Anarchism, communism & anarcho-communism?

[Lanky Wanker]

I'm starting to get into the whole left thing a lot more recently so I joined this website today so I could learn more about the subject. Anyway my question is, could someone please explain to me in simple terms (imagine you're explaining it to a complete idiot) the basic ideas of anarchism, communism, and how anarcho-communism differs from both of them (main similarities and differences). I'm still a bit confused on what to briefly class myself as, let alone call myself something like an anarcho-syndicalist. All I know is capitalism can suck my balls. Thanks a bunch for any help.

[Gorilla]

I'm starting to get into the whole left thing a lot more recently so I joined this website today so I could learn more about the subject. Anyway my question is, could someone please explain to me in simple terms (imagine you're explaining it to a complete idiot) the basic ideas of anarchism, communism, and how anarcho-communism differs from both of them (main similarities and differences). I'm still a bit confused on what to briefly class myself as, let alone call myself something like an anarcho-syndicalist. All I know is capitalism can suck my balls. Thanks a bunch for any help.

communism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Communism: Marx, Lenin, tanks, etc.

anarchism: fuck the state. Anarchists are often small-c communists as well.

anarcho-syndicalism: fuck the state, with revolutionary unions.

anarcho-communism: sometimes used for all anarchists who are also communists, sometimes for a particular kind who subscribe to Prince Kropotkin's ideas.

[Dimmu]

Like i wrote in other thread.. All real anarchists are communists too.. No state, no classes and no money is what every anarchist strives for and thats what communism is.

If you want to know more about Anarchism, check out the very detailed Anarchist FAQ.
http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[hatzel]

No state, no classes and no money is what every anarchist strives forYou and I both know that that's technically a lie which perhaps shouldn't be put out as fact in the learning section...

[Joe Payne]

Well that's an awfully loaded question, but I'll attempt to answer it.

Communism is the overall goal for a stateless and classless society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." is the easy and quick summation of communism. A "community of communities" is where the term derives from if I remember the Engels quote correctly. It can only be brought about through internationalist proletarian revolution.

Now, there are many different methods and means and ways to achieve this goal of international proletariat (conscious working-class) revolution. When the First International (a revolutionary organization essentially of all anti-capitalist tendencies that preached statelessness and classlessness) was formed in the mid to late 1800s, these differences came to a head. The Marxists argued for centralized political parties and participation in the electoral system and the setting up of a "workers' State". The Proudhonists argued for mutualist worker coop enterprises, and first described themselves as anarchists, and the rest generally advocated direct federations of working people and rejected the concept of the "workers' state". Eventually the Proudhonists were thrown out via the other two wings because the Proudhonists didn't believe in struggle and revolution (nor wimmin's rights). So the two wings left basically became known as the Authoritarian wing (Marxists) and the Libertarian wing (everyone else, including Bakunin). Eventually, Marx's supporters were also able to toss out the others as well (despite the libertarians being the majority). To attempt to discredit the libertarian wing, the Marxists labeled them as "anarchists" to try to make them look as if they too were misogynist Proudhonists. However, we took the term proudly and used it to instead better distinguish ourselves from the Marxists, as there weren't really any proudhonists left by that time anyway.

so every anarchist is a communist, just not every communist is an anarchist. We merely advocate a proletarian revolution that is completely under the direct self-organization of the oppressed classes. That the proletariat can organize the Councils and abolish Capital without the need of a State, and in fact creating a new state will just destroy the proletarian revolution (as happened in Russia).

Also, anarchist communist is also pretty synonymous with Libertarian Communism (although libertarian can also refer to Marxists who reject the Workers' State concept, such as the Councilists, whom are also pretty cool)


Oh, and anarchist-syndicalism is a particular strategy to achieve anarchist communism, it is not a separate theory.

[hatzel]

so every anarchist is a communist, just not every communist is an anarchist.Individualist anarchists are not necessarily communists. Every (true) anarchist is a socialist, but not all are communists.

[Joe Payne]

Individualist anarchists are not necessarily communists. Every (true) anarchist is a socialist, but not all are communists.


