Differences between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism. [Archive]

ckaihatsu

5th July 2016, 14:24

Last night while laboring it came to me that perhaps Libertarian Socialism is not Libertarianism + Socialism but instead a Libertarian for of Socialism. Distinct from Communism or even most collectivism where the product of labor is gathered by the community as a whole in what some individualists would call theft (I dont necessarily hold this view); the Collectivization of both land and Labor. Where as a more Libertarian take on Socialism would be the collectivization of land but the Individual would retain the Product of his or her Labor.

This "distinction" is impractical, and thus unrealistic, these days because humanity has long surpassed mom-and-pop family farm production -- you, like all libertarians, are dependent on a localist *agrarian* scenario when the Industrial Revolution was over 200 years ago.

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

---

My point is that, these days, all life-and-livelihood-dependent types of production could technically be *fully automated*, and the more-pressing political point is *why they aren't*. (Capitalism can't do full employment or full automation because doing either would be equivalent to the bourgeoisie giving up its privileged class position.)

So the real-world scenario is *not* what your type constantly implies, something along the lines of sharecropping -- rather, it's about *who benefits* from the mature-automation of all socially necessary production, like that of food, transportation, household products, etc.

'The individual [retaining] the product of his or her labor' is *meaningless* in such an advanced technological society, such as would be possible with the overthrow of the ruling class -- so much can be produced now with so little initial human effort that 'labor' itself almost becomes meaningless as well. As long as sufficient technical infrastructure is maintained, machines will turn raw materials into finished products indefinitely -- the resulting goods and services *dwarf* those who supply the necessary labor inputs, far surpassing the workers' actual physical capacities to *consume* such numerous products.

This may require a Market to set value or some form of Currency to set prices as the individual would have need to sell his or her product. This Currency or Market; as well as form of collectivized state apparatus would exclude the phrase Communism from being applied.

Yes -- currencies and markets are *obsolete* since work inputs are so leveraged now, providing an *abundance* of goods and services, to potentially everyone barring no one.

From what I understand and now believe is that libertarian Socialism is anything in the South Left sphere of this chart
[ATTACH]19478[ATTACH].

Including Anarchism, and other Forms of socialism where the principles of individualism and liberty override the collective rule.

See, you're still thinking in monolithic bourgeois terms of 'rights' -- there would be no 'collective rule', as in an elitist-entity dictating of people's *lifestyles*, because there would be no existing social basis for such elitism once everyone has egalitarian free-access to the collective *production* of whatever.

Really, if a 3D-printer-like user interface was grafted onto whatever conventional-large-scale industrial pipeline processes were retained, anyone could simply visit a webpage on the Internet to put in a standing order for whatever mass-production goods or services they wanted, and the fulfillment of anyone's order would be almost fully automated, with little-to-negligible inputs of actual human labor.

I am less and less convinced that Communism is or can be within the libertarian Left. I am going to do some further research on this as I am not yet
I do However hold that libertarianism for myself is of the Utmost importance and that any form of collectivism I support will have to be libertarian in nature.

You're hanging onto the *historical* denotation of 'Communism', while fully-global 'communism' is something that the world has not yet seen.

The question is who acquires the Product of the Workers Labors? If the answer is not the Individual Worker I would say you are not libertarian. Theft of Product by a Capitalist or a State is no different.
Taking back the Means of Production is not the same as Theft as the Means of Production should rightfully belong to the people.

If 'the means of production rightfully belong to the people' -- workers -- then society would simply have to look to whatever the workers consent to freely produce, on freely available means of production, for whatever the whole population ultimately receives.

Exterminatus

5th July 2016, 21:02

The question is who acquires the Product of the Workers Labors? If the answer is not the Individual Worker I would say you are not libertarian. Theft of Product by a Capitalist or a State is no different.
Taking back the Means of Production is not the same as Theft as the Means of Production should rightfully belong to the people.

The answer is not the individual worker because this is utopian and even reactionary thinking. There is no "theft" if there is no economic and therefore ideological basis which enables us to conceive the very concept of "theft". This is moralist nonsense. Instead, collective productive output of society will be at the service of the whole society through certain administrative organs. No more "yours" and "mine". Without this, the concept of theft itself becomes obsolete. We can't know right now how exactly this distribution of goods will work in practice because Communism is not some abstract state of affairs according to which the existing world adjusts itself, but really existing, socially conscious and organic movement born from the social antagonism immanent to capitalism itself. This is what Karl Marx criticized about early socialism, which he deemed unscientific and therefore utopian.

Simply put, it is too soon to speak of this. Hell, we can't even think of tactics and strategies for class struggle in the 21th century, let alone how will self-conscious society organize itself. We can have a general idea of what Communism won't be and can't be, but whatever we suggest beyond this will inevitably be in vain.

(A)

6th July 2016, 00:43

LeftistsAreRadical

6th July 2016, 06:52

I am less and less convinced that Communism is or can be within the libertarian Left. I am going to do some further research on this as I am not yet sure.

Communism is inherently stateless and libertarian/anarchist. Communism is reached under a common ownership of the means of production and a true and total liberation of all people, erasing all divides among society, including those that are racial, sexual, etc, in manner. This includes a hierarchical system, like that of a state. A state does not exist under communism, as there is no need for it under true communism.

- - - Updated - - -

I maintain that anything I produce is mine and if taken from me without my consent constitutes theft.

