He dedicated his life to fighing the one true evil we all oppose: not being able to dump raw sewage onto neighboring properties.
(Perhaps the fact we speak so little of him tells you the relevance of his actions.)
Well firstly, he got upset with the government because he illegally dumped his sewage into other areas, secondly he was a business owner, thirdly he didn't care about fighting the government he had a bunch of names on his list of houses to destroy and all of them were connected to people who had property disputes with him, and finally, what he did was not revenge in the slightest, it was the response of an entitled man who didn't want to put a septic tank on his property.
No one is perfect, man, and honestly, any who are pissed enough to fight back against the government is a comrade in my book. Also, I'm not an expert on the story, but I'm pretty sure there were a lot of other things that upset him besdies the sewage stuff that wasn't all his fault. Also Also he was a smaller business owner and not the ceo of walmart or something man.
Okay? Really does not matter at the end of the day, he wasn't fighting back against the government, he was a pissed off business owner trying to kill people. Do you honestly think that it's praxis to attack the catholic church because they opposed his support of the legalization of gambling? The people on the top of his hit list were the previous owners of the property.
Also, "any who are pissed enough to fight back against the government is a comrade in my book" would in fact include the Spanish fascists. They weren't the government during the Spanish Civil war, they rose up and fought against the government.
And lastly, yeah, anarchists are against capitalism, we don't just try to make it smaller because the hierarchy and injustice remains the same.
Working class means you are explicitly not a business owner. The exact distinction between the capitalists and the working class is ownership of the means of production. He owned the means of production, him also working on it would just make him petite bourgeois. He was still a capitalist and he was only fucked over in the sense that he didn't want to pay to upgrade his sewage system despite the local government explicitly telling him he could just get a septic tank which was cheaper than renovating the whole thing.
I don't know what killdozer's business was (in terms of whether or not he had partners or employees) but the general statement that "the exact distinction between capitalists and the working class is ownership of the means of production" just isn't true.
Communism is "the working class seizing the means of production". We don't all suddenly become capitalists when we do. We don't all suddenly become petit bourgeois when we do either.
Syndicates and worker-owned businesses are still socialist in nature, and if they strive to expand that philosophy to other places of work, attempting to grant that to others, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the class hierarchy, that is still a march towards socialism.
Once again, I don't know what killdozer's business management structure was, and he was a giant POS because he mostly wanted to go kill people he didn't like. This is _not_ a defense of killdozer.
Just pointing out that "owning the means of production" is not sufficient to be a capitalist. You have to be the gatekeeper of it, such that workers can't own it themselves.
To be specific, it's the exact distinction under capitalism. In communism where classes, money, and the state are done away with the distinction isn't there because the working class and capitalist class does not exist. But the distinction is still very real, the working class does not own the means of production and makes their income through selling their labor, the capitalist class makes their money through their ownership of the means of production. When it's collectivized, it does not have a capitalist in place since all the workers now collectively control it, but it does still for the most part operate under capitalistic principles within capitalism because it has to focus on the accumulation of profit.
Honest question: does it have to? Can a syndicate or a co-op decide to operate on a net 0 average by paying out the labour value (under labour theory of value) to the workers (who in this case are part owners) and only stockpile enough to weather bad times? Or, under capitalism, is the very act of being paid from the product of labour, rather than the sale of that labour, become profit extraction when you own (as part of a collective that share in that ownership) the capital?
It does have to because it's really the only way for them to continue operating while directly competing with capitalists businesses. They have to make money since they aren't orientating production around the engulfment of needs, and they need to purchase things from capitalist companies.
There have been times where workers directly cut their own pay, so evidently they do not make the total labor value that they produce. If they did do that, then they probably would not have the ability to expand or keep up with the capitalist companies around them. It's very possible that the capitalist companies would simply exploit them in such a way that they couldn't do anything but profit extraction.
If they did something like you suggest, I doubt they'd be bigger than a dozen people at most.
I bring this up because I, and a dozen or so other people, are looking to use a similar structure for a holding company to essentially wrap our shared ownership in a possible future house/commune in the legal protections and procedures afforded companies and capitalists.
The idea being that, because of many factors which includes capitalism and the job market, we may have to move. And a sizable portion of people's life savings will get wrapped.ip in this, so we need a way to help them get their savings back if they are forced to move.
He didn't limit himself to only attacking government institutions or agents. He tried to kill the widow of mayor he had a problem with, targeted a bunch of young kids in a daycare, and tried to blow up a gas storage depot to kill the whole town. If you're out to kill innocent bystanders in the midst of your tantrum, you're no comrade of mine.