-.- like what individualist anarchists? a few dudes on the internet? Amongst the active, organized anarchists (this includes the insurrectionaries) we all advocate communism. Even if a few shy away from the term for sectarian reasons (having a weird view of a few groups that may or may not describe as "platformist") the content of the end goal is communism. Granted, I know there is a growing debate as to whether or not communism is too vague of a concept to fight for and perhaps maybe something like a revolutionary form of parecon may be better. I know this discussion goes on and is advocated by members of the WSA. However even then I would argue they are still fighting for communism, as even at a recent conference of the CNT they accepted parecon as a form of libertarian communism. So HA! We're all fuckin' commies.

[hatzel]

...you said yourself that there are individualist anarchists, as there are mutualists, as there are various anarcho-syndicalists who don't advocate a communist economy, so no, we're not all 'fuckin' commies', actually...you can't say 'we're all (except for those guys) commies', sorry, it makes no sense :confused: Lying and misinforming in the learning forum is a real faux pas, didn't you hear?

[Joe Payne]

I was just tryna keep it simple. Stick to the majority tendencies to keep it clear for a newcomer. The active and organized anarchists today generally all advocate communism, the only real disparity comes with the parecon discussions, but like I said there are those of us who consider parecon a form of libertarian communism so it's all just communism anyways, hence the tongue-in-cheeck we're all commies sentence. And I said there were mutualists in the late 1800s, I've never heard of any today, nor have I ever met an individualist anarchist today. I also don't know of any anarchist-syndicalist union that does not advocate a communist end-goal (the IWW doesn't count as it isn't anarchist syndicalist and remains silent altogether on the endgoal, except for abolishing the wage system, which really, can only happen under a communist economy). I'm not being dishonest. Well, at least I'm not purposefully being dishonest. Would it help if I put true anarchist? Or Internationalist Anarchist to better distinguish between the majority tendencies and individualism?

[hatzel]

And I said there were mutualists in the late 1800s, I've never heard of any today, nor have I ever met an individualist anarchist today.There are plenty of self-identified individualists floating around in post-left and / or -structuralist anarchist circles, and mutualists can be found in some monetary reform groups, particularly on the European continent. Oh, and I vaguely remember somebody here posting something in the Members Forum here a while ago along the lines of 'there are people with mutualist logos in their avatars, and they're not restricted. Can't we restrict mutualists?', so there have at least been a few mutualists on this very site...I don't know what the policy is, though, whether they're restricted or not, whether there are any still here :confused:
Would it help if I put true anarchist? Or Internationalist Anarchist to better distinguish between the majority tendencies and individualism?Not really, because that would be getting pretty dismissive of other tendencies. Whilst it makes sense to claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't true anarchism, because anarchism inevitably calls for the abolition of capitalism, dismissing those tendencies which advocate a non-communist socialist economy as somehow 'false' or non-internationalist forms of anarchism is an unfair conclusion to draw. Much easier would be to say 'the majority of anarchists are communists' :)

[Lanky Wanker]

Thanks for the replies so far, I had the very basic idea already but just wanted some anarchists/communists to clear it up a bit more. Another question though; are the majority of left wingers looking to abolish the money system or is that more of a minority thing? I hear a lot of talk about it between different types of anarchists.

[Gorilla]

Another question though; are the majority of left wingers looking to abolish the money system or is that more of a minority thing? I hear a lot of talk about it between different types of anarchists.

Marxists generally don't want to abolish the monetary system right away but think that will be done eventually as society progresses toward classless, stateless communism under the leadership of the proletariat. Although there is the PLP that advocates abolishing it right away but they're widely considered 'Pol Pot-ist' for doing so.

Among the 19th century anarchists, Kropotkin wanted to abolish money immediately and Bakunin didn't. I think anarcho-syndicalists tend to follow Bakunin's line but there are many anarcho-communists down with Kropotkin.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well we must be a bit specific. Some people felt some kind of labor credit system would need to replace currency, while others [Kroprotkinites] believe in some kind of utopian free-access.

[EvilRedGuy]

Well we must be a bit specific. Some people felt some kind of labor credit system would need to replace currency, while others [Kroprotkinites] believe in some kind of utopian free-access.
I'd rather say its the credit system that is utopian :rolleyes:
And whats with the "ite" at the end of any idealogy you don't accept? Sectarianism. :rolleyes:

Fuck you.

[nuisance]

Among the 19th century anarchists, Kropotkin wanted to abolish money immediately and Bakunin didn't. I think anarcho-syndicalists tend to follow Bakunin's line but there are many anarcho-communists down with Kropotkin.
Anarchist-communism only really come up after the death of Bakunin (himself an anarchist-collectivist), by anarchists predominatley in Italy- who did not declare as much till Bakunin died, out of respect for him.
All anarchist-communists are down with the abolition of the monetary system, since communism is necessarily moneyless.