Could you define exactly what you mean by "mine"? That is a very individualistic and non-communal statement, which means it is inherently against leftism.

RedMaterialist

6th July 2016, 07:24

I maintain that anything I produce is mine and if taken from me without my consent constitutes theft.

The problem is that almost everything produced in modern society is produced socially. If you work in a factory or business with a thousand other workers and you produce a computer game, then you have only produced a small portion of the product.

The only practical way for you to own your product is if everyone in the factory owned the game and its copyright in common. Now, you could own a 1,000ths share of the game and receive a 1,000ths share of the profits. But first you would have to convince the other 999 workers that this was the most effective way to manage the company. Your problem is that your product is socially produced, and therefore must be socially owned and managed.

You could only own the product of your work if you owned the means of production of your work. Right now the capitalists own the means of production and, therefore, own the product.

Under socialism the factories, offices, computers, and other means of production are not owned by individual workers but rather by a society of workers acting in concert.

(A)

6th July 2016, 07:28

Communism is inherently stateless and libertarian/anarchist. Communism is reached under a common ownership of the means of production and a true and total liberation of all people, erasing all divides among society, including those that are racial, sexual, etc, in manner. This includes a hierarchical system, like that of a state. A state does not exist under communism, as there is no need for it under true communism.

I dont see how. Without a Dictatorship of the proletariat to decide who does what and who works where how will anything get done?
Two possibility's. Everyone is free to do as they like and we hope it all works out or their is a mechanism that directs the work and controls the product of labor.
If communism is anarchism in what ways is anarchism not communism?

Could you define exactly what you mean by "mine"? That is a very individualistic and non-communal statement, which means it is inherently against leftism.

I was referring to the Property that is the Product of a workers Labor. An employer may say that it is his product and that the worker is owed only a Wage for his labor. From what I can tell many Communists believe that that chair belongs to everyone and that I am only owed a social dividend for my labor. Is that the case?

LeftistsAreRadical

6th July 2016, 07:46

I dont see how. Without a Dictatorship of the proletariat to decide who does what and who works where how will anything get done?
Two possibility's. Everyone is free to do as they like and we hope it all works out or their is a mechanism that directs the work and controls the product of labor.
If communism is anarchism in what ways is anarchism not communism?

Under true communism, there is a mechanism to help direct and decide, but it is not a state, and it would have to be (at least relatively to communism) totalitarian to call it even a government. There is a mechanism for governance, but not a state or government. Additionally, under a communist society, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be held in power not due to totalitarianism or unnecessary authority, but simply because all forms of oppression and inequality, including a hierarchical system that allows for there to be an existence of the bourgeoisie, will have been filtered out through the socialist transition. Basically, the dictatorship of the proletariat will remain in place because the proletariat is all that is left. It's also important to note that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not necessarily a literal dictatorship of totalitarianism.

I was referring to the Property that is the Product of a workers Labor. An employer may say that it is his product and that the worker is owed only a Wage for his labor. From what I can tell many Communists believe that that chair belongs to everyone and that I am only owed a social dividend for my labor. Is that the case?

Labor under a socialist/communist society leads to socially produced/owned products. For example, your labor on a farm produces our food.

Exterminatus

6th July 2016, 11:50

I maintain that anything I produce is mine and if taken from me without my consent constitutes theft.

Ok then, just don't be in denial that you are anything but a petty bourgeois ideologue.

(A)

6th July 2016, 12:59

Deal; as long as you admit you are nothing but a state capitalist.

I dont understand how a stateless society can "acquire" the Product that a worker labors.
Their would have to be a mechanism run by people with authority over the worker. Now maybe you can say that since the "Mechanism" is democratically controlled
that it does not constitute a state but that's not entirely accurate is it. You would have a society of individuals ruled over by the Dictatorship of the working class.
A dictatorship as in a political entity with complete power over the means of production and therefor the workers lives.

ckaihatsu

6th July 2016, 17:34

I maintain that anything I produce is mine and if taken from me without my consent constitutes theft.

If the question is that is the difference between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism; then I would say that a Libertarian form of Socialism where the Individual is free to work and live as he sees fit without the coercive nature of the state (I.E. Anarchism) would then lead to a libertarian form of Communism. Where as an Authoritarian form of socialism where the state dictates and controls production and wields the power of the worker then could never form A truly Stateless, classless society.

As I mentioned in conversation with you at another thread, your politics is unable to address the dynamic of public-vs.-private -- this happens to be an unresolvable schism / separation within the capitalist mode of production, and also within your conception of a post-capitalist society as well.

If a public sector is to exist, with the power of taxation, then the proceeds of your own individual labor are going to be subject to taxation, outside of your own individual political inputs into that public / quasi-collective institution. (It could potentially be more taxation than you are personally comfortable with.)

And if a public sector is to *not* exist, then the market would be the only mechanism by which to valuate anyone's various inputs of labor-effort -- you may find that your own labor is valued *very low* on the market due to worldwide competition and private owners' use of machinery, driving down their objective need for your individual labors.

---

Communism is inherently stateless and libertarian/anarchist. Communism is reached under a common ownership of the means of production and a true and total liberation of all people, erasing all divides among society, including those that are racial, sexual, etc, in manner. This includes a hierarchical system, like that of a state. A state does not exist under communism, as there is no need for it under true communism.

