exploit workers in the process, and don't exploit the earth while your at it.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:27 am
it sounds to me like you have a few hundred acres of a great opportunity. make a commune! get some friends, build some houses, work on it, irrigate it, etc. If done correctly, you could live outside of capitalism. me and the mates plan on doing that later in our lives. (in arizona if anyone else is interested)
just be sure that you don't exploit workers in the process, and don't exploit the earth while your at it.
Living in a commune is nice, but I would rather live in a capitalist society and work towards its destruction than idly sit and pretend the revolution has already happened.

[redcannon]

why not? living in a capitalist system is supporting a capitalist system. besides, capitalism is doomed to fail anyway, just read your Hegel. And when oil runs out, and we don't have the energy needed and people eventually start living on farms for food, you'll already be a step ahead.

[Rawthentic]

capitalism is doomed to fail anyway, just read your Hegel.
I might add that while it may be inevitable, this does not mean that socialism or communism are. Those are things that we need to actively fight for.

[redcannon]

well, anticapitalism is inevitable anyway. and it should end up in synthesis, society will be better for it reguardless if it ends in communism or socialism. (though i hope it does end in anarch-communism)

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:39 am
why not? living in a capitalist system is supporting a capitalist system. besides, capitalism is doomed to fail anyway, just read your Hegel. And when oil runs out, and we don't have the energy needed and people eventually start living on farms for food, you'll already be a step ahead.
Just because capitalism is doomed to fail doesn't mean that we can just sit and wait for the revolution. Living primitively doesn't help the system, but it doesn't hurt it either, and that is exactly why communes are legal. As revolutionaries we're obliged to do as much harm to the capitalists and their means of exploitation as we can, and that's a feat we cannot accomplish in seclusion.

[redcannon]

well, if the commune idea is out, try using it to grow food. that way, you won't have to pay money into the capitalist system to eat. or at least not put as much money into the capitalist system to eat. its not really realistic to grow all of your food at this point, but you can grow various things like beans and corn and potatoes. you can give some food to the homeless :)

[freakazoid]

Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:47 am
Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.
Show me five average workers that would prefer living in the woods and growing vegetables to working 8 hours a day and coming home to watch Family Guy while eating macaroni and cheese, and I'll give you a bottle of hot sauce.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by JRR883+April 22, 2007 09:27 am--> (JRR883 @ April 22, 2007 09:27 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 06:47 am
Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.
Show me five average workers that would prefer living in the woods and growing vegetables to working 8 hours a day and coming home to watch Family Guy while eating macaroni and cheese, and I'll give you a bottle of hot sauce. [/b]
I honestly don't know which one your hypothetical "avergage woker" would choose?

[manic expression]

As long as you don't hire and fire workers, I don't see the problem with using it for profit. If you want to live in today's world without joining a utopian commune, you have to work within the system to some extent. All workers "support" the system by selling their labor for wages, is that something we should hold them to?

Now, of course, there are many other things that one could do with that kind of land. Creating a commune, putting houses on it and other ideas put forward in this thread are all really good. However, if there isn't any exploitation, there isn't any problem IMO.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 22, 2007 03:25 pm
As long as you don't hire and fire workers, I don't see the problem with using it for profit. If you want to live in today's world without joining a utopian commune, you have to work within the system to some extent. All workers "support" the system by selling their labor for wages, is that something we should hold them to?

Now, of course, there are many other things that one could do with that kind of land. Creating a commune, putting houses on it and other ideas put forward in this thread are all really good. However, if there isn't any exploitation, there isn't any problem IMO.
I don't think I would call coercion supporting the system. Did the Jews in concentration camps support the Nazi military?

[yns_mr]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 19, 2007 10:14 pm
Here's my idea, turn your farm into a workers collectives. Get a group of freinds and ask people from within your community if they want to help. Grow your own fruit, vegetables, crops ect and sell them. Spread the profit out equally amongst all members of the collective
by doing so, you can create your own small anarchist civilization and inspire the rest of your country to make an anarchist revolution. So you disturb the capitalist system and you may even destroy it...

[grove street]

Originally posted by yns_mr+April 24, 2007 09:30 am--> (yns_mr @ April 24, 2007 09:30 am)
grove [email protected] 19, 2007 10:14 pm
Here's my idea, turn your farm into a workers collectives. Get a group of freinds and ask people from within your community if they want to help. Grow your own fruit, vegetables, crops ect and sell them. Spread the profit out equally amongst all members of the collective
by doing so, you can create your own small anarchist civilization and inspire the rest of your country to make an anarchist revolution. So you disturb the capitalist system and you may even destroy it... [/b]
Well I guess that could be possible, but I was thinking of using the land as more of a left-wing Socialist business venture. He and his mates and fellow helpers will be able to make some money without resorting to Capitalist exploitation.

[grove street]

Originally posted by JRR883+April 22, 2007 02:27 pm--> (JRR883 @ April 22, 2007 02:27 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 06:47 am
Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.
Show me five average workers that would prefer living in the woods and growing vegetables to working 8 hours a day and coming home to watch Family Guy while eating macaroni and cheese, and I'll give you a bottle of hot sauce. [/b]
Well atleast with my idea you and your mates/workers will only have to work on weekends mostly for only an hour or 2 at most and you will be able to make some money without resorting to Capitalist exploitation.

You will be showing people that it is possible to have ownership/control over your means of production.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by grove street+April 24, 2007 12:35 pm--> (grove street @ April 24, 2007 12:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:27 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 06:47 am
Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.
Show me five average workers that would prefer living in the woods and growing vegetables to working 8 hours a day and coming home to watch Family Guy while eating macaroni and cheese, and I'll give you a bottle of hot sauce.
Well atleast with my idea you and your mates/workers will only have to work on weekends mostly for only an hour or 2 at most and you will be able to make some money without resorting to Capitalist exploitation.