[hatzel]

All anarchist-communists are down with the abolition of the monetary system, since communism is necessarily moneyless.I assume that was a typo, and that they meant anarcho-syndicalists down with Kropotkin...or that in addition to the anarcho-syndicalists, there are many anarcho-communists...

[Thirsty Crow]

I'd rather say its the credit system that is utopian :rolleyes:
And whats with the "ite" at the end of any idealogy you don't accept? Sectarianism. :rolleyes:

Fuck you.

You don't understand the specifics of the political usage of the term "utopian", do you?

[nuisance]

You don't understand the specifics of the political usage of the term "utopian", do you?
Do you? The word is commonly misused on here and in everyday life.

Definition of utopia:
“The word describes an ideal community free from conflict which incorporates a clear set of values and allows the complete satisfaction of human needs.” (Burden 2006: 716).

Definition of utopianism:
“Critical and creative thinking projecting alternative social worlds that would realize the best possible way of being, based on rational and moral principles, accounts of human nature and history, or imagined technological possibilities. Utopian thinking invariably contains criticism of the status quo. It aims to overcome social inequality, economic exploitation, sexual repression, and other possible forms of domination that make well-being and happiness in this life impossible” (Kögler 2005: 939).
So based on these definitions my argument is that we should not be striving for a utopia, that is a perfect world, but our movement should be imbued with its spirit, that is, we should be actively involved in “critical and creative thinking projecting alternative social worlds”. In the rest of this essay I will discuss utopia and utopianism from the perspective of answering its critics because they have been successful in giving utopianism a bad press.

http://thecommune.co.uk/2009/09/27/the-spirit-of-utopia-today/

[hatzel]

You don't understand the specifics of the political usage of the term "utopian", do you?Last time I checked it's just anything that vaguely resembles that book that time :thumbup: But seriously, I don't consider the word 'utopian' to be a political insult. One of my favourite phrases (as I often use in my essays and the like) is 'to convert our utopian ideas into a topian reality.' Seriously. Use it all the time. Love it. I think it's just been sullied by self-declared 'scientific' socialists trying to discredit the ideologies of others. Of course we have our own arguments about why 'scientific' socialism is a horrendous concept, but let's not open that can of worms here :unsure:

[Thirsty Crow]

Do you? The word is commonly misused on here and in everyday life.

From my understanding, it is completely wrong to conclude that renumeration based on work hours is "utopian" (in fact, it is equally wrong to conclude that "free access" is "utopian").
The basic operation of "utopianism" is to claim that finished, closed system of ideas needs to be adopted by a given social group in order that the system may be "realized".
Coontrary to this position, I think that any kind of an "association" of ideas pertaining to the creation of a classless society necessarily arises from concrete struggles of the revolutionary subject - the global proletariat. Theory stands or falls with practice.

As far as Burden's definition is concerned (is it a dictionary or...?:confused:), I reject "utopianism" which would be based on such grounds since the aim of communists is not to creat an "ideal community free from conflict". Conflict will exist, in one form or another, in global communism. It's just that the very structure of production will not be based on conflicting positions engendering wage labour-capital relation.

I cannot object to the "definition of utopianism". That's a valid and useful endeavour, in my opinion.



All anarchist-communists are down with the abolition of the monetary system, since communism is necessarily moneyless.

I just hope that anarchists do not equate the monetary system with renumeration in general.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

to the op, you'd be better off reading stuff on the subject than reading this thread. the anarchist faq as posted will give you a general idea of the principles of anarchism. read kropotkin's work for an understanding of anarcho-communism itself. as for communism and what it means as an idea, i can't personally think of a good introduction or definition to recommend you, but perhaps someone else can.

read these and compare and contrast if you will, this thread doesn't strike me as particularly useful to you.

[Lanky Wanker]

again, thanks to everyone for the info. I'll definitely check out some of kropotkin's stuff. it's just most of the stuff I find when I search for anarcho-communism doesn't really answer my questions (and if it does, I'm too much of a newbie to the subject to 100% fully understand it). I'll try and hold off posting questions unless I have to.