I dont see how. Without a Dictatorship of the proletariat to decide who does what and who works where how will anything get done?

In our present-day era of Internet (many-to-many) communications, do you really think that there are *logistical* impediments to everyone being able to spontaneously, collectively *self-organize* around whatever empirical conditions, as for production, may happen to be outstanding and unfulfilled -- ?

I'll include here an illustration from a few years ago that I did to show potential structural 'layouts', over various scales, for a globalized post-capitalist collectivist production:

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

---

Two possibility's. Everyone is free to do as they like and we hope it all works out

The term for this is a 'gift economy', which is moneyless, free-access, and direct-distribution (no exchanges or middlemen required) -- as long as sheerly voluntary labor on industrial implements is sufficient for producing to mass satisfaction (as for the most critical items for everyone's life and livelihood), then this *would* be workable, and would also be the logistically *simplest* method for self-organization of liberated-labor.

or their is a mechanism that directs the work and controls the product of labor.

This would be more along the lines of a vanguardist 'administration' -- potentially more-necessary in a period of 'transition', where bourgeois-class actions would have to be *outmaneuvered*, thus objectively requiring more of a *centralization* over mass-collective directions and efforts.

If communism is anarchism in what ways is anarchism not communism?

Could you define exactly what you mean by "mine"? That is a very individualistic and non-communal statement, which means it is inherently against leftism.

I was referring to the Property that is the Product of a workers Labor.

This conception suffers from the problematic of what I call 'labor geneaology' -- how far back in historical time would you go to recognize *all* of the labor inputs that coalesce into the production of the product in front of you, perhaps, say, a chair -- ? (Would you take into account the labor that created the *building* within which chairs are produced -- ? How about the labor for the planting of the trees that the lumber is derived-from -- ? How about the labor for the creation of the portion of *electricity* used within the facility for producing chairs -- ? Etc.)

An employer may say that it is his product and that the worker is owed only a Wage for his labor. From what I can tell many Communists believe that that chair belongs to everyone and that I am only owed a social dividend for my labor. Is that the case?

A 'social dividend' would be logistically untenable, because it would require using the intermediary of *currency* of some type -- why not dispense with exchange values altogether and just have those who *want* to work, work, for the benefit of all who want to *get* those freely-produced goods and services -- ? (Recall that communism is supposed to be for people's *needs*, and not for the sake of rewarding labor efforts since that would be too similar to the *commodification* of labor.)

---

I dont understand how a stateless society can "acquire" the Product that a worker labors.

To put it simply / maybe-simplistically, consider if Amazon was a non-for-profit organization -- it could use its existing methods to coordinate production inputs with those who want to *receive* from the entire Amazon inventory.

Their would have to be a mechanism run by people with authority over the worker. Now maybe you can say that since the "Mechanism" is democratically controlled
that it does not constitute a state but that's not entirely accurate is it. You would have a society of individuals ruled over by the Dictatorship of the working class.
A dictatorship as in a political entity with complete power over the means of production and therefor the workers lives.

'Authority' and 'ruled' aren't really accurate here -- 'coordination' is more-accurate.

Sure, the 'mechanism' could advise that '100 more units from Area A' would be 'ideal', but if such voluntary self-determining liberated-labor from Area A isn't forthcoming, the mechanism would have to go to Plan-B, and figure out different logistics for the production and fulfillment of those 100 units, since they're being 'demanded' by supply chains or consumers somewhere else.

Heretek

6th July 2016, 19:28

People here are conflating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with communism, which it is not. The Dictatorship is, first, an inherently communist idea, and second, what is often referred to as the 'transition' period. Communism is the post-capitalist, post-transition society that comes about with abolition of all hierarchy, including that of the workers over society (the DotP), and as such is inherently egalitarian and without 'political entities' as they are conceived of today. So yes, even the scum of the bourgeois will be treated equally and according to need.

The primary divide with anarchists and communists is the concept of the 'transition state.' Communists assert there must be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, anarchists assert socialism can be achieved without a transition period. Additionally, anarchists have before accused communists of having a 'productivity fetish,' whatever this means. Regardless of the differences, the end goal is the same: Socialism, called communism by communists and anarchy by anarchists.

LeftistsAreRadical

6th July 2016, 20:33

I dont understand how a stateless society can "acquire" the Product that a worker labors.
Their would have to be a mechanism run by people with authority over the worker. Now maybe you can say that since the "Mechanism" is democratically controlled
that it does not constitute a state but that's not entirely accurate is it. You would have a society of individuals ruled over by the Dictatorship of the working class.
A dictatorship as in a political entity with complete power over the means of production and therefor the workers lives.

Because the society of workers produces the product of the workers' labor. You are still thinking of socialism in a privately owned society. It is not that the society "acquires" the product of a worker's labor, it's that society is built upon all of the workers laboring together under a society governed by the rule of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The "mechanism" you are talking about is, at most, a mechanism of the people, and often the mechanism is the people themselves. It's not a society of individuals "ruled over" by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the members of society are the dictatorship of the proletariat, upholding each and every proletarian's basic rights and freedoms against bourgeois oppression.

(A)

6th July 2016, 22:49

This would be more along the lines of a vanguardist 'administration' -- potentially more-necessary in a period of 'transition', where bourgeois-class actions would have to be *outmaneuvered*, thus objectively requiring more of a *centralization* over mass-collective directions and efforts.

