anarchists economy

[commyrebel]

I am sorry to anarchist if you get offended but i have been think about this for a while anarchy can't be sustained by its self it must be first taught to humans as a fact that we do not need a hierarch. 2nd archaism is just away of how do explain it ok government political ideas are made on a graph like when you graph slopes on the x axis it has capitalism on the right and communism on the left and on the y axis it has fascism at the top and anarchism at the bottom and your beliefs have to be between two of them like a point on a graph. Thats why anarchism needs an economic system like communism and no it has no economic systems of its own.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/
here a link to explain the political idea system better.

[F9]

:confused:Political compass isnt and an accurate "way of point".
Anarchism is not an economical system, Anarchism is the organization part, its the standard of living, the freedom etc.Economics come afterwards to add to this with different tendencies which of them the most spread amongst the movement is actually communism.
Its not something "new" to us, so no we dont get offended off what we believe.

Moved

Fuserg9:star:

[The Feral Underclass]

Thats why anarchism needs an economic system like communism and no it has no economic systems of its own.

That's why the historical tendency of anarchist communism developed during the 19th century to become the biggest and most successful tendencies of anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

What is Communist Anarchism? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

I would also suggest not to pay attention to political compass. It's written by liberal academics who have no real understanding of the things they talk about.

[commyrebel]

:confused:Political compass isnt and an accurate "way of point".
Anarchism is not an economical system, Anarchism is the organization part, its the standard of living, the freedom etc.Economics come afterwards to add to this with different tendencies which of them the most spread amongst the movement is actually communism.
Its not something "new" to us, so no we dont get offended off what we believe.

Moved

Fuserg9:star: ok you need to actual read something all the way though first political compass was a way to help explain the graph and second didn't i just say what you said that anarchism is not an economic idea ok i said that why i said oh because i am tired of anarchist apically the little high schoolers running around screaming anarchism but when i talk to them about it all they know that it is freedom to extreme lengths. that is why i posted this just to make sure that some of these youngsters know what the hell there talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

commyrebel,

Please don't be antagonistic, you asked questions and you have received answers. Political compass is a particularly bad way of understanding revolutionary politics and you shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If you actually want to learn about these kinds of ideas then you need to read books by those to developed the ideas as revolutionaries.

[commyrebel]

commyrebel,

Please don't be antagonistic, you asked questions and you have received answers. Political compass is a particularly bad way of understanding revolutionary politics and you shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If you actually want to learn about these kinds of ideas then you need to read books by those to developed the ideas as revolutionaries.
ok first those were not answers they were just respectful saying that you understood what i was talking about and agin about the political compass it was to help you understand the graph i was talking about ok and to your information i own almost all of Marx's political writing along with some Leninist and other writings.

[The Feral Underclass]

to your information i own almost all of Marx's political writing along with some Leninist and other writings.

That must be some collection. I suggest you read them.

[commyrebel]

That must be some collection. I suggest you read them.
why do you keep saying to read them i do read them ok

[The Feral Underclass]

why do you keep saying to read them i do read them ok

Well ok then. What's your view on The German Ideology? Did you manage to get through all 4 volumes of Capital?

[Agrippa]

why do you keep saying to read them i do read them ok

Then why do you think the "political compass" is in any way relative to the discussion of anarchism or communism?

[commyrebel]

Then why do you think the "political compass" is in any way relative to the discussion of anarchism or communism? are you serious agin it was there to show you the graph that i explained in the beginning of this thread and yes it has no purpose for the topic of anarchism and communism.

[Invincible Summer]

Have you at least read the most basic textbooks on Anarchism: "ABCs of Anarchism" and "The Conquest of Bread?"

No? Come back when you have.




Also: just wondering, is English your first language? I ask because I find your posts difficult to read due to their grammar.

[The Feral Underclass]

Have you at least read the most basic textbooks on Anarchism: "ABCs of Anarchism" and "The Conquest of Bread?"

No? Come back when you have.

Can you please avoid being antagonistic, it's totally unnecessary.

[Diagoras]

Thats why anarchism needs an economic system like communism and no it has no economic systems of its own.


This isn't quite true. It is accurate to say that anarchism is not primarily about a certain economic system... hence the varieties. This does not mean that it has no economic systems of its own. It simply means that the focus of anarchism is first upon equalizing power relations and preserving freedom... which economic system is derived as appropriate from those initial value assumptions comes second (although anarcho-communism appears to be the most dominant, paired with, and not necessarily mutually exclusive of anarcho-syndicalism).

