Difference between anarchist idealogies

[EvilRedGuy]

Whats the difference between Anarcho-collectivism, Anarcho-syndicalism, and Anarcho-communism?

[syndicat]

"collectivism" is a non-existent thing. no one advocates it and no one can explain what it means.

"anarcho-communism" refers to a vision of a non-market, stateless, classless society.

"anarcho-syndicalism" was the label given to those revolutionary syndicalists who rejected absorption into the Communist International in the early '20s, and who continued the anti-statist orientation of pre-World War 1 revolutionary syndicalism.

This is a strategy for revolution, based on mass organizations controlled by workers as the means to working class self-liberation. The aim is a libertarian socialist economy in which the industries would be managed by workers and the society as a whole self-managed by the masses, and production for use, not for profit.

The strategy is anti-parliamentary but based on collective working class self-activity and self-organization.

[revolution inaction]

Whats the difference between Anarcho-collectivism, Anarcho-syndicalism, and Anarcho-communism?

anarcho-collectivism was a form of anarchism that proposed the colective ownership of hte means of production, but keeping wages, and prices in some form. its basically extinct now, but paracon has some similarities

anarcho-communism is like that but without wages and prices.

anarcho-syndicalism is a method where anarchists try to use form anarchist unions and use them for revolution.

[syndicat]

anarcho-collectivism was a form of anarchism that proposed the colective ownership of hte means of production, but keeping wages, and prices in some form.

how do you distinguish it, then, from mutualism? the fact is, I've yet to hear any coherent anarchist explanation of the difference between mutualism (libertarian market socialism) and "collectivism". like i say, it's not clear what it is.

mutualism was advocated by Proudhon and involves formation of cooperatives in the current capitalist context and eventually the creation of a market socialist economy based on cooperatives and collectively owned private property.

[Tablo]

how do you distinguish it, then, from mutualism? the fact is, I've yet to hear any coherent anarchist explanation of the difference between mutualism (libertarian market socialism) and "collectivism". like i say, it's not clear what it is.

mutualism was advocated by Proudhon and involves formation of cooperatives in the current capitalist context and eventually the creation of a market socialist economy based on cooperatives and collectively owned private property.
Mutualism maintains a market economy with colloectivised businesses while collectivism has a non-market economy. It is almost the exact same as Communism except they keep currency and approach economic management a bit differently.

[syndicat]

Mutualism maintains a market economy with colloectivised businesses while collectivism has a non-market economy. It is almost the exact same as Communism except they keep currency and approach economic management a bit differently.

but your use of terminology is contradicted by Marx's use of terminology. Marx obviously advocated communism but he advocated remuneration via equal payment per hour of work. This was consistent with communism as he understood "communism".

and if "collectivists" "approach economic management a bit differently" what exactly is this difference? I mean, if you think there is such a thing, then you should be able to (1) point to someone who lays out what it is, and (2) explains exactly what it is. I've yet to see anyone do this.

[revolution inaction]

but your use of terminology is contradicted by Marx's use of terminology.


and?

[Tablo]

but your use of terminology is contradicted by Marx's use of terminology. Marx obviously advocated communism but he advocated remuneration via equal payment per hour of work. This was consistent with communism as he understood "communism".

and if "collectivists" "approach economic management a bit differently" what exactly is this difference? I mean, if you think there is such a thing, then you should be able to (1) point to someone who lays out what it is, and (2) explains exactly what it is. I've yet to see anyone do this.
Marx only believed in that for the transition to Communism. Marx barely touches the actual workings of a Communist society as we can't know for sure how everything would operate. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" refers to Communism. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution" was the socialist transition that still maintained currency. So if your taking whatever you want based on need then there is obviously a lack of currency.

Okay, someone who laid out what it is was Bakunin so you can read his lovely stuff. If you want to hear someone talk about the differences you could probably find something by Kropotkin on that matter.