So we call the communist ruling force the "Administration"

A Polity is a group of people that are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force such as identity (Worker), that have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy (Administration).
A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government (The Dictatorship of the the Proletariat).

'Authority' and 'ruled' aren't really accurate here -- 'coordination' is more-accurate.

Coordination of everyone's labor; like an employer would.

Sure, the 'mechanism' could advise that '100 more units from Area A' would be 'ideal', but if such voluntary self-determining liberated-labor from Area A isn't forthcoming, the mechanism would have to go to Plan-B, and figure out different logistics for the production and fulfillment of those 100 units, since they're being 'demanded' by supply chains or consumers somewhere else.

So if all labor is voluntary and everyone has needs what happens of someone needs something that no one is laboring to provide. Lets say 'Area A' needs toilet paper but no one is willing to make enough toilet paper or cut down enough trees just just does not want to? Would the Vanguard force the workers to make toilet paper or would the system leave the waste encumbered masses to want?

People here are conflating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with communism, which it is not. The Dictatorship is, first, and inherently communist idea, and second, what is often referred to as the 'transition' period. Communism is the post-capitalist, post-transition society that comes about with abolition of all hierarchy, including that of the workers over society (the DotP), and as such is inherently egalitarian and without 'political entities' as they are conceived of today.

So you cast down capitalism; institute a dictatorship then force the whole world to become Communist.

The primary divide with anarchists and communists is the concept of the 'transition state.' Communists assert there must be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, anarchists assert socialism can be achieved without a transition period. Additionally, anarchists have before accused communists of having a 'productivity fetish,' whatever this means. Regardless of the differences, the end goal is the same: Socialism, called communism by communists and anarchy by anarchists.

Ok thanks in that case yes I am against Vanguardism and this Authoritarian path to Communism. I am an Anarchist. Thanks for affirmation.

Because the society of workers produces the product of the workers' labor. You are still thinking of socialism in a privately owned society. It is not that the society "acquires" the product of a worker's labor, it's that society is built upon all of the workers laboring together under a society governed by the rule of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The "mechanism" you are talking about is, at most, a mechanism of the people, and often the mechanism is the people themselves. It's not a society of individuals "ruled over" by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the members of society are the dictatorship of the proletariat, upholding each and every proletarian's basic rights and freedoms against bourgeois oppression.

I have the ability to work like a dog and I only need scraps to survive; That statement is not comforting. ALL society is a society of individuals who form a collective. It sounds like a lot of this is based on the idea that everyone will just work together and that no force will be applied at all. What does the proletarian do against the Tyranny of the Majority?

Heretek

6th July 2016, 23:30

So we call the communist ruling force the "Administration"

A Polity is a group of people that are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force such as identity (Worker), that have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy (Administration).
A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government (The Dictatorship of the the Proletariat).

Coordination of everyone's labor; like an employer would.

So if all labor is voluntary and everyone has needs what happens of someone needs something that no one is laboring to provide. Lets say 'Area A' needs toilet paper but no one is willing to make enough toilet paper or cut down enough trees just just does not want to? Would the Vanguard force the workers to make toilet paper or would the system leave the waste encumbered masses to want?

So you cast down capitalism; institute a dictatorship then force the whole world to become Communist.

Ok thanks in that case yes I am against Vanguardism and this Authoritarian path to Communism. I am an Anarchist. Thanks for affirmation.

I have the ability to work like a dog and I only need scraps to survive; That statement is not comforting. ALL society is a society of individuals who form a collective. It sounds like a lot of this is based on the idea that everyone will just work together and that no force will be applied at all. What does the proletarian do against the Tyranny of the Majority?

HA! You know nothing of Leftism, let alone Anarchism! Go ahead, ask some of the anarchists. Anarchism acts as the same vanguard as described by Alet and Thirsty Crow in the other thread, which is the only one I referenced in that statement. I said nothing of Leninist and Stalinist Vanguardism! The only notable difference between the Communists and the Anarchists in this argument is our mode of transition. We will have a transition, the anarchists will not, according to theory. Their actions will be just as 'forced' as you fear of ours. If anything, theirs would be even more violent! To force such a change without any preparation will require complete destruction of society as we know it. You do not even conceive 'authoritarianism,' and if that is your conclusion, all socialism is 'authoritarian.' You will not fit in with the anarchists, who, guess what, also advocate a revolution to transform society. You already do not fit in among the Marxists. Go vote for Hillary Clinton or Cobryn and pretend you're doing the world a justice as you sneer at the homeless.

You do not even understand that "dictatorship" implies something other than a stereotypical mustache twirling villain lording over his slaves. And yes, communism will be forced. Anarchism will be forced. All leftist struggles that truly are for the left will be forced. The bourgeois will never yield their power, and they will do anything to prevent its loss and destruction. Including backing actual dictators and fascists. All of South America and the lack of the West against fascists rampaging across the world is evidence of this. Better, go the proto-fascist rallies of Trump and advocate non-violence, see how mauled it gets you. I shouldn't encourage that though, your ilk are known to jump what non-existent moral boat they're on at the first sign of opportunity, and you'll more than likely become a willing fascist the second it looks like you aren't 'winning!'

You and your kind are so blind to the left you cannot even accept definitions when they are spelled out for you countless times across multiple posts and methods. "State this, State that, Evil this, Evil that, Force this, Force that." This moralist nonsense is precisely what makes your hijacked 'socialism' so utopian, so disgusting, and so completely untenable.