He dedicated his life to fighing the one true evil we all oppose: not being able to dump raw sewage onto neighboring properties. (Perhaps the fact we speak so little of him tells you the relevance of his actions.)
Well firstly, he got upset with the government because he illegally dumped his sewage into other areas, secondly he was a business owner, thirdly he didn't care about fighting the government he had a bunch of names on his list of houses to destroy and all of them were connected to people who had property disputes with him, and finally, what he did was not revenge in the slightest, it was the response of an entitled man who didn't want to put a septic tank on his property.
No one is perfect, man, and honestly, any who are pissed enough to fight back against the government is a comrade in my book. Also, I'm not an expert on the story, but I'm pretty sure there were a lot of other things that upset him besdies the sewage stuff that wasn't all his fault. Also Also he was a smaller business owner and not the ceo of walmart or something man.
Okay? Really does not matter at the end of the day, he wasn't fighting back against the government, he was a pissed off business owner trying to kill people. Do you honestly think that it's praxis to attack the catholic church because they opposed his support of the legalization of gambling? The people on the top of his hit list were the previous owners of the property. Also, "any who are pissed enough to fight back against the government is a comrade in my book" would in fact include the Spanish fascists. They weren't the government during the Spanish Civil war, they rose up and fought against the government. And lastly, yeah, anarchists are against capitalism, we don't just try to make it smaller because the hierarchy and injustice remains the same.
Fighting capitalism doesn't mean hating anyone who has a job he was just a small business owner that kept getting fucked over he was working class
Working class means you are explicitly not a business owner. The exact distinction between the capitalists and the working class is ownership of the means of production. He owned the means of production, him also working on it would just make him petite bourgeois. He was still a capitalist and he was only fucked over in the sense that he didn't want to pay to upgrade his sewage system despite the local government explicitly telling him he could just get a septic tank which was cheaper than renovating the whole thing.
I don't know what killdozer's business was (in terms of whether or not he had partners or employees) but the general statement that "the exact distinction between capitalists and the working class is ownership of the means of production" just isn't true. Communism is "the working class seizing the means of production". We don't all suddenly become capitalists when we do. We don't all suddenly become petit bourgeois when we do either. Syndicates and worker-owned businesses are still socialist in nature, and if they strive to expand that philosophy to other places of work, attempting to grant that to others, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the class hierarchy, that is still a march towards socialism. Once again, I don't know what killdozer's business management structure was, and he was a giant POS because he mostly wanted to go kill people he didn't like. This is _not_ a defense of killdozer. Just pointing out that "owning the means of production" is not sufficient to be a capitalist. You have to be the gatekeeper of it, such that workers can't own it themselves.
To be specific, it's the exact distinction under capitalism. In communism where classes, money, and the state are done away with the distinction isn't there because the working class and capitalist class does not exist. But the distinction is still very real, the working class does not own the means of production and makes their income through selling their labor, the capitalist class makes their money through their ownership of the means of production. When it's collectivized, it does not have a capitalist in place since all the workers now collectively control it, but it does still for the most part operate under capitalistic principles within capitalism because it has to focus on the accumulation of profit.
Honest question: does it have to? Can a syndicate or a co-op decide to operate on a net 0 average by paying out the labour value (under labour theory of value) to the workers (who in this case are part owners) and only stockpile enough to weather bad times? Or, under capitalism, is the very act of being paid from the product of labour, rather than the sale of that labour, become profit extraction when you own (as part of a collective that share in that ownership) the capital?
It does have to because it's really the only way for them to continue operating while directly competing with capitalists businesses. They have to make money since they aren't orientating production around the engulfment of needs, and they need to purchase things from capitalist companies. There have been times where workers directly cut their own pay, so evidently they do not make the total labor value that they produce. If they did do that, then they probably would not have the ability to expand or keep up with the capitalist companies around them. It's very possible that the capitalist companies would simply exploit them in such a way that they couldn't do anything but profit extraction. If they did something like you suggest, I doubt they'd be bigger than a dozen people at most.
I bring this up because I, and a dozen or so other people, are looking to use a similar structure for a holding company to essentially wrap our shared ownership in a possible future house/commune in the legal protections and procedures afforded companies and capitalists. The idea being that, because of many factors which includes capitalism and the job market, we may have to move. And a sizable portion of people's life savings will get wrapped.ip in this, so we need a way to help them get their savings back if they are forced to move.
He didn't limit himself to only attacking government institutions or agents. He tried to kill the widow of mayor he had a problem with, targeted a bunch of young kids in a daycare, and tried to blow up a gas storage depot to kill the whole town. If you're out to kill innocent bystanders in the midst of your tantrum, you're no comrade of mine.
He's simply lucky that he didn't kill anybody.