[syndicat]

Marx only believed in that for the transition to Communism.

nope. that is the mis-interpretation that Leninists imposed. Marx distinguishes a lower and higher phase of communism. he talks about distribution of consumption entitlement as a feature for the early phase of communism. This is not about "transition" but about an actual set of social institutions in communism in its earlier years. Also, Marx claims that remuneration for work is not the same as having "money" as this is understood under capitalism. He refers to consumption entitlement as "certificates" which are not money as this exists in capitalism.


So if your taking whatever you want based on need then there is obviously a lack of currency.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of communism. It would simply encourage individualism and aggressive self-assertion and lack of collective responsibility if there are no controls on what a person can "take" of what is produced collectively.



Okay, someone who laid out what it is was Bakunin so you can read his lovely stuff. If you want to hear someone talk about the differences you could probably find something by Kropotkin on that matter.

this is just the usual handwaving i get from anarchists. Bakunin never explained what "collectivism" means nor did he lay out any particularly clear conception of a socialized economy. He did believe that a federation of unions would take over and workers would manage the various industries. But that is consistent with communism and mutualism.

[Tablo]

nope. that is the mis-interpretation that Leninists imposed. Marx distinguishes a lower and higher phase of communism. he talks about distribution of consumption entitlement as a feature for the early phase of communism. This is not about "transition" but about an actual set of social institutions in communism in its earlier years. Also, Marx claims that remuneration for work is not the same as having "money" as this is understood under capitalism. He refers to consumption entitlement as "certificates" which are not money as this exists in capitalism.
In its early years as opposed to its later years. Those certificates are NOT currency. They are simply proof you are a contributing member of the community. That in no way means you will be limited in your consumption. It simply means you are entitled to consumption. You might want to reread some of that.


That's a ridiculous interpretation of communism. It would simply encourage individualism and aggressive self-assertion and lack of collective responsibility if there are no controls on what a person can "take" of what is produced collectively.
How so? It wouldn't encourage any of those. That might happen in our society now, but by the time Communism is established people would have completely different mindsets. You might want to read Mutual Aid.


this is just the usual handwaving i get from anarchists. Bakunin never explained what "collectivism" means nor did he lay out any particularly clear conception of a socialized economy. He did believe that a federation of unions would take over and workers would manage the various industries. But that is consistent with communism and mutualism.
Obviously you haven't read all Bakunin has to offer. Even if he doesn't explain everything your liking you're welcome to do a quick search for significant collectivist anarchists and their writings.

[syndicat]

In its early years as opposed to its later years. Those certificates are NOT currency. They are simply proof you are a contributing member of the community. That in no way means you will be limited in your consumption. It simply means you are entitled to consumption.

There is no point to providing people with a certain quantity of certificates based on hour worked if this does not set a budget for someone's personal consumption. You might want to reread that to find anything that Marx says about consumption being unlimited...or what is the same thing, limited only by how anti-social your ego is.

might happen in our society now, but by the time Communism is established people would have completely different mindsets.

okay. so, there's a revolution which is carried out against the will of the bureaucratic and capitalist classes who make up at least a fourth of the population. you think they are going to be enthusiastic about work?

not only them but large numbers of people, even in the working class, who have been raised in a system that constantly encourages selfish individualism. and you think we don't need any control on what anyone can simply take of what we produce collectively? I'd say you're out of your mind if you believe that.


Obviously you haven't read all Bakunin has to offer. Even if he doesn't explain everything your liking you're welcome to do a quick search for significant collectivist anarchists and their writings.

you're just blowing smoke again. you're admitting you don't know of any actual concrete description of what "collectivism" is supposed to be.

[ContrarianLemming]

agree with syndicat, Anarcho-collectivism is non existant, I've never met an anarcho-collectivist, just anarchists who insist it's out there somewhere, yet not a single organization I know of advocates it. Renumeration based on work done is compatible with communism.

Meanwhile, anarcho-syndicalism is almost entirely a tactic, thus - in a sense - all social anarchists are ancom, I call myself ansyn if only to explicitly show my support for unions, revolutionary or not.