[gorillafuck]

You really need to read some anarchist texts to know what anarchism is, then you can argue with the anarchists. And don't even mention the political compass, it's in no way relevant. Read "Conquest of Bread" and "Fields, Factories, And Workshops".

[F9]

ok you need to actual read something all the way though first political compass was a way to help explain the graph and second didn't i just say what you said that anarchism is not an economic idea ok i said that why i said oh because i am tired of anarchist apically the little high schoolers running around screaming anarchism but when i talk to them about it all they know that it is freedom to extreme lengths. that is why i posted this just to make sure that some of these youngsters know what the hell there talking about.

You do actually know that in here when we talk about Anarchism, we actually know what we are talking about.?There are lots of the kind you are referring, but still there are lots of "us" that we actually know what we are talking about when we talk about Anarchism etc.Posting this in here wont help and much your fellow students, if you talked to them though it would.They are having a first impression of Anarchism, they like something, if we dont try to get those people to our side, that they are outside our doors and knocking us to open the in, then who will we?Go talk to them about this.
Maybe you need to read about Anarchism too, as as it seems you are holding a point against it, without knowing too much about it.Some other members have already said two great books ("ABCs of Anarchism" and "The Conquest of Bread" ) which you can find it online for free in english, and probably in many other languages.

Also people complaining about his posting and his grammar, if you want to give him an advice message him, if you have problem with his posts just dont read them and do not complain about such things!!

Fuserg9:star:

[Holger Meins]

anarchy can't be sustained by its self it must be first taught to humans as a fact that we do not need a hierarch.No system in the history of the world has been able to sustain itsef, and none ever will. Political systems and societies only exists because of the people living in it. Feudalim was not self-sustained, it was held up by the tyranny of the Catholic church. Capitalism doesn't sustain itself, it is being held up by the state and corporations. Soviet state-capitalism didn't sustain itself, it was there because the fascist Soviet rulers sustained it through terror. Anarchism will, as you said, not sustain itself. People need to realize what they want, and if they want anarchism, anarchism will be the system in use
2nd archaism is just away of how do explain it ok governmentI don't understand what you mean. Elaborate.
Thats why anarchism needs an economic system like communism and no it has no economic systems of its own. Why do anarchism need an economic system? Anarchism is not about a collection of predetermined absolute rules/laws. If it would have that, freedom would e compromised Anarchism is about free/voluntary association, it does not have a predetermined way of organizing a future society, nor a economic system. That is also why i think that the term "anarchist" is incomplete without an epithet (ie. anarchocommunist, anarchocapitlist etcetera).

[Nwoye]

Why do anarchism need an economic system? Anarchism is not about a collection of predetermined absolute rules/laws. If it would have that, freedom would e compromised Anarchism is about free/voluntary association, it does not have a predetermined way of organizing a future society, nor a economic system. That is also why i think that the term "anarchist" is incomplete without an epithet (ie. anarchocommunist, anarchocapitlist etcetera).
i partly agree with you here, but you bring up an interesting aspect of anarchism. as an anarcho-communist, you surely oppose private property right? well if anarchism was instituted tommorrow, how would you deal with private property - particularly in land? i assume as a communist you support common ownership of land/resources, or at least a proudhonian approach to ownership (possession). so what if someone claimed land as private property? what if they started claiming title to various lots around town, restricting people from using those lots - with force, if he feels necessary. how would you handle this situation? would you allow him to accumulate private property, or would you - on behalf of your communist ideals - remove his illegitimate property from him?

[el_chavista]

I think anarchism without epithets is an ideological condition for a person being revolutionary. I mean every leftist is an anarchist without adjectives because we can't rationalize how some greedy vermin may be the ruling class of a society out of the expropriation of the rest of mankind from the means of production.

[Cynical Observer]

Anarchy by it's self is not an economic system, a large sect of anarchists wish to use a communistic economic system in their anarchic societies hence the term anarcho-communism, but the term "anarchy" by itself does not imply this.

I think that's what the OP was asking, what's your point though?

[ZeroNowhere]

The political compass is irrelevant when it comes to socialism, and anarchy entails the abolition of capital, so it evidently has an 'economic' aspect.

[Holger Meins]

would you allow him to accumulate private property, or would you - on behalf of your communist ideals - remove his illegitimate property from him?I would remove the illegitimate property, by force if necessary. Noone is entitled to more land than they are able to use without hiring people to work for them, and land is not a commodity that can be looked upon as property in the same way as other things. Labour didn't create the land, and the ownership of land should be based upon tenancy and use, not by claim.

