TotalCrackpot

No one has to build that shelter, no one should be coerced to that.

It's not conditional of somebody else's forced labor, why do you think that?

It could grow either by people making their own houses on their own, or by them finding others who would help with this process, or by paying someone for the labor required for the house to get build.

I think that private property should not get nationalized.

The criterion of abandonment of private property I think should differ based on the local customs and on the type of private property, so for houses for example maybe it should be a year or 2 of you not living there before your house is considered abandoned and someone can live there. For for example mines I think they should be considered abandoned and ready for someone else to use much faster.

The main problem of private property is that it leaves some people without access to a place to live or means to subsist on, so they either have to die of hunger or agree to get exploited. This makes this concept oppressive.

> Your turn. How is pointing out that people have been seduced by a worldview that is neither fact based nor logical "neo-fascist".

I explained above why is such a worldview logical, if you have some issues please answer. On the other hand utilizing such dehumanizing rhetoric like "infection by a mind virus" is not acceptable and is typical of people aligned politically with far-right, such as Elon Musk, who is among the most popular users of this term.

For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there.

How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival.

It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas, they are rebels that created a stateless society of 300 000 in Chiapas, Mexico without private property with structure that is based on decentralized, horizontal, federated institutions.

Anarchism is not a misguided ideology, it's a product of highest levels of freethought that inspired many people to fight for liberation from oppression and for a world where every human can develop the the heights of one's potential.

Having a free shelter is fundamental to a person's freedom, arguing otherwise is immoral.

No, because if there is not enough for other people they either are forced to get exploited by landlords or become homeless. Purchasing real estate is immoral, as is whole notion of rent-seeking through usurpation of unused land such that other persons cannot use it when you don't use it and occupy it.

Homelessness is a problem, even having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live is a problem. Squatting is just a strategy to fight an inherently oppressive private property norm.

Squatters fight against private property which is usually protected by law, it's very rare that it goes the other direction. A lot of squatters want to abolish the possibility of someone having to pay rent to another person to have a place to live, considering that relation inherently oppressive and against a self-ownership of the individual.

Is the worst you could say about anarchists is that they smoke weed? That's somewhat funny, please consider that for anarchists implementing their property norm of usufruct is a part of the social revolution through direct action, it's not really meant to me nice to the "middle class" because anarchists are revolutionaries who want to abolish the class society :)

How would you defend your all 100 properties at once without a state? If by capital you mean your personal belongings, then they can easily stay with you. Anti-capitalism concerns monopoly on land, resources, machines relevant for production and intellectual property like patents. Some people don't have access to those and they have to either become slave workers or starve.

Parenting doesn't have to be hierarchical. Giving support doesn't constitute hierarchy is the sense that anarchists use the term.

Anarchists can federate so scaling is not a problem.

Anarchists are far-left. Some far-lest is authoritarian like Marxist-Leninists, some far left is anti-authoritarian like Anarchists.

Especially so called radical liberalism was very important for development of various forms of leftism such as anarchism.

Most civilizations created hierarchy, there are examples of somewhat anarchistic cities and civilizations that were very egalitarian and free, we can get inspiration from the to try to create a different world.

Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. Most of them are a libertarian wing of far-left.

This civilization meant exploitation of peasants, genocide of Native Americans, slavery, exploitation of women. It created a lot of wars and suffering. I treat anarchism as a direction to try to get nice parts of current world (scientific research, some technologies like advanced medicine) without the inequalities and suffering that was done along the way. Anarchists postulate structures, a lot of them postulate replacing current structures with federated decentralized structures utilizing various horizontal ways of making decision with the possibility to delegate someone to a task where they have certain autonomy and they can get instantly recalled if for some reason they are not adequate to the task.

By definition police uses violence for political reasons. That makes it a terrorist organization. Same with army.

You can look for info and help in your local community for example. You don't need to extract revenge necessarily, if you find that person you can organize with some people and visit them to take your stuff back.

Then if you are not rich you cannot even call the police because you cannot afford it. It's better to abolish police and not jail people for self-defense.

The police are often assholes, they murder and beat people.

Technically if you are against terrorism then you should be for police abolition, because police uses violence for political reasons.

You can check Igalia and their videos on YouTube to see their structure for remote IT worker coop that is flat and has over 100 employees.

Direct democracy, ranging from majority vote to some kind of consensus or consent. Considering someone not working - in anarchy you can always pick with whom you associate with so you can just not associate with a persons who you feel is too lazy.

I very much suggest you watching some Anark video essays on YouTube, I think he is a very good resource to better learn the theory.

You can choose delegates with some sphere of autonomy in a horizontal way, but in anarchist association you can instantly recall them in a horizontal way too. This helps mitigate creating hierarchy while giving someone autonomy and making it possible to divide labor.

In a somewhat similar fashion I think it's worth it to study sociocracy and holocracy - they are based on consent decision making.

You can read the whole article here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/markoff-lazar-case-b...

Consider that USSR was always a capitalist country, we didn't really have socialism in a lot of places, we mostly had Marxist-Leninist state capitalist states that nationalize means of production, still leaving for example the wage work relation intact.