Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   livinghell (livinghell@kolektiva.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Oct-2023 08:03:28 JST livinghell

   • novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️

   @anarchopunk_girl Having a debt to society doesn't necessarily imlpy having agreed to the price mentioned in the captain's argument. You can recognize your debt without agreeing to its content, if you aren't talking about simple property rights. Ravachol bombing parliament would probably not be recognized as him paying his debt, that society had another kind of renumeration in head, but he would probably phrase it like that. You owing society somethings doesnt give society power over determining what those are. That was Kropotkin's argument againt private renumeration by labour vouchers. Trying to count so would be absurd and arbitrary, accrding to him.

   • Embed this notice
     novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️ (anarchopunk_girl@kolektiva.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Oct-2023 08:06:05 JST novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     @livinghell at that point that's stretching debt to society beyond it being a particularly useful term, if that repayment can be negative or positive. And I still think no such debt can exist even if the deck doesn't hold you to a particular form of repayment. I think any such notion is inherently problematic even before we get into egoism and the idea that this notion of free gifts incurring debts and debts needing to be repaid and so on is just moralistic nonsense that we can consistently reject without rejecting anything else important that we care about.

   • Embed this notice
     livinghell (livinghell@kolektiva.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Oct-2023 08:10:27 JST livinghell

     in reply to

     • novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️

     @anarchopunk_girl i do agree that we can reject this notion without much problem most people would think come with such act. however, being inventive about repayment methods (and meaning of debt) has a very deep anthropological meaning. determining the relation of individual to society has always being paradoxal and not stritly speaking logical and never economical.

   • Embed this notice
     novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️ (anarchopunk_girl@kolektiva.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Oct-2023 08:46:09 JST novatorine 🏴🏳️‍⚧️

     in reply to

     @livinghell I think I like Proudhon's approach the most in resolving that conflict: viewing society as a sort of abstract collective individual that exists horizontally with all of the other individuals in society (both other collectives and people like us), and treating it as we would any other such individual, by existing in a sort of push-pull ever evolving balance with it where each asserts their own interests and respects the other's interests as equally relevant where both are effected. Thus we don't have to view ourselves as in debt to society or subordinated to it nor do we have to deny the existence of such an abstract collective entity and ignore collective interests — instead we can take those interests into account without any subordination at all and proceed in an ongoing ever shifting balance. Of course it's always important to remember that search collectivities arise from the individuals that make them up and have a sort of meta existence as an epiphenomena and abstract concept, since confusing two things at very different levels of reality is a recipe for disaster, but I think it's a pretty good framework nonetheless. It should also be noted that it isn't a problem that there are far more individuals than there are collectivities made up of those individuals — almost of necessity — since this isn't a sort of majoritarian democracy approach to balancing interests where the most numerous aligned interests went out but instead that every distinct interest no matter how many people have it is balanced equally in decisions. If you're interested in more about this I highly recommend checking out Shawn P. Wilbur's work!