[Unkut]

Are there any anarchists today who are not anarcho-communists, besides those who specify mutualist, individualist, capitalist (whether that one is legit or not), etc.? Like is anarchism basically a synonym for libertarian communism today or are there exceptions?

[Tablo]

Are there any anarchists today who are not anarcho-communists, besides those who specify mutualist, individualist, capitalist (whether that one is legit or not), etc.? Like is anarchism basically a synonym for libertarian communism today or are there exceptions?
There are exceptions, but I think it is safe to say most Anarchists are Communists now days. There are still some individualist and Mutualists around. Cappies don't count, lol. I don't think Anarchism is synonymous with libertarian communism since some Marxists are Libertarian Communists.

[Tablo]

There is no point to providing people with a certain quantity of certificates based on hour worked if this does not set a budget for someone's personal consumption. You might want to reread that to find anything that Marx says about consumption being unlimited...or what is the same thing, limited only by how anti-social your ego is.
If that is the case you are not describing Communism, but instead Collectivism. It is fine to have some system that verifies you are a worker, but to base consumption on the hours of labor contributed is to retain a wage system and is obsolete since we can't fairly measure how much work a person is really contributing.


okay. so, there's a revolution which is carried out against the will of the bureaucratic and capitalist classes who make up at least a fourth of the population. you think they are going to be enthusiastic about work? No, they won't, but they will have to work in order to be provided goods and services. Those enemies of the people will work entirely out of the necessity to live. Also, one fourth? I think that's a slight exaggeration.


not only them but large numbers of people, even in the working class, who have been raised in a system that constantly encourages selfish individualism. and you think we don't need any control on what anyone can simply take of what we produce collectively? I'd say you're out of your mind if you believe that. And I'd say you're an idiot to ignore the necessity of transition to such a state in which we can freely enjoy the wealth of post-scarcity. It isn't like we burn the captial and declare Communism a success tomorrow. This will take an extended period of time. In such a transition we may actually live under Collectivsm which retains a wage system until Communism is feasible.



you're just blowing smoke again. you're admitting you don't know of any actual concrete description of what "collectivism" is supposed to be.I fucking know exactly and you're the dipshit blowing smoke. Read this asshole.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch13.html
Or if Kropotkin isn't good enough you're welcome to read through this.
http://www.oocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca32

I tried to explain all of this without just throwing around a bunch of links like a lazy asshole, but apparently I do a shit job explaining myself.

[syndicat]

If that is the case you are not describing Communism, but instead Collectivism. It is fine to have some system that verifies you are a worker, but to base consumption on the hours of labor contributed is to retain a wage system and is obsolete since we can't fairly measure how much work a person is really contributing.


now you're being doctrinaire. you're saying that when Marx talked about communism he wasn't talking about communism...and just because you say so. the fact is, you don't get to run your own language.


And I'd say you're an idiot to ignore the necessity of transition to such a state in which we can freely enjoy the wealth of post-scarcity.

First, you'd need to show that your free-sharing scheme is even feasible.

Second, scarcity is a part of the human condition. it's necessary to distinguish deprivation -- people's needs not being met -- from scarcity. we can eliminate deprivation. but scarcity is inevitable. there are only 24 hours in the day. and there are only so many hours people can or want to work. and any time we spend making X is time not spent making other things we might also want. so we have to make sure we invest our scarce time and scarce resources in making what people most prefer.

Freesharing would make that impossible because it has no way of measuring what people's preferences are, the relative strength of desire for X rather than Z. For that you need people to have finite budgets so they have to make choices to request X rather than Z.

earning consumption entitlement through work isn't a "wages system" because the system of wage labor is just the other side of the capital/wage labor relationship. The system of wage labor means that workers do not own or control the means of production because these are monopolized by a minority class. Workers are thus forced to submit to control over the use of their working abilities by employers of labor.

Requiring that people work to earn a consumption entitlement in a society directly controlled by the masses through direct democracy, and where workers directly manage the industries, isn't a "wage labor system." It's merely a means whereby the associated producers determine how the things we produce are distributed among ourselves. It's needed in order to avoid parasitism and to have an effective way for the worker-managed production system to respond to the preferences of the population, which are expressed through the way they decide to use their consumption entitlement.