LeftistsAreRadical

6th July 2016, 23:50

Democracy, I honestly don't know what to tell you that hasn't been repeated to you over and over and over again. All you do is say that any leftist society at all is oppressive and totalitarian. You lack the understanding of basic leftist ideals, be they Marxist, anarchist, whatever, you fail to understand a single thing and seem hellbent on staying that way. Nothing that I have seen from you on this site is legitimately leftist. Your idea of "socialism" is a society led by the baby of Jeremy Corbyn and Ron Paul. When any kind of leftist stance at all is explained to you, you somehow find some asinine, winding connection to "tyranny of the majority" and "totalitarianism" and shout it like the world is ending. I really don't know how you call yourself a leftist when you don't even know what it means.

(A)

7th July 2016, 00:20

No I am fine with physical violence; revolution in self defense of life and liberty. What i can not get behind is thinking that a hierarchical system literally called a Dictatorship is anything other then that.
Oh no its fine because it is of the people. Its fine because everyone will do it willingly. Ignoring history and pretending like your attempt will be better because we now have 3d printers and the internet and that even
tho the same root causes of failure exist that your plan will work for some reason or another without actually attempting to improve the plan.

"Anarchists generally believe that human beings are capable of managing their own affairs on the basis of creativity, cooperation, and mutual respect, and when making individual decisions they are taking into the account others. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

No Vanguardist or Communist here has convinced me that the mechanism of the dictatorship to control world wide production for all is anything other then a state and at very least a hierarchical organization.
I am not just talking about 1 man telling everyone what to do but the Tyranny of the Majority; the rule of 50%+1. Anarchism is predicated upon the idea of a free and voluntary accosiation. I.E. if I dont want to
be a part of communist society I dont have to be. I dont have a problem with your system or your desire to have a scientifically based mode of production; I have a problem with the idea that everyone has to be a communist.

Free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, a community of freely associated individuals) is a relationship among individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, and private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production enabling them to freely associate (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their individual and creative needs and desires. The term is used by anarchists and Marxists and is often considered a defining feature of a fully developed communist society.
The concept of free association, however, becomes more clear around the concept of the proletariat. The proletarian is someone who has no property nor any means of production and, therefore, to survive, sells the only thing that they have, their abilities (the labour power), to those owning the means of production. The existence of individuals deprived of property, deprived of livelihood, allows owners (or capitalists) to find in the market an object of consumption that thinks and acts (human abilities), which they use in order to accumulate increasing capital in exchange for the wage that maintains the survival of the proletarians. The relationship between proletarians and owners of the means of production is thereby a forced association in which the proletarian is only free to sell his labor power, in order to survive. By selling his productive capacity in exchange for the wage which ensures survival, the proletarian puts his practical activity under the will of the buyer (the owner), becoming alienated from his/her own actions and products, in a relationship of domination and exploitation. Free association would be the form of society created if private property was abolished in order to allow individuals to freely dispose of the means of production, which would bring about an end to class society, i.e. there would be no more owners neither proletarians, nor state, but only freely associated individuals.
The abolition of private property by a free association of producers is the original goal of the communists and anarchists: it is identified with anarchy and Communism itself. However, the evolution of various trends have led some to virtually abandon the goal or to put it in the background in face of other tasks, while others believe free association should guide all challenges to the status quo.

Once communism is achieved their must no longer be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat because the Proletariat will cease to exist. Any remaining hierarchy would be unjust as the class of workers would cease to exist. A classless society stops being a society of Workers (A class) and would be a Society of Individuals who would have to be free to act as they so desire without hierarchy. I.E. Anarchy.

Libertarian Marxists (e.g., Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Herman Gorter and Rosa Luxemburg) generally claim that the state can not be directed towards the free association because it can only act within the frame of capitalist society itself, leading towards state capitalism (i.e., capitalism in which private property is owned and managed by the state) which would seek to remain indefinitely, and never lead to free association. Most Libertarian Marxists claim that free association can only be achieved through the direct action of workers themselves, which should create workers' councils (which operate under direct democracy) to take the means of production and abolish the state in a social revolution. However, Luxemburgists are not opposed in principle to short-term participation within the state and expansion of public-ownership as long as the institution itself exists.

Quotes taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(communism_and_anarchism).

LeftistsAreRadical

7th July 2016, 04:44

There was so much self-contradictory and stupid shit in that reply I don't even know where to start. The actual leftists on this site see your fault, but for the sake of guests and OI/learners I will explain why you have no idea what you're talking about.

What i can not get behind is thinking that a hierarchical system literally called a Dictatorship is anything other then that.

I actually legitimately cannot count how many goddamn times myself and others have informed you that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not an actual governmental authoritarian dictatorship. It is the suppression and ultimately the destruction of capitalistic and bourgeois tendencies of the current society under the tipping of the status quo by the liberation and freedom of the proletariat. It is not necessarily a literal dictatorship in the modern governmental sense of the word. And yes, the destruction of hierarchical systems is included under the suppression and destruction of capitalistic and bourgeois tendencies.

Oh no its fine because it is of the people.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you take issue to the oppressed and exploited people of the world who make up a vast and overwhelming majority of the Earth's population actually standing up for themselves and taking back their basic freedom and rights.

Its fine because everyone will do it willingly.