[Dimmu]

again, thanks to everyone for the info. I'll definitely check out some of kropotkin's stuff. it's just most of the stuff I find when I search for anarcho-communism doesn't really answer my questions (and if it does, I'm too much of a newbie to the subject to 100% fully understand it). I'll try and hold off posting questions unless I have to.


Hey, like GK95 said, read the Anarchist FAQ, it answers most of the questions..

As for not posting, why? Best way to test your convictions is by debating. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

The differences between them are simple and small.
Communists believe in the stages of society that Marx laid out and believe we need to establish a socialist state so we can move on to a classless and stateless society.
Anarcho-Communists are the same but they feel that the we do not need to establish a socialist state first and can move straight into a classless and stateless society.
Anarchists vary greatly. There are fake individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) and there are the leftist anarchists who would be considered anarcho-communists or something similar. All anarchists believe in doing away with the state but not all anarchists believe in doing away with classes.

Hopefully I explained that well enough.

[Joe Payne]

Well, not all Marxists are into stages. The Situationists described themselves as both Libertarians and revolutionary Marxists, they rejected the worker state and the concept of rigid historical stages.

ANd I dunno about renumeration. That's essentially the big question in the parecon vs communism debate. We (communists...or maybe more hardline or pure communists, cause some of us consider parecon to be a form of communism anyways) see remuneration as the same as wages. We see the concept of renumeration ignoring commodity fetishism and the essential role it plays in the class system. Essentially remuneration leaves fetishized and alienated humyn relationships to production intact, and their absolute abolition is completely necessary for classlessness. It is merely a lighter, more self-managed form of wages. Which leads to a wider problem of pareconists sort of advocating nothing more than self-managed capitalism, rather than a total transformation of humyn society.

But like I said most of us sorta take Malatesta's approach and leave those (essentially post-revolution questions) for the people in their communities to decide when the time comes.

[Dimmu]

All anarchists believe in doing away with the state but not all anarchists believe in doing away with classes.

Hopefully I explained that well enough.

What? Unless you are talking about so called "anarcho-capitalists" who are not really anarchists then you are wrong..

All anarchist want to do away with the classes, its one of the biggest objectives of anarchism..

[Magón]

The differences between them are simple and small.
Communists believe in the stages of society that Marx laid out and believe we need to establish a socialist state so we can move on to a classless and stateless society.
Anarcho-Communists are the same but they feel that the we do not need to establish a socialist state first and can move straight into a classless and stateless society.
Anarchists vary greatly. There are fake individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) and there are the leftist anarchists who would be considered anarcho-communists or something similar. All anarchists believe in doing away with the state but not all anarchists believe in doing away with classes.

Hopefully I explained that well enough.

Individualist Anarchism and "Anarcho-Capitalism" are not the same. Some will try to put them together, as you did, but they and you are wrong on that front. Individualist Anarchism still gives itself to the support of labor that all Anarchist modes do.

Max Stirner is a good place to start on understanding Individualist Anarchism.

[hatzel]

There are fake individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalists)Nin's already pointed out (quite rightly) that that's inaccurate, but how about you check out Is individualist anarchism capitalistic? (http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG) on the Anarchist FAQ. Then, feel free to zip back here and argue why individualist anarchism is 'fake', and why it's anarcho-capitalism. Then you could return to the Anarchist FAQ, actually, and read Is 'anarcho'-capitalism a form of anarchism? (http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF), which should hopefully tell you why your post was wrong for multiple reasons...tell me if you can guess which claims were wrong, and how, though, because then the learning forum will be doing its job!

[Tablo]

I'm starting to get into the whole left thing a lot more recently so I joined this website today so I could learn more about the subject. Anyway my question is, could someone please explain to me in simple terms (imagine you're explaining it to a complete idiot) the basic ideas of anarchism, communism, and how anarcho-communism differs from both of them (main similarities and differences). I'm still a bit confused on what to briefly class myself as, let alone call myself something like an anarcho-syndicalist. All I know is capitalism can suck my balls. Thanks a bunch for any help.
I didn't feel like reading the whole thread, but I would like to throw my own definitions of the terms out there.

Anarchism is a socialist tradition focused around a general rejection of illegitimate authority and rejects the idea of the socialist transitional state that Marxists propose.

Communism is a stateless classless society that operates under a socialist gift-economy or just lacks wages entirely.

