5 ms·

Could someone explain what Sci-Hub has to do with the common ownership of the means of production? The presentation didn't even attempt to explain this from wha

by krona 9y ago

Could someone explain what Sci-Hub has to do with the common ownership of the means of production? The presentation didn't even attempt to explain this from what I gathered. To me, Sci-Hub sounds a lot more like anarchism than anything (property is theft and so on..)

viraptor 9y ago
> To me, Sci-Hub sounds a lot more like anarchism than anything The more I see people pushing the idea of communism lately, the bigger overlap with anarchism I see. Even explicitly mentioned. Maybe people are ok with that.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Communism as originally described by Marx is essentially an anarchist ideology. The idea of having a state attached to it before the complete transition to classless society worldwide is complete and how powerful that state should be, are areas of debate that came up later. Given that we've seen most communist states fail or abandon non market-based economic models, the anarchist flavor seems to be in greater intellectual vogue these days.
- icebraining 9y ago
  "The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." -- Marx
etplayer 9y ago
Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense against property; Communism isn't only the common ownership of MoP, rather, the Communists contend that this follows naturally from the abolition of private property, not such that everything becomes everyone's property, but that it becomes the property of nobody. Marx once said (I paraphrase) that the theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: the abolition of private property. Engels also said that just as the slave frees himself by abolishing the human aspect of private property, so does the proletarian by abolishing private property in general.
- waterhouse 9y ago
  There is an ideology called anarcho-capitalism and it is definitely not against property. If there is any debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism—it holds that there should be no State, and I think that means it qualifies.
  - etplayer 9y ago
    You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today. The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice. To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.
    - bytefederal-ceo 9y ago
      Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.

by krona 9y ago

viraptor 9y ago

> To me, Sci-Hub sounds a lot more like anarchism than anything The more I see people pushing the idea of communism lately, the bigger overlap with anarchism I see. Even explicitly mentioned. Maybe people are ok with that.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Communism as originally described by Marx is essentially an anarchist ideology. The idea of having a state attached to it before the complete transition to classless society worldwide is complete and how powerful that state should be, are areas of debate that came up later. Given that we've seen most communist states fail or abandon non market-based economic models, the anarchist flavor seems to be in greater intellectual vogue these days.
icebraining 9y ago
"The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." -- Marx

etplayer 9y ago

Communism is an anarchist ideology, and though some forms of anarchism stand opposed to it (such as Stirner's egoist anarchism) they are all in some sense against property; Communism isn't only the common ownership of MoP, rather, the Communists contend that this follows naturally from the abolition of private property, not such that everything becomes everyone's property, but that it becomes the property of nobody. Marx once said (I paraphrase) that the theory of Communism can be summed up in one sentence: the abolition of private property. Engels also said that just as the slave frees himself by abolishing the human aspect of private property, so does the proletarian by abolishing private property in general.

waterhouse 9y ago
There is an ideology called anarcho-capitalism and it is definitely not against property. If there is any debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism—it holds that there should be no State, and I think that means it qualifies.
- etplayer 9y ago
  You are of course correct. I usually forget to include anarcho-capitalism for the simple reason that it does not exist in my consciousness as an anarchist idea as you note. Sometimes to avoid the ambiguity, I use "social anarchism" to refer to those espoused by the original anarchists and most organised anarchists today. The reason why anarcho-capitalism is not regarded as anarchistic is because of its nature as being what the Socialists regard as hierarchical and its institutions as non-voluntary by espousing a hierarchy seen in the class distinction, that is, one class owns the property, the other does not. This, to them, is a power relationship, and one which cannot be justified. The social anarchists are against unjutsified authority, not authority in general. Parapharasing Bakunin, in the matter of shoes I defer to the authority of the bootmaker, not because he is more powerful, but because it's my choice. To me it is clear that the mere abolition of the state is insufficient for human liberation, we must also stop the material conditions which manifest the state from coming into existence, that is, ownership of property, from which the state can derive its power most easily through the collection of tax or rent.
  - bytefederal-ceo 9y ago
    Remove the rewards as they exist in our current system and doom civilisations to massive turmoil, marginalization and technological stasis. You cannot flatten a society when inequality is the fabric of evolutionary forces, in essence subduing the genius workaholics to the same levels of award as the troglodytes. To ignore the universe, filled with lesson upon lesson that all life is in constant competition to survive, that life feeds on life and instead build a society that does the opposite is to invite an end to all hope of prolonged interplanetary existence.