You will be showing people that it is possible to have ownership/control over your means of production. [/b]
Is the buyer-seller relationship not exploitation? How is it different from the employer-employee relationship?

[grove street]

Originally posted by JRR883+April 24, 2007 09:57 pm--> (JRR883 @ April 24, 2007 09:57 pm)
Originally posted by grove [email protected] 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:27 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 06:47 am
Actually the commune idea would be helping to hurt capitalism, it would be showing people that there is a better way.
Show me five average workers that would prefer living in the woods and growing vegetables to working 8 hours a day and coming home to watch Family Guy while eating macaroni and cheese, and I'll give you a bottle of hot sauce.
Well atleast with my idea you and your mates/workers will only have to work on weekends mostly for only an hour or 2 at most and you will be able to make some money without resorting to Capitalist exploitation.

You will be showing people that it is possible to have ownership/control over your means of production.
Is the buyer-seller relationship not exploitation? How is it different from the employer-employee relationship? [/b]
Hey bro until Capitalism is destroyed your only options when it comes to survival are to live in isolation, or finding ways to work within the system.

Hippie commune or a workers-co-op. Your choose.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by JRR883
Is the buyer-seller relationship not exploitation? How is it different from the employer-employee relationship?

The buyer-seller relationship is only exploitative if the seller is making a profit, or the buyer can force the seller to sell for less then what it cost to produce. (In the first instance, the seller is exploiting the buyer, and the second vice versa.)

However, if cost is the limit of price (that is, the selling price is no more then the cost to produce), then the seller is not exploiting the buyer.

It comes down to profit. In the employer/worker situation, the employer is making a profit from the labour of the worker. That is, they are not giving the worker the full product of their labour. In a co-op or collective however, there is no employer/worker situation. Rather there is a worker/worker relationship, where the workers are mutually dependent on one another. They do not exploit each other, as they all receive the full product of their labour. (For example, if they make a chair, they get the chair or equivalent (ignoring production costs).) Under a boss/worker scenario (such as in capitalism), you have the boss giving less then the equivalent to the worker, thus making a profit and exploiting the worker.

If you are interested in more possible arguments along these lines, do a search for "market socialism" or "individualist anarchists"/"individual anarchists"/"individualistic anarchists".


(And now for a tangent ... I'm going to use the same chair and boss and worker as above. The boss takes the chair that was made (giving a pittance to the worker) and sells it for five times what it cost (labour and materials and other expenses). The shop that bought the chair then sells it for 10 times what they paid for it. So if it cost the boss $1 to make, it is sold for $50 at the end result ... Yet the only people the shop owners are exploiting (when it comes to relation to the means of production) is the boss ... Yes they exploit the costumers, and their own workers, but the shop has no relation to the means of production at all... You can ignore this bit by the way.)

[JRR883]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+April 25, 2007 11:11 pm--> (apathy maybe @ April 25, 2007 11:11 pm)
JRR883
Is the buyer-seller relationship not exploitation? How is it different from the employer-employee relationship?

The buyer-seller relationship is only exploitative if the seller is making a profit, or the buyer can force the seller to sell for less then what it cost to produce. (In the first instance, the seller is exploiting the buyer, and the second vice versa.)

However, if cost is the limit of price (that is, the selling price is no more then the cost to produce), then the seller is not exploiting the buyer.

It comes down to profit. In the employer/worker situation, the employer is making a profit from the labour of the worker. That is, they are not giving the worker the full product of their labour. In a co-op or collective however, there is no employer/worker situation. Rather there is a worker/worker relationship, where the workers are mutually dependent on one another. They do not exploit each other, as they all receive the full product of their labour. (For example, if they make a chair, they get the chair or equivalent (ignoring production costs).) Under a boss/worker scenario (such as in capitalism), you have the boss giving less then the equivalent to the worker, thus making a profit and exploiting the worker.

If you are interested in more possible arguments along these lines, do a search for "market socialism" or "individualist anarchists"/"individual anarchists"/"individualistic anarchists".


(And now for a tangent ... I'm going to use the same chair and boss and worker as above. The boss takes the chair that was made (giving a pittance to the worker) and sells it for five times what it cost (labour and materials and other expenses). The shop that bought the chair then sells it for 10 times what they paid for it. So if it cost the boss $1 to make, it is sold for $50 at the end result ... Yet the only people the shop owners are exploiting (when it comes to relation to the means of production) is the boss ... Yes they exploit the costumers, and their own workers, but the shop has no relation to the means of production at all... You can ignore this bit by the way.) [/b]
Is it exploitation if I sell the trees for profit to a corporation? Because it really costs us nothing to plant the trees. We don't worry about fertilizing, watering, etc., we just let nature do its job.

[apathy maybe]

Well, I don't think anyone gives two shits whether you exploit corporations. I certainly don't.

Though, it could be argued, that they are still exploiting you. They are giving you less then what they are making from the product. They obviously are making a profit, and part of that comes from giving your family less then perhaps it is worth.

You want my advice? So long as you don't hire other workers (having them join you in equal partner ship is a different matter, because then you are all equal) you shouldn't worry. Especially big corporations know exactly what they are getting into, besides they are generally nasty.

As others have said, in this society, it is fucking hard to live the perfect life style. And you have this resource, you should use it. (Though be sure to donate some of the money you make to revolutionary groups and/or Malte.)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It is difficult for most people to live outside the system, but you however have a great opportuinity, with your own land setting up a commune would be fairly easy.

If you fell that you need to do more to 'encourage' revolution, use your commune as the base for local leftist (in your case Anarchist) activites (like protests etc).