Anarcho-Communism is a term used to refer to Anarchists that wish to achieve Communism in order to differentiate from the Collectivist and Mutualist(debatable whether actually anarchist) currents of anarchism.

In short, communism is a societal structure, anarchism refers to a group of historically related ideological perspectives, and anarcho-communism refers to a sub-group of anarchism.

[PhoenixAsh]

again, thanks to everyone for the info. I'll definitely check out some of kropotkin's stuff. it's just most of the stuff I find when I search for anarcho-communism doesn't really answer my questions (and if it does, I'm too much of a newbie to the subject to 100% fully understand it). I'll try and hold off posting questions unless I have to.

Please don't. We all learn from questions. And simply put...it gives you some indication. Just keep in mind that not all info is 100% correct at all times...and there are various theories and reasons for answering.

[Lanky Wanker]

Please don't. We all learn from questions. And simply put...it gives you some indication. Just keep in mind that not all info is 100% correct at all times...and there are various theories and reasons for answering.

yeah it's just I feel like I post too many questions sometimes lol like sure I can read articles and stuff but it never really clears things up for me in a way I understand. I feel kinda annoying for flooding the learning forum with questions that other people had to work out their own way. but yeah most of my questions have been answered now, there's just a few things I still need to know.

[hatzel]

most of my questions have been answered now, there's just a few things I still need to know.Then ask them! Ask them all! :lol: I'd much rather have your questions than, for example, tradeunionsupporter's. At least yours are coherent and show some kind of insight :tt2:

[syndicat]

ANd I dunno about renumeration. That's essentially the big question in the parecon vs communism debate. We (communists...or maybe more hardline or pure communists, cause some of us consider parecon to be a form of communism anyways) see remuneration as the same as wages. We see the concept of renumeration ignoring commodity fetishism and the essential role it plays in the class system. Essentially remuneration leaves fetishized and alienated humyn relationships to production intact, and their absolute abolition is completely necessary for classlessness. It is merely a lighter, more self-managed form of wages. Which leads to a wider problem of pareconists sort of advocating nothing more than self-managed capitalism, rather than a total transformation of humyn society.

so, you think, then, that there should be no limits on what anyone can ask for or what they can seize in the way of products produced through out collective labor?

Or do you think there has to be some basis of accountability, so that there is some principle as to how much they can reasonably claim? to say, "what they need" doesn't tell us anything. does jack really "need" a fishing boat? Maybe not...he could survive without it. but that would be a pretty poverty stricken existence to limit everyone to their biological "needs". so, is "need" just whatever someone says they need, that is, whatever they want? well, "you can get whatever you want" isn't the basis of any kind of viable society.

So, there is going to have to be some principle that says what it is reasonable for someone to obtain as a share of the social product. and if you say this depends on how hard they work, how onerous their conditions of work are, how long they work, then you're talking about a principle of remuneration. "remuneration" refers to a person's share of the social product.

and the idea that a feasible economy could exist where there is no scale to measure social opportunity costs and benefits provided, well, I would consider that highly implausible to say the least. but if we have a measure of these things, we will have prices.

It's completely mistaken to make "abolition of money" a requirement of communism. That's a highly sectarian outlook.



But like I said most of us sorta take Malatesta's approach and leave those (essentially post-revolution questions) for the people in their communities to decide when the time comes.

except that isn't a wise idea either. if there isn't a lot of discussion within the working class long before, so that the working class movement has a clear conception of what it wants, a more educated elite will be better able to come along and simply get people to go along with what they propose...and it is more likely to serve the interests of a potential bureaucratic class.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think a system embodying labor values, resource accounting, and adjustments for ecological factors in distributing fairly rights to goods, and, of accounting the producer-citizen's labor and social obligations together with his or her preferences and need for goods, under a consistent framework of self-management, is not communist or libertarian socialist. I think those are vital social functions. I would love to encourage actively, positive social institutions and social relations. However, I do not think "free access" is practical outside of technological utopias. Certainly much of people's needs could be provided truly freely - such as housing, much foodstuffs, medical care, and other essentials. And labor collectively as well - collective housing units where all owe up-keep and clean-up to each other, also farming in kibbutzim-like conditions.

Its not some austere Fabian bureaucratic fantasy like Gilliam's Brazil, just with anarchist-worker-citizens attending meetings in-between piece-work in order to accumulate consumption credits.