[redflag32]

:confused:Political compass isnt and an accurate "way of point".
Anarchism is not an economical system, Anarchism is the organization part, its the standard of living, the freedom etc.Economics come afterwards to add to this with different tendencies which of them the most spread amongst the movement is actually communism.
Its not something "new" to us, so no we dont get offended off what we believe.

Moved

Fuserg9:star:

Could you just clear something up for me. How does "freedom" come before the economic liberation of the working class?

[F9]

Could you just clear something up for me. How does "freedom" come before the economic liberation of the working class?

As Zeronowhere correctly pointed out some posts before, the economic liberation will come as per Capitalism will be destroyed, and from there different tendencies will get up and decide the economical organization of each commune.
With Anarchism we are after the destroy of Capitalism, Discrimination,rulers, laws etc fascism and everything that has to do with the current system which oppress and discriminates against humans.With the abolition of those comes the freedom of the human and then we would start putting our weight on how we will be economically structured.

Fuserg9:star:

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Thats why anarchism needs an economic system like communism

Depends on what you mean by "communism." If you meant what Marx, left-communists, and anarchist-communists refer to as "communism," then I would certainly agree with you; it has been said that anarchism would be the true expression of communism.

Communism is a simple concept that is extremely difficult to achieve: a stateless classless society that doesn't rely on wage systems, divisions of labor, or other arbitrary forms of remuneration. If you notice from studying anarchism, this is more than similar to the definition of anarchism. Both favor a free society without the oppression and authority of state and capital.

Now,if you mean what has incorrectly been called "communism," i.e., state-capitalism, in which the state becomes the unaccountable monopoly a la the multinational corporation (see the USSR, "Communist" China, etc.), well, this would be antithetical to anarchism. I don't think you mean authoritarian statism, though.






and no it has no economic systems of its own

Well, this is tricky. It certainly doesn't propose one model, and anarchists are quite skeptical of any homogeneity, hence most of our hostility towards the "platform" mentality. However, since Proudhon (whatever you think about him), the big names in anarchism has proposed multiple economic models, from mutualism, collectivism, communism, and syndicalism (this last one could be a technique for revolution and an economic system).

Most anarchists, I would argue, favor some kind of form of pluralism, i.e., some communities will be communistic, whereas others may use some kind of workers vouchers or something like that. Remuneration will really depend on the community. To sum it up, you won't hear most principled anarchists trying to give an objective answer about an economic system that we all should use.

[blackstone]

It's best to begin by saying that the term anarchism is used to cover a very broad spectrum, but i prefer to think of it as the libertarian left, or more narrowly as libertarian socialist or syndicalist.

From the broad anarchist tradition we can highlight key ideals, principles and aims that we can use as a framework to identify whether an economy is anarchistic or not. Such as self-management, solidarity, equity, mutual aid, free association, freedom/autonomy, anti-authoritarianism, and variety.

There have been many different economic visions for an anarchist society. What matters most, or what makes these economies anarchistic, is the fact that they seek to abolish the very things anarchists are opposed to and are consistent with the aforementioned principles of anarchism.

In a anarchistic society the means of production are owned by everyone in equal share and not by one particular production group. The bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie will no longer have a monopoly on the decision making process. Each actor in society would influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them. Society will thus be participatory and egalitarian.

Participatory planning allows participants to exercise direct democracy and allows ordinary citizens to control their own lives. Citizens of a anarchistic society can be organized into federations of workers and consumer councils. Workers in worker councils need to articulate proposals on what and how much they can produce, as well as the resources needed for production. Consumers, on the other hand, will need to express through proposals what and how much they intend to consume. Through a system of proposals, amendments, and rejections, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What is with the recent influx of threads stating people must be "taught" to be free - leading to an implication of there needing to be (temporary) authority?

Will you make me your master so I can teach you that's wrong?

[Nwoye]

I would remove the illegitimate property, by force if necessary.
then you just created a state. see, if you take away his land then you establish your organization as a body which enforces its legislative will over a geographical area, using force if necessary.

the question you need to address now is whether that would be legitimate.

[redflag32]

As Zeronowhere correctly pointed out some posts before, the economic liberation will come as per Capitalism will be destroyed,and from there different tendencies will get up and decide the economical organization of each commune.
With Anarchism we are after the destroy of Capitalism, Discrimination,rulers, laws etc fascism and everything that has to do with the current system which oppress and discriminates against humans.With the abolition of those comes the freedom of the human and then we would start putting our weight on how we will be economically structured.