When did any of us ever say that everyone will do it willingly? When has there ever been an absolute universal will for the same thing? Does everyone willingly reject fascism? No, they don't. But I guess we need to stop all anti-fascist activity in respect for them, right? Well comrades, it looks like we must halt all revolutionary activity because the bourgeoisie doesn't want us to rise up against them and that's tyranny of the majority. We apologize, Mr. Walton. You fail miserably at viewing any further past right now. No, the "free world" is not ready for revolution. But does that mean that it won't make it to that point? You forget the steps of education, agitation, and organization. You have a tunnel vision of time and that is destructive for anyone.

Ignoring history and pretending like your attempt will be better because we now have 3d printers and the internet and that even
tho the same root causes of failure exist that your plan will work for some reason or another without actually attempting to improve the plan.

And how exactly am I ignoring history? In the general and completely non-specific and non-contextualized history (the way in which you are viewing it), socialism has always "failed", which includes libertarian/anarcho-socialism (Paris Commune, Catalonia, Free Territory, etc). I could argue that you are the one ignoring history by advocating for an anarchist system. However, I would be taking history entirely out of context by saying that, just like you are. For example, I could say that the Free Territory failed because it was anarcho-socialist, but in reality it failed due to its destruction from overwhelming Bolshevik military power. One who ignores the context of history like yourself is no better than one who ignores history in its entirety. Even then, as I said yesterday(?), history is not in itself a predictive prophecy of what will be, it is a record of what has been. What "plan" are you referencing? What exactly is your "plan" for socialism? All you're doing is making assertions, you have no supporting arguments nor evidence.

No Vanguardist or Communist here has convinced me that the mechanism of the dictatorship to control world wide production for all is anything other then a state and at very least a hierarchical organization.

Then the problem is that you lack basic understanding of leftist principles and ideas, not that we're all totalitarian assholes.

I am not just talking about 1 man telling everyone what to do but the Tyranny of the Majority; the rule of 50%+1.

You're dealing with absolutes. When the majority is about 90% and is being forced into wage slavery for the personal gain of the 10%, it's pretty safe to call "tyranny of the majority" total bullshit. The majority of the world is anti-fascist. Does that mean that we need to cease being anti-fascist and allow fascists to gain power because of "tyranny of the majority"? Are we just to freeze in the exact way things are now so as not to "tyrannize the minority" with every single democratic action? Your username is "Democracy" for Christ's sake!

I dont have a problem with your system or your desire to have a scientifically based mode of production; I have a problem with the idea that everyone has to be a communist.

Is it kind of the same way that I don't have a problem with your desire to remain ignorant and with a lack of understanding for basic ideas, but I do have a problem with you subjecting the rest of us to your idiocy as we try to address the same issues you keep bringing up again and again and again?

Once communism is achieved their must no longer be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat because the Proletariat will cease to exist. Any remaining hierarchy would be unjust as the class of workers would cease to exist.

Good job, you figured out the goal of communism and the conditions that show it exists! I didn't think you'd ever get it!

A classless society stops being a society of Workers (A class) and would be a Society of Individuals who would have to be free to act as they so desire without hierarchy. I.E. Anarchy.

Oof, you're so close on this one! Yes, a classless society is a society of individuals who can act as they desire without hierarchy. However, in order for there to be a society that is truly without hierarchy, there must be communism. This means that communism is anarchist and without a state, and at most is libertarian. And in order for there to really, truly be communism without hierarchy, it needs to be instituted worldwide. Which begs the question, how are you going to do that with your great fear of offending the minority (the bourgeoisie, neo-libs, and neo-cons)? How are you supposed to move past any society as it exists now without "damaging" the unconvinced proletariat? You contradict yourself by saying that not everyone will commit to socialism willingly, yet you expect everyone to willingly walk into anarchism. This site is "The home of the revolutionary left", not "The home of the passive and unassertive economic centrists".

Quotes taken from [Wikipedia]

https://mamievandoreninsideout.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/cheguavara.jpeg

(A)

7th July 2016, 05:45

The actual leftists on this site see your fault, but for the sake of guests and OI/learners I will explain why you have no idea what you're talking about.

You mean the Marxist Leninist's. I know where I stand and your insistence that you and your ilk hold control over who and who is not a leftist is tiring.

I actually legitimately cannot count how many goddamn times myself and others have informed you that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not an actual governmental authoritarian dictatorship. It is the suppression and ultimately the destruction of capitalistic and bourgeois tendencies of the current society under the tipping of the status quo by the liberation and freedom of the proletariat. It is not necessarily a literal dictatorship in the modern governmental sense of the word. And yes, the destruction of hierarchical systems is included under the suppression and destruction of capitalistic and bourgeois tendencies.

You can tell me a million times more but not one of you has offered a convincing argument that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is Not a hierarchical force.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you take issue to the oppressed and exploited people of the world who make up a vast and overwhelming majority of the Earth's population actually standing up for themselves and taking back their basic freedom and rights.

When did any of us ever say that everyone will do it willingly? When has there ever been an absolute universal will for the same thing? Does everyone willingly reject fascism? No, they don't. But I guess we need to stop all anti-fascist activity in respect for them, right? Well comrades, it looks like we must halt all revolutionary activity because the bourgeoisie doesn't want us to rise up against them and that's tyranny of the majority. We apologize, Mr. Walton. You fail miserably at viewing any further past right now. No, the "free world" is not ready for revolution. But does that mean that it won't make it to that point? You forget the steps of education, agitation, and organization. You have a tunnel vision of time and that is destructive for anyone.

