The Symantics of "Anarcho-Collectivism/Communism"

[SubcomandanteJames]

I had always realized there was a big difference between Bakunin's political philosophy vs. Kropotkins, however I am still confused why Kropotkinism (Anarcho-Communism) is not considered a form of Anarcho-Collectivism. For example: WIKI:

Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals, This idea inspired the early socialist and communist philosophers such as Karl Marx... Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, anarcho-communists..."

So communism and anarcho-communism are both forms of COLLECTIVISM. However, under anarcho-collectivism:

The difference between Collectivist Anarchism and anarcho-communism is that under anarchist collectivism, the means of production were to be socialized, but a wage system was retained based on the amount of labor performed.

So why is anarcho-communism a form of collectivism, but not ANARCHIST COLLECTIVISM?

And if we are looking at inidividualism vs. collectivism, where do we find anarchist mutualism, often referred to as "anti-capitalist free market"?
:thumbup1:
Thanks,
James
a collective anarcho-communist, but apparently not an anarcho-collectivist, though not against it either.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, Collectivist Anarchism was formulated before Communist Anarchism was formulated, so it makes sense that Bakunin named his theory in such a way as to make it easily distinguishable from mutualism but not from communism. Then, when Kropotkin came along, he named his theory "communist" to distinguish it from the broader term, "collectivist".

As for mutualism, I would actually regard it as fundamentally collectivist as well. Mutualist communities are based around mutual banks, of which all members of the community are part-owners. When someone produces a capital good in a mutualist society, they must either keep it and work it themselves, sell it to someone who can work it, or trade it in to the bank for some sort of currency (labor-notes?), since they obviously can't hire others to work it for them under the system of usufruct property. As a result, most of the means of production will probably be collectively owned, and the rest will be worker-owned. The difference between this and Bakunin's collectivism is that under collectivism, ALL capital is collectively owned and none of it is owned by individual workers.

[Dave B]

There was a reasonable explanation of this I suspect below;



The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." [Anarchism, p. 295]

Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: [I]"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca32 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca32)


Kropotkin wrote something on it below, which is a bit of a classic and needs to be read I think despite a bit of unfair Marx bashing;

The Wage System, Peter Kropotkin 1920

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm)


Despite the Gotha programme Karl was not in fact that keen on the idea of labour vouchers and remuneration according to effort etc. As can be seen from below, starting a short bit in to the link after a underline with;



Now, it might be thought that the issue of time-chits overcomes all these difficulties…..


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm)


There was a good discussion on this I thought once it got going on libcom recently;

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/dreaded-labour-notes-02042009 (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/dreaded-labour-notes-02042009)

[Misanthrope]

Anarcho-collectivism is really a mix of individualism and collectivism. Anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism, you are correct, are both collectvist but it really is just to distinguish the two theories. Bakunin was rather anti-communist, coming from his dislike of Marx's authoritarianism so I wouldn't expect him to call himself an anarcho-commie. Besides that, in an anarchist society, I believe there will be anarcho-collectivist townships and communist townships, as well as mutualist townships. It is all emergent and the most favorable system for that particular area and people will prevail. So I really don't see a point in calling myself an anarcho-collectivist or an anarcho-communist because most likely one theory won't be practiced on a global scale. Any area that is governed voluntarily is justified.

[yuon]

@Wolves
I would suggest that you are almost, not quite there.

Anarcho-collectivism is really a mix of individualism and collectivism. Anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism, you are correct, are both collectvist but it really is just to distinguish the two theories.
Collectivism isn't a mix of individualism (which originated in the USA, later in the century (I think)) and collectivism. Collectivism is a reaction to mutualism, which was the first distinct defined type of anarchism. You could say that collectivism is a step in the evolution of anarchism from mutualism to communism. Anarchist communism was, after all, a reaction to collectivism. Individualism evolved from mutualism too, but went in a different direction to collectivism.