Fuserg9:star:

You said that economics comes after "the freedom". What "freedom" is this?

[F9]

You said that economics comes after "the freedom". What "freedom" is this?

What do you describe as freedom?:confused:
Not economics, economical organization of the communes.
I dont think that the freedom of the person relies on economics, year our freedom is economically oppressed currently by the capitalist system now, but after its collapse i cant see how economy would play such a huge matter on our freedoms.We cant have all, nothing will be great and easy during the revolution, but still we fight for our freedom, for ourselves, we let no one to say us what to do.

Fuserg9:star:

[redflag32]

What do you describe as freedom?:confused:
Not economics, economical organization of the communes.
I dont think that the freedom of the person relies on economics, year our freedom is economically oppressed currently by the capitalist system now, but after its collapse i cant see how economy would play such a huge matter on our freedoms.We cant have all, nothing will be great and easy during the revolution, but still we fight for our freedom, for ourselves, we let no one to say us what to do.

Fuserg9:star:

With respect, you havent answered my question. What is the freedom that anarchism posseses that comes before economic liberation?

[F9]

With respect, you havent answered my question. What is the freedom that anarchism posseses that comes before economic liberation?

I did answered that.I said that capitalism is destroyed which is until a point economical liberation.
Anarchism dont posses anything, its an ideology which forwards freedom and equality.And that freedom we get before the establishment of the A or B economical system is as quoted by me:

With Anarchism we are after the destroy of Capitalism, Discrimination,rulers, laws etc fascism and everything that has to do with the current system which oppress and discriminates against humans.With the abolition of those comes the freedom of the human and then we would start putting our weight on how we will be economically structured.

I dont know what more to say, maybe we are misunderstanding each others arguments..Dont know..

Fuserg9:star:

[Dejavu]

:confused:Political compass isnt and an accurate "way of point".
Anarchism is not an economical system, Anarchism is the organization part, its the standard of living, the freedom etc.Economics come afterwards to add to this with different tendencies which of them the most spread amongst the movement is actually communism.
Its not something "new" to us, so no we dont get offended off what we believe.

Moved

Fuserg9:star:

It seems to me anarchism as social organization and economics are intertwined and directly effect the condition of the other. Anarchism proposes no economic theory but it sort of takes as a given a functioning free economy as anarchism also extends to people determining their own lot with their own possessions without some coercive external entity such as government which is empowered by the extraction of resources.

[Dejavu]

then you just created a state. see, if you take away his land then you establish your organization as a body which enforces its legislative will over a geographical area, using force if necessary.

the question you need to address now is whether that would be legitimate.


Good point. I was thinking the same thing.

[blackstone]

Good point. I was thinking the same thing.

No, it's not a good point. It lacks a complete understanding on what a state is.

The characteristic feature of the modern state is its separation from effective control by the mass of the people. The state is built on hierarchical chain of command structures, similar to the private corporations, with a concentration of expertise and decision-making authority into a minority.

Anarchists have no issue with organizations "enforcing legislation over a geographical area". So as long as that authority is legitimate. That power is legitimate when the organization is controlled by the mass of people.

We are not taking away "his" land, he doesn't own any land. The means of production(land included) is owned by collectively by society.

Noone has the right to claim and sell your stereo system without your permission and noone has the right to claim and sell private property with out you(and the masses permission).

In each case you have legitimate reason to prevent and cease the transactions and practices.

[Nwoye]

No, it's not a good point. It lacks a complete understanding on what a state is.

The characteristic feature of the modern state is its separation from effective control by the mass of the people. The state is built on hierarchical chain of command structures, similar to the private corporations, with a concentration of expertise and decision-making authority into a minority.

Anarchists have no issue with organizations "enforcing legislation over a geographical area". So as long as that authority is legitimate. That power is legitimate when the organization is controlled by the mass of people.
a state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory.

a government is the body within an organization that has authority to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules.

so if you say "within this area of land, no one can have private property" and you enforce this decree, then you have created a state.

now whether or not that organization is legitimate is another matter. i completely agree with you in how modern states are structured and how they are completely illegitimate institutions. that being said, what we're talking about here is what at its core defines a state - not what they currently look like.


Noone has the right to claim and sell your stereo system without your permission and noone has the right to claim and sell private property with out you(and the masses permission).i assume you're making an unspoken distinction between property of possession and private property (the stereo being possession)? if so then i pretty much agree.