Morgan Le Fey wrote:
Sure there's a Capitalism constantly running around us, but living off of it rather than the opposite is quite a pleasure.
Is that real anarchy, though?
In my eyes, you are just piggybacking off a state that enforces capitalist law. To put it bluntly, parasitically piggybacking off those rough men employed by the state that stand ready to do violence on your behalf.
Morgan Le Fey wrote:
Pretty sure free rent, food, meds, and spreading the wealth to people on the street is pretty anti-capitalist. If you expect me to be revolutionary your way, its seems like a foolish expectation on your part.
I know very well what Reds and MLs value and that they view Anarchists as little other than lumpenproletariat.
But again, why do I care? I don't disregard Reds like I would Nazis or Conservatives, but I realize in advance what our differences are and will likely remain.
'Piggybacking [on] rough men', ingliz -- ? Is that what you did last weekend?
Just kidding -- on the *serious* side, though, your 'critique' is actually *inaccurate*, misplaced, and therefore *moralistic*, ultimately.
The critique is *supposed* to be that the chronically unemployed, the 'lumpenproletariat', are effectively a *burden* to the working class and its wages, and that they tend to be *reactionary* politically.
Lumpenproletariat (/ˌlʌmpənproʊlɪˈtɛəriət/) refers – primarily in Marxist theory – to the underclass devoid of class consciousness. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the word in the 1840s and used it to refer to the unthinking lower strata of society exploited by reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, particularly in the context of the revolutions of 1848. They dismissed the revolutionary potential of the Lumpenproletariat and contrasted it with the proletariat. Among other groups, criminals, vagabonds, and prostitutes are usually included in this category.
I'm gonna readily side with MLF on this one, that anyone doing for themselves what *rentier capital* does as a matter of *function* -- extracting value from the pre-existing economy -- can't really be criticized on any *moral* grounds, because they're simply looking out for their own *persons*.
Just as food, rent, healthcare, and charity are *necessities* / costs, for the *individual*, for consumption, so are interest and rent payments to *rentier* capital also categorical 'overhead' costs that are strictly *subtractive* of value from the larger economy.
Rentier capital is an everyday subtractive *expense* for both equity capital and labor, and the entire economy is currently *rewarding* rentier assets and resources with a raised interest rate regime (rewarding *non-productive* assets and resources with *inflated* interest rates and rent payments, just for existing).
So if the world's political-economy / polity can reward rentier capital ownership *redundantly*, with *monthly* payments on its valuation that was created *once* historically in the past, then certainly a *live human being* should be able to *likewise* cover *their* monthly fixed-costs of *living* and/or *employment* (which is *commodity-productive* economic activity), since the rentier-capitalist enjoys that very treatment for their *inert property*, increasing its valuation over time while collecting dust.