So, I guess you could say that collectivism has similarities to both individualism and communism, but it isn't exactly a "mix" (despite what Wikipedia might say...).


Bakunin was rather anti-communist, coming from his dislike of Marx's authoritarianism so I wouldn't expect him to call himself an anarcho-commie.
Bakunin was anti-authoritarian, rather than anti-communist as such. He did oppose Marx's ideas about the state, and did distinguish between real socialism (that is to say, anarchism) and state socialism. However, I would suggest, that, had he lived a further thirty years, he would have accepted that communism (that is, anarchist communism) was the future of an anarchist society. (I believe that many anarchists in Europe waited until after his death before really calling themselves communists, so that he would not be offended. I could be wrong on that.)

Besides that, in an anarchist society, I believe there will be anarcho-collectivist townships and communist townships, as well as mutualist townships. It is all emergent and the most favorable system for that particular area and people will prevail. So I really don't see a point in calling myself an anarcho-collectivist or an anarcho-communist because most likely one theory won't be practiced on a global scale. Any area that is governed voluntarily is justified.
This bit I quite well agree with. Anarchism without adjectives.

[Misanthrope]

@Wolves
I would suggest that you are almost, not quite there.

Collectivism isn't a mix of individualism (which originated in the USA, later in the century (I think)) and collectivism. Collectivism is a reaction to mutualism, which was the first distinct defined type of anarchism. You could say that collectivism is a step in the evolution of anarchism from mutualism to communism. Anarchist communism was, after all, a reaction to collectivism. Individualism evolved from mutualism too, but went in a different direction to collectivism.

I agree that collectivism could be considered a step between mutualism and communism but I do see individualist aspects of collectivist anarchism. It is not completely collectivist, it is seen as individualist and collectivist because workers are payed a wage and then purchase goods, it is very market-ish. It is only seen as individualist in relation to anarcho-communism.



So, I guess you could say that collectivism has similarities to both individualism and communism, but it isn't exactly a "mix" (despite what Wikipedia might say...).

Like I said it is seen as individualistic in comparison to anarcho-communism.






Bakunin was anti-authoritarian, rather than anti-communist as such. He did oppose Marx's ideas about the state, and did distinguish between real socialism (that is to say, anarchism) and state socialism. However, I would suggest, that, had he lived a further thirty years, he would have accepted that communism (that is, anarchist communism) was the future of an anarchist society. (I believe that many anarchists in Europe waited until after his death before really calling themselves communists, so that he would not be offended. I could be wrong on that.)

This bit I quite well agree with. Anarchism without adjectives.

"we shall always protest against anything that may in any way resemble communism" - Bakunin


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/reasons-of-state.htm

No, the Italian communists in respect of Bakunin didn't call themselves communist. You're right.

I am a gradualist, I don't see a point in arguing between mutualism, collectivism and communism. One will lead to another and any society that is based on voluntary democractic control is good.

[SubcomandanteJames]

My question was never really what are these theories, I'm quite informed. Just wondering if anyone understood WHY they were divided into these labels because it doesn't make sense. However, it seems like the most logical answer is the chronological order that these forms of anarchy were established (Bakunin, then Kropotkin). In my opinion, it should be:
Statism
-Blah blah blah
() blah blah
Anarchism
-Anarcho-Individualism
() ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
() BLAH BLAH
-Anarcho-Collectivism
() Insert new name for Bakuninism
() Anarcho-Communism

However, I will submit to labels just being labels. :blushing: Thanks guys! :thumbup1:

[Misanthrope]

The two are divided because Bakunin rejected communism, he advocated a wage system and a currency.

[Old Man Diogenes]

So I really don't see a point in calling myself an anarcho-collectivist or an anarcho-communist because most likely one theory won't be practiced on a global scale.

I see the point in calling myself an Anarchist Communist because in my opinion it is the best Anarchist ideology. But I do consider Anarcho-Collectivists and Mutualists comrades.


Any area that is governed voluntarily is justified.

And I do agree with that.