Am I a Reactionary?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

I believe that Capitalism is a fundamentally unjust system built upon the oppression and subjugation of the working class. The Government is a tool for the Capitalist Class to subjugate and ensure the continued longevity of Wage Slavery. Fundamentally, an Anarchist.

However, I believe that what must be done is a building of alternative relations to the capitalist ones, as a violent overthrow has so far been unsuccessful. After these relations are sufficently strong and begin to overshadow Capitalist relations and dominate society, then we can overthrow violently that society.

After that, means of production should be fairly divided between individuals, with larger means of production such as factories being controlled by democratic committees of workers. However, for a farmer, we'd simply give him his land, and we would have the ability to decide to form a collective with other farmers or not.

So for example an electrician would be given the tools they need, and then they could work.

I don't know what the economy would look like but I think free trade, is some what important. Wage Labor must be completely abolished, I don't know what to replace it with though.

[fa2991]

Other than the "free trade" bit, no.

[Raúl Duke]

Nothing you said except the last part can be construed as reactionary...

You just seem more focused on dual power-alternatives instead of the usual organizing and your post-revolutionary views are of a quaint collectivist type.

[BuddhaInBabylon]

I'm an electrician and i can tell you that you better "give" me good tools to work with because if you give me crap, you're gonna get crap.
My tools are my livelihood and outside of my wife, my tools are my favorite thing in life.

[Magón]

Yeah, besides the Free Trade part, you don't seem reactionary. Which, also, I might add in a Anarchist or Socialist nation/world, Free Trade would be non-existant because Trade would most likely be Unionized to benefit everyone, rather than just some guy or chick trying to get a little extra on the side.

Free Trade = Corruption and Greed.:thumbdown:

Unionized Trade = Equal shares to all. :thumbup1:

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Yeah, besides the Free Trade part, you don't seem reactionary. Which, also, I might add in a Anarchist or Socialist nation/world, Free Trade would be non-existant because Trade would most likely be Unionized to benefit everyone, rather than just some guy or chick trying to get a little extra on the side.

Free Trade = Corruption and Greed.:thumbdown:

Unionized Trade = Equal shares to all. :thumbup1:

Well, the problem is, that what makes Capitalism so evil, the exploitation and coercive mmeans used would simply be repeated if we had a forced collectivist "commune". It doesn't matter how democratic or localized the agent of coercion is.

In said post-revolutionary world I'd join and be a part of the collective, but people should be free to produce how they want, as long as they are not exploiting others.

[fa2991]

Well, the problem is, that what makes Capitalism so evil, the exploitation and coercive mmeans used would simply be repeated if we had a forced collectivist "commune". It doesn't matter how democratic or localized the agent of coercion is.

In said post-revolutionary world I'd join and be a part of the collective, but people should be free to produce how they want, as long as they are not exploiting others.

That's something you may have to just get over, comrade. The mere existence of capitalistic economies and private property is in itself coercion. Someone is going to have to use coercion - it may as well be the forces for freedom and justice.

[Magón]

Well, the problem is, that what makes Capitalism so evil, the exploitation and coercive mmeans used would simply be repeated if we had a forced collectivist "commune". It doesn't matter how democratic or localized the agent of coercion is.

In said post-revolutionary world I'd join and be a part of the collective, but people should be free to produce how they want, as long as they are not exploiting others.

I see what you're saying, I've heard it all before, but collectivizing or unionizing trade doesn't mean you would restrict what one farmer can grow and another can't. It wouldn't work like that at all. What it would do, is allow the farmers to equally gain from their work. Like two Wheat Farmers would share in the profit of the years Wheat produce, rather than just one farmer over here making his own profit, and another working over there and making his profit. More produce, more profit which can go to sustain themselves and more the planting of next years crop of Wheat.

Free Trade somewhat restricts that, and allows one Wheat Farmer to become greedier than the others, by not working with his fellow Wheat Farmers to produce a sizable crop that they can all profit from together, and work equally together for a bigger and better What produce the following year.

[AK]

Wage Labor must be completely abolished, I don't know what to replace it with though.
I was thinking something along the lines of a gift economy, with labour credits/cheques being used as a temporary currency (read: this does not equal wage slavery (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1799173&postcount=11) (which is the economic enslavement of one class of labourers to a class which controls capital) - but it doesn't form part of communism, either, because society would not be moneyless) during times of scarcity.

[Qayin]

Participatory Economics, Mutual Aid, Syndicalism ect