This is Misplaced as my Issue is not with a revolutinary force but the Dictatorship that you want to follow said revolution.

Then the problem is that you lack basic understanding of leftist principles and ideas, not that we're all totalitarian assholes.I'm just going to leave this hear for you. http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/6416-Making-Sense-of-Anarchism-Anarchism-for-Dummies

You're dealing with absolutes. When the majority is about 90% and is being forced into wage slavery for the personal gain of the 10%, it's pretty safe to call "tyranny of the majority" total bullshit. The majority of the world is anti-fascist. Does that mean that we need to cease being anti-fascist and allow fascists to gain power because of "tyranny of the majority"? Are we just to freeze in the exact way things are now so as not to "tyrannize the minority" with every single democratic action? Your username is "Democracy" for Christ's sake!

Unlike you apparently I can learn. I have learned since I took that name that Democracy can also be Tyrannical. I still believe in democracy; just not tyranny.

must[/B] be communism. This means that communism is anarchist and without a state, and at most is libertarian. And in order for there to really, truly be communism without hierarchy, it needs to be instituted worldwide. Which begs the question, how are you going to do that with your great fear of offending the minority (the bourgeoisie, neo-libs, and neo-cons)? How are you supposed to move past any society as it exists now without "damaging" the unconvinced proletariat? You contradict yourself by saying that not everyone will commit to socialism willingly, yet you expect everyone to willingly walk into anarchism. This site is "The home of the revolutionary left", not "The home of the passive and unassertive economic centrists".

Once again you have mistaken my belief that a Socialist Society does not need to be ruled over by any form of Dictatorship; of the worker or otherwise with one where I am apparently counter revolutionary? No I want ALL property to be returned to its rightful ownership; The land and means to Everyone and the Product of the Individuals labors to the Laborer. No Capitalist; state or otherwise is worth supporting.

LeftistsAreRadical

7th July 2016, 07:22

You mean the Marxist Leninist's. I know where I stand and your insistence that you and your ilk hold control over who and who is not a leftist is tiring.

I'm not a ML, I'm not quite sure where I stand but I'm somewhere around Luxemburgism. My issue with your stances are not that you are anarchist/libertarian, it's that from what I've seen of you posting on this site you're very economically centrist. You're like an anarchist Bernie Sanders. My issue is the left/right, not the up/down. I used to be an anarcho-socialist, I can respect the up/down spectrum, but you seem extremely centrist.

You can tellme a million times more but not one of you has offered a convincing argument that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is Not a hierarchical force.

The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to destroy bourgeois tendencies, which includes hierarchical systems.

This is Misplaced as my Issue is not with a revolutinary force but the Dictatorship that you want to follow said revolution.

Then you are entirely self contradictory. You claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a system of oppression because of the "tyranny of the majority", yet you have no problem with a revolt against the minority of politicians, bourgeoisie, and neo-cons/libs. I fail to understand what makes one okay and the other not, especially because the two are codependent upon each other, as the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a revolutionary phase.

I'm just going to leave this hear for you. http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/64...sm-for-Dummies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/6416-Making-Sense-of-Anarchism-Anarchism-for-Dummies)

As I've said already, I was an anarcho-socialist once. Didn't I see on some other thread that you weren't an anarchist until today or yesterday? That quote was taken out of context anyway. I wasn't attacking anarchism, I was attacking your seemingly economically centrist views that you label as leftism.

Unlike you apparently I can learn. I have learned since I took that name that Democracy can also be Tyrannical. I still believe in democracy; just not tyranny.

I find it hard to think that you actually believe in democracy when even in things non-democratically related you shout "tyranny of the majority".

No I want ALL property to be returned to its rightful ownership; The land and means to Everyone and the Product of the Individuals labors to the Laborer.

Here's the issue I have with your "leftist" stances. You say that the product of labor should belong individually to the person who labored to make the product. This means that only farmers have food, only loggers have wood, and only miners have steel. This wouldn't be an issue if the individuals used and dispersed their products in a communal way. However, and I'm quoting you loosely on this because it was on a post awhile ago that I saw it, but you stated the laborer should be able to disperse of or sell off their product at their discretion. This necessitates a return to capitalism in order for the laborers to survive. That is the issue that I have with your "leftism": that your ideal "post-capitalist" society still heavily involves private business.

(A)

7th July 2016, 09:02

I'm not a ML, I'm not quite sure where I stand but I'm somewhere around Luxemburgism. My issue with your stances are not that you are anarchist/libertarian, it's that from what I've seen of you posting on this site you're very economically centrist. You're like an anarchist Bernie Sanders. My issue is the left/right, not the up/down. I used to be an anarcho-socialist, I can respect the up/down spectrum, but you seem extremely centrist.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. I support the taking back of society's rightful property I.E. the land and the means of production.
libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment

I maintain that to be libertarian Socialist (Because that is the crux of this thread) you have to ensure that the individuals freedoms come before the collectives decisions. That the Society of Individuals collectively control's the means of production so that the individual can labor to his hearts content without any form of coercion or hierarchy telling him what to make, how to make it and who to give it to.

The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to destroy bourgeois tendencies, which includes hierarchical systems.

BUT IS IT ITSELF HIERARCHICAL?

I am not against reclaiming what is rightfully everyone's by force but once socialism is achieved the need for force will be only to the detriment to the individual as he will have access to all he needs to live (access to the means of production) and therefore any force used against him will be unjust and anti-libertarian

Then you are entirely self contradictory. You claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a system of oppression because of the "tyranny of the majority", yet you have no problem with a revolt against the minority of politicians, bourgeoisie, and neo-cons/libs. I fail to understand what makes one okay and the other not, especially because the two are codependent upon each other, as the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a revolutionary phase.

I know I can be confusing and I am sorry. Sometimes I am more able to express my thoughts then at other times.
As to your statement that is why I disagree with your idea of forced communism. After the worlds means are returned to the society of individuals the need for force and I stated above will be only to their detriment and unjust. I hope for a world free of the capitalist. A thriving market of free people trading their wares without exploitation and those more progressive among us able to exercise their new found freedoms to create Communist Communes across the globe free from influence or domination just as those who wish to practice other forms of socialism would be free to do.

As I've said already, I was an anarcho-socialist once. Didn't I see on some other thread that you weren't an anarchist until today or yesterday? That quote was taken out of context anyway. I wasn't attacking anarchism, I was attacking your seemingly economically centrist views that you label as leftism.

If it is centrist to want to cast down capitalism and all forms of domination and tyranny then call me a big old centrist.

I think you where getting that from the thread I posted about a Political platform for Libertarian socialists. I want to reiterate here that I am/was just exploring what a reformist platform would look like
for the modern day Canadian voter who is very centrist; at least within a Neo-Liberal context.

I find it hard to think that you actually believe in democracy when even in things non-democratically related you shout "tyranny of the majority".

Democracy does not mean that the majority should have the power to dominate the minority. libertarianism means that the power of the majority ends at the individual. Their power can be no greater then that of the individual as that is where it is derived from.

Here's the issue I have with your "leftist" stances. You say that the product of labor should belong individually to the person who labored to make the product. This means that only farmers have food, only loggers have wood, and only miners have steel. This wouldn't be an issue if the individuals used and dispersed their products in a communal way. However, and I'm quoting you loosely on this because it was on a post awhile ago that I saw it, but you stated the laborer should be able to disperse of or sell off their product at their discretion. This necessitates a return to capitalism in order for the laborers to survive. That is the issue that I have with your "leftism": that your ideal "post-capitalist" society still heavily involves private business.

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Capitalism is not the ability to sell ones product freely it is the means by which the Capitalist prevents the Worker from doing so by mean of control over the Means of Production.
By socializing the means of Production and allowing the individual to freely trade his wares you are not reestablishing Capitalism unless you also privatize the means of production to the individual; which would be almost impossible as every individual would have the means to now live without exploitation.

As an individual in a society where the means of production is owned by everyone equally means that he will now have the power to prevent exploitation by the state and of the capitalist.

That is why I am against state Socialism because the existence of a power structure turns the individual into a Worker and the State into a Capitalist.

As long as a hierarchy exists over the Means of production, the Individual and the product of his labor; he will remain a worker and a classless society can never be achieved.
Communism would never be achieved.
Drops Mic

ckaihatsu

7th July 2016, 15:14

or their is a mechanism that directs the work and controls the product of labor.

This would be more along the lines of a vanguardist 'administration' -- potentially more-necessary in a period of 'transition', where bourgeois-class actions would have to be *outmaneuvered*, thus objectively requiring more of a *centralization* over mass-collective directions and efforts.

So we call the communist ruling force the "Administration"

A Polity is a group of people that are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force such as identity (Worker), that have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy (Administration).
A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government (The Dictatorship of the the Proletariat).

You seem to be equating a vanguard to a 'communist ruling force', to an administration, to a polity, to an institutionalized hierarchy, to a state, to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

What's at-stake here is whether the proletariat would be able to act *decisively*, in a *unified* way, during the time of a revolution against the bourgeoisie. If a particular steel plant is continuing to produce in the interests of ownership, a vanguard-type organization could be the first to note this fact and directly call for the workers of the steel plant to *stop producing* for the bourgeois counter-revolutionary war effort, with the workers at the plant to seize control of its productivity.

This is the kind of situation where the working class would *benefit* from some kind of centralized coordination.

I'll remind, though, that there's a distinction between *external*, and 'internal' -- certainly the workers wouldn't benefit from some kind of *internal* authority telling them what to do with their own lives, so that kind of thing, if suggested, simply wouldn't get political support from the masses and wouldn't be enacted.

---

'Authority' and 'ruled' aren't really accurate here -- 'coordination' is more-accurate.

Coordination of everyone's labor; like an employer would.

Yes, loosely -- but keep in mind that an employment *authority* wouldn't be necessary as long as there exists sufficient places / people from which to draw productive activity, for the common good. Maybe one specific workplace really isn't up to being-coordinated for the production of this-or-that, and so that workplace's potential *partial* involvement really isn't significant -- a centralized coordinating body, fully transparent, could 'tap' *different*, similar workplaces to fill-in-the-gap for the needed production.

So if all labor is voluntary and everyone has needs what happens of someone needs something that no one is laboring to provide. Lets say 'Area A' needs toilet paper but no one is willing to make enough toilet paper or cut down enough trees just just does not want to? Would the Vanguard force the