[PhoenixAsh]

yeah it's just I feel like I post too many questions sometimes lol like sure I can read articles and stuff but it never really clears things up for me in a way I understand. I feel kinda annoying for flooding the learning forum with questions that other people had to work out their own way. but yeah most of my questions have been answered now, there's just a few things I still need to know.

Some things you definately have to learn the hard way...but there is no sense in trying to figure out something for yourself if others can provide an answer or at least point you in a direction for further research. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having difficulty understanding things.

So ask away...

[PhoenixAsh]

except that isn't a wise idea either. if there isn't a lot of discussion within the working class long before, so that the working class movement has a clear conception of what it wants, a more educated elite will be better able to come along and simply get people to go along with what they propose...and it is more likely to serve the interests of a potential bureaucratic class.


I think you are completely right here. To leave such fundamental issues for after a revolution basically means you are heading into unknown territory without a plan which could lead youn in all sorts of directions including the false ones.

This does not necessarilly mean the plan needs to be a dogmatic vision but a general worked out concept of how we want things to be which can be altered as necessity dictates.

Currently I personally favor a money-less society. But that is highly impractical at the current time and I can not envision this working without major adjustments to how we consume or produce.

Basic needs should be absolutely free...housing, medical care in its broadest sense, food, legal aid, any form of advisory activity, sports, cultural and social activities, public transportation, education (this list is not complete)

However some things should still require some form of "compensation" or at leats some form of "payment"....mainly scarcety and luxury items....or items involving (huge) amounts of labor to produce.

[Joe Payne]

Well, like I said, if we consider parecon a form of communism anyways (like the CNT already does officially) than that curbs a lot of the discussion. It then merely comes into questions of how things produced and things consumed are measured and doled out. Directly democratic planning can do the same thing renumeration does, keeping track of what's being made and what's being taken can be done without medium (money). Free access, in my mind, would only become a problem if all people were unscrupulous gluttons, which they aren't. Excess is not a common humyn trait. If things are being consumed too fast, well the community can talk about that and set limits that everyone agrees on. And then if those limits are never reached, reopen to free access.

However if renumeration is not meant as a form of money and merely the amount of products one is allowed to grab, then I don't think we would disagree at all.

[hatzel]

However if renumeration is not meant as a form of money and merely the amount of products one is allowed to grab, then I don't think we would disagree at all.What's the difference between the two, exactly? I mean, from your standpoint. How is being told you are allowed to grab, say, 5 bags of rice different from being given ¤5, with each bag of rice selling for ¤1...? That is to say, are you arguing that every individual should be rationed to 5 bags of rice, irrespective of whether they work or not, or how much / hard they work, or are you suggesting that some people who work harder might be allowed to take 8 bags of rice, and those who work less only 3 bags? In such case, what is the difference from paying the former ¤8 and the latter only ¤3?

[Joe Payne]

Well I suppose that's where the "need" part comes in. When we talk of abilities and needs that of course takes in to account people with greater need and lower ability. Does the nature of a particular job (which we have to remember all forms of labor will be radically transformed to reduce the detrimental aspects as much as humynly possible) give someone a greater need?

And I also feel that any real problems of free access would only arise out of luxury items and not the necessities of life, such as food.

But to answer to what the difference is, its that one is directly decided by the community and the other is an alienated mediator system. Whether to have an item freely consumed or limited is a matter that is decided as needed by the community, making everyone active participants in the organization of production. An automatic, mediated system of money removes a level of participation, and sets permanent limits to access to all resources. There's also the common worries about the ability to accumulate these renumerated credits. Or what if you have a differently abled persyn, if they cannot work as hard but need more resources, how are they renumerated if only their labor is taken into account? However renumeration can also be controlled directly democratically, but then I would say why even bother with renumeration in the first place?

[syndicat]

Free access, in my mind, would only become a problem if all people were unscrupulous gluttons, which they aren't. Excess is not a common humyn trait. If things are being consumed too fast, well the community can talk about that and set limits that everyone agrees on. And then if those limits are never reached, reopen to free access.



Even if a person wanted to be socially responsible they can't be if they don't know what it costs society to produce different things. That means we need a measure or scale of the social opportunity costs of things. that means prices.

Also, if you say the community decides what to provide free, then you're talking about public goods, that is, things where it is appropriate for the community to decide what is to be produced and provided to people.