Also, that selection from The Conquest of Bread refers to "collectivists" as people who advocate "representative government." So he's obviously arguing against 19th century social-democrats, not anarchists. But your claim was that "collectivism" was an anarchist view.

Also, Kropotkin commits a logical fallacy in his argument against a varied group he calls "collectivists". He confuses remuneration for effort with remuneration for value of the work. But if each person is paid the same per hour, and if we make an effort to mix skill and physical labor with all jobs and equalize the harshness of the work, and expect an equal effort from each, then it make sense for each to receive an equal share of the output per hour of their work. Workers will perceive this as just.

But this is not the same as remunerating people for the value of their work. The value of the work depends on how important it is to people, how much they desire the product. If some activity is highly valued, so that it makes sense for society to invest in training and educating people to do it, that says something about the value of the work, but there is no reason people should be remunerated for that value. The abilities people develop through training and education that are provided by society, and which they can only use in cooperatiion with other workers, are such that the value is not separable from the contributions of others. K. makes this point, but it doesn't follow we can't measure the value of the work. We can measure the value of the output...and thus indirectly the kinds of work needed to produce it...through the preferences that people express to have this output produced.

we can also measure the value of certain kinds of work activity in another way. the worker organizations that have the aim of producing X will want to ensure they have a certain mix of specific skills among the workforce to create X. this means they will be looking for people who have these skills. this demand for certain skills tells us something about their value.

at present people who have scarce skills that are important to capitalist firms (and some of this is important due to reasons not specific to capitalism and some are skills that are specific to the requirements of capital) have more leverage in the labor market. they could demand higher pay if this situation were to persist even in a socialized economy. this is another reason why ramping up the level of democratization of skills and knowledge is imporant in a socialized economy. even so, the need for various kinds of special skills and knowledge tells us something about its value, and thus justifies expenditure of social resources in ensuring the existence of such skills.

if, as K. claims, we have no way to tell anything about the value of the work, how would society have a way to determine what skills and knowledge it is important to build in the workforce through training and education?

I suppose that K. confuses remuneration for value of output with remuneration for work effort because he's arguing against the labor theory of value. But the 19th century labor theory of value has a lot of problems. And it isn't necessary to base the case for remuneration for effort on that principle. This being the case, K.'s arguments are not sound.

Also, K. follows the same idiosyncratic use of language that you propose, where Marx is not a communist. But others do not use "communist" to mean only "what Kropotkin proposes." Thus to rely on that sleight of hand maneuver is to beg the question.

Moreover, I'll point out that K. is not very clear as to what "collectivism" means. He refers to a very wide range of people who he merges together as advocates of "collectivism." the only thing they have in common is that under a socialized economy they advocate remuneration of some kind to those who work. but this doesn't tell us how the economy is to work. and it is in fact quite implausible to claim that all the people he groups as "collectivists" advocate the same thing...some are anarchists, some are statist social democrats, some are Marxists. so in reality K. doesn't really answer the question "what is collectivism?" he just uses this word as shorthand for "those who advocate that people in a socialist economy receive remuneration for working." but that doesn't define an economic system.

and Kropotkin admits this. he refers for example to Proudhon as also being a "collectivist." But according to people like you there is supposed to be a distinction between P.'s market socialism and "collectivism". But like you, K. never says what that distinction is. so in fact K.'s chapter that you cite does not answer the challenge i posed.

also, notice that most of the people K. calls "collectivists" don't call themselves "collectivists." I had asked you to produce someone who actually advocates "collectivism," is an anarchist, and tells us what this means, so that we know how it differs from market socialism and communism. you've not done that. K.'s chapter doesn't tell us about an economic system called "collectivism." He just uses that as a catchall for "everybody who advocates that people are remunerated for working in a socialist economy." but that doesn't tell us what a collectivist economy is, how it is structured, how it is run.