Anarchists making their own medicine (2018)

Under an anarchist model you wouldn't "need" ownership of a factory to feed your family because the farmer also isn't withholding food from the hungry on condition of payment.

The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military. Its kind of ironic that you accuse anarchists of violence while simultaneously withholding resources with threats of direct violence.

You have to understand, we're talking about an alternative economic system here, not an immediate action. Anarchism in practice within capitalism is things like this article, or mutual aid - people helping out others in need,and cooperating on mutual benefit. Anarchists also squat unused properties to feed and house the homeless, or come together to form cooperative societies in a few places like Oaxaca and Rojava.

> When you take my means of production, you deny ME access to what I gained without coercion, by using coercion.

That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

I'm aware of Rojava. I don't bring this up often, and I don't expect you to believe this, although I have nothing to gain from it, but I fought there with the YPG. I don't think you understand Rojava very well, there is very much capitalist trade there. You would very much be in danger if you went in and tried to "open up access" of someone's vendor stall. I have bought from capitalist vendors in Qamislo and other parts of Rojava. It is true you can walk up to a bread line and get it for free.

>That's not true - under anarchism, you would have access to use the lab, but so would other people. It would be available in common.

So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

>The only way in which you "own" something while you're not directly using it is by the implicit threat of the police and the military.

No I own it through consensual trade. The only way it is taken away is either consensual, by giving my permission to transact it away or for someone else to use coercion and take it.

Oh, that's actually really cool that you've supported them, I respect that. I know they're not fully anarchist but there are anarchist elements within their society, as you say.

There are a few different economic models within leftism, including market socialism, which still involves trade but replaces corporations with worker cooperatives. Obviously that's incompatible with anarchism but they can exist alongside each other and mixed together - these ideas don't have to be purist.

> So I bought it and now what if I need it 24/7 to run PnP on boards that pay for my family? You're gonna tank the economy by repurposing capital used efficiently and profitably and instead just open up for somebody to just take over the production capability I paid for? That's not consensual.

Again, under an anarchist system you wouldn't need to pay to feed your family. Imagine for a moment, our current society but instead of everybody withholding their goods with demand of payment, these goods are just available to those who need them. No currency, no trade, just sharing and cooperation. Operation of machinery can still be restricted to the qualified through a syndicate (kind of like a medieval guild) but the labour is performed cooperatively. You could still do the job you love (if you love it - otherwise, you're free to explore other options), your family would be fed, you would have a house and so on. I wouldn't be in favour of any economic system that increased the amount of human suffering. I like people, I have a lot of empathy.

That all really sounds great, I just don't understand how it works without a lot of people just performing labor in the hopes others will do it and also do it for free. There aren't goods if people don't make them, and people have to have incentive to make them. We have a way of making sure people get value from what they put in, it is trade. Surely someone is gonna say "hey I made this widget so I would like to demand compensation for it." And someone else is going to say "I want that widget and I'm willing to compensate them for it." How are you going to get the masses to just make stuff and give it away? Personally I won't do it, except to maybe some charities I like or for the occasionally gesture of good will to someone I feel for. Guess people like me gotta be put in the gulag.

>Again, under an anarchist system you wouldn't need to pay to feed your family

Perhaps, but what if no one wishes to feed me for free voluntarily. Won't I be forced to either engage in trade, do everything myself, or take it by force? What if I want to spin up my PnP machine, make some boards, and trade it with somebody who's not down with the whole make stuff without money and hope it all works out. I'm not going to let you stop me, are you going to come kill me or what's going to happen?

My personal view of what ends up happening to leftist communities is their either become dystopian to ensure your property is now the public's property, slide into democracies, or go into limited-government libertarian type scenarios. The latter is basically what Rojava is in practice and kind of my experience with the Kurds in general who I would describe as basically very generous capitalists who just want to chill in the fucking mountains away from the 4 nasty governments surrounding them.

If you can keep it small like a family unit some communist like organization may stay together, although even families can have a hard time with it. You need the consent of everyone for that sort of thing to be non-coercive, and you may not be able to get it.

>The unvaccinated fill up and overwhelm healthcare systems. That disrupts all medical care for everyone. By being vaccinated you are reducing the burden for everybody.

That argument just doesn't hold the water. Most people don't reduce that burden by being vaccinated because they weren't such a burden to start with. For the most people the probability of hospitalization is so low that vaccinating them results in the practically undetectable changes to the total hospitalizations. High-risk groups is a different story. Vaccinating them does change the hospitalizations number.

So far - the available vaccines fail to control the spread, and those vaccines for most people fail to affect hospitalization numbers. So, what is the rationale for the vaccination mandates?

Note - it is the core of democracy that a limitation of personal body rights should be accompanied by a well founded reason of public interest. For the vaccination mandate that would be a scientifically sound conclusion of limit of spread for example or even say meaningful effect on the hospitalizations numbers. So far the vaccination mandate side has failed to provide any such scientifically sound reason. That makes the vaccination mandate to be an unreasonable authoritative action of gross violation of basic personal rights.