But people's tastes and desires differ in regard to things that will be consumed individually. It is a grotesque imposition of collective authority and denial of individual freedom to say that the community decides everything you can consume.

This is why each person needs to have their own budget. that is, there own allowed share of the total social product. They can then decide on their own how they want to take this.

The aggregate of what people individually decide they want can determine supply, and then production needs to match this demand. There is always going to be people wanting things and other people producing those things.

Jack may want a boat to go fishing in or room to paint in, whereas I don't. so people need to be able to allot their share of the social product in whatever way they want, to different things. What's needed is some way of determining how much of the social product is reasonable for each person to consume. "Need" is too vague a concept for this. And why can't people desire things they don't "need"? Why does what people consume need to be limited to what they "need"? And indeed the idea of "free sharing" is not distribution "for need" because you allow that people can take things for any reason of their own.

[Jose Gracchus]

Syndicat is right. The issue is not a moral one [though moral hazards may persist in some microeconomic situations, and the workers need to deal with that democratically]. It is an issue of being able to adequately account for everyone's labor contribution, as well as cost in raw materials, opportunity cost of production, ecological desirability, etc. as well as account for everyone's consumption preferences and fair claims to goods [based perhaps partially on need - a guaranteed minimum income in consumption credits, as well as labor income related to work effort and relative desirability-need mix of various work tasks, as well as labor time]. The problem is information - the associated producers need to know what it is people want. Free access does not provide enough information on the desirability and need for various types of labor, or in the various preferences and demand for goods. This information must be available, and calculated cooperatively by the workers themselves to provide a social plan for production.

[hatzel]

Whether to have an item freely consumed or limited is a matter that is decided as needed by the community

Syndicat has already pointed out one or two issues with the idea of the community deciding upon individual consumption. However, what do you mean in this case by 'limited'? As in, should there be some rationing system on each individual item, saying 'you cannot take more than x amount of y item per z time period', depending on the availability? Or do you agree with syndicat, that each person's total consumption should be limited, with free selection of which items will make up the total?

[Joe Payne]

well I don't disagree with the need for keeping track of what's produced, who wants what ('need' has been extrapolated to mean 'the things that make living life worthwhile' i.e luxury goods have been extended to the definition of need in most of the discourse of the libcoms) and measuring costs, ecologically, materially, etc. What the big question is is whether or not a monetary (wage) system is necessary for that, i.e, renumeration.

The concept of "community" is probably a bit vague, because by community we mean communitites of individuals who all have a say in the production process. SO the community doesn't tell you anything because you had a direct contribution to the decision, you yourself voted, agreed, heard arguments, etc. You participated in the organization of production. Obviously we also do not necessarily mean community in the sense of one individual group, but can also refer to the entirety of the society at large (communism is a "community of communities") which with larger industries that are highly interconnected obviously many more people would have to be involved in those deciding processes through use of regional, "national", and international delegate councils.

Free access is a more general term referring to resources in full abundance, meaning we have so much of one thing there is no possible way it could be totally consumed. (The anarchists of Spain were only able to achieve this with wine, apparently :cool:). At the current level of production that we have now, it seems that this is already possible with a vast amount of resources already in existence. I don't see why this couldn't be achieved with virtually all production when we are at full productive capacity and producing for use rather than for profit.

Granted, I also don't see us reaching that overnight, which is why I'm open to renumeration. From discussions I've had we see renumeration as a form of "lower phase communism" or maybe even a part of a kind of transitory period before and immediately after the dust fully settles after a global revolution.

The big fear of renumeration is that it removes people from the production process and creates a bureaucratic layer of needed management to account for the allotments of who get's what. That an automatic dole out system alienates people from the production process and reproduces a wage system, a fetishized relationship between people and the products of their labor not fully under their control. That in essence, it discourages participation and full classlessness rather than making the vision more concrete.

However, even though my sympathies lay with overall moneyless communism I don't think the gulfs between renumerated communism and non-renumerated communism are all that enormous or that the fears of renumeration are necessary developments. Like I said, I feel my own personal view sees renumeration as part of a transition period or "lower phase communism" until total free acess can be achieved.

[syndicat]

well, i don't think you responded to any of the arguments I gave. I find this to be typical of "anarcho-communists", unfortunately.

There is no such thing as "abundance." Scarcity is part of the human condition. There are only 24 hours in the day, and we don't want to be slogging away at 14 hour days anyway. So, there will be a limited total amount of labor we want to do. But if we decide to use our time to prioduce X, we can't use that labor effort to create Y. So ANY decision about what to produce implies other things people want won't get produced.

Scarcity, thus understood, needs to be distinguished from deprivation. Deprivation means people's basic needs aren't being met. We can certainly prevent deprivation.

But you seem blithely unaware of the fact that if you say that there are principles that determine what share of the social product someone can consume, you have a principle of remuneration. "Remuneration" is just everything someone consumes. There is no possible society without remuneration.

[Tablo]

well, i don't think you responded to any of the arguments I gave. I find this to be typical of "anarcho-communists", unfortunately.

There is no such thing as "abundance." Scarcity is part of the human condition. There are only 24 hours in the day, and we don't want to be slogging away at 14 hour days anyway. So, there will be a limited total amount of labor we want to do. But if we decide to use our time to prioduce X, we can't use that labor effort to create Y. So ANY decision about what to produce implies other things people want won't get produced.

Scarcity, thus understood, needs to be distinguished from deprivation. Deprivation means people's basic needs aren't being met. We can certainly prevent deprivation.

But you seem blithely unaware of the fact that if you say that there are principles that determine what share of the social product someone can consume, you have a principle of remuneration. "Remuneration" is just everything someone consumes. There is no possible society without remuneration.
Wait, so why is it impossible to plan an economy without maintaining wages? Communism is supposed to be achieved when we are legitimately beyond scarcity. Whether that be 100 years or 1000 after socialism has already been achieved.

You can't in any fair way measure a person's contribution to society, especially when basing it on the amount of time spent laboring.

[syndicat]

You can't in any fair way measure a person's contribution to society, especially when basing it on the amount of time spent laboring.

I didn't say anything about "contribution to society." I suggested that people who are able-bodied adults, not so old that society says they no longer have to work, should be required to work. Kropotkin also said that everyone who is able-bodied has a moral olibgation to work, to contribute to producing the social product they are consuming. To allow people to consume without working is parasitism. That's what capitalism is based on. The capitalists are parasites.

I suggested that, since we're all in this together and since solidarity of workers in general would be needed for victory, it is reasonable to provide each person who works a share of the social product for personal consumption based on how long they work. I'm also assuming that we've changed jobs so that we share out the rote, boring, unpleasant, dangerous tasks, and share out the more creative, empowering, skill-based tasks.

Now, we can in fact measure how long people work. And co-workers will know if someone is slacking off...and they will resent it.

so in fact we can measure effort in a rough way. and we can also measure the benefit that a production organization provides and the costs that were required to produce their products. So we will know whether it's worth it to society to continue that product line.

we couldn't possibly have an effective economy if we couldn't measure these things.

[Joe Payne]

...how did I not respond to your arguments? Oh and it's anarchist communists, it matter in Italian, I promise. And don't mockingly put that in quotes, c'mon I don't called you "pareconista"

If renumeration is not a medium between people and what is produced by people then it isn't a wage and not a continuing of alienation and so too commodity fetishism. Which then I have no clue what the argument would be then; if you're just worried we aren't being specific enough on elaborating on a measurement system, then okay.

SO then I would say what you're proposing and what we mean by communism seems to prolly be the same thing with a differing use of terminology. SO then there's prolly no reason to go back and forth anymore.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think "individual rights of consumption" and "social obligations of socially necessary labor" need to packaged into a framework that resembles the wage-labor relations, in either its conventional or heterodox [e.g., Leninism in practice] forms.

I think parecon is a good conceptual framework and baselines from which we can move on to more specific and developed things.

[syndicat]

...how did I not respond to your arguments? Oh and it's anarchist communists, it matter in Italian, I promise. And don't mockingly put that in quotes, c'mon I don't called you "pareconista"



you call yourself an anarchist communist. I do not call myself a "pareconist" with or without quotes. so your reply is sectarian.

I'm a libertarian socialist & a revolutionary syndicalist. I don't use the label "pareconista".

I've had basically the same critique of what passes for anarchist communism since the '70s-'80s period, long before i started paying close attention to the writings of Hahnel & Albert on their participatory economics "model". People like you who call themselves anarchist communists tend have naive & unworkable ideas about economics...as indicated by your last 2 posts for example. This is why I use scare quotes, "anarchist communist." That's because my views could be considered to be a form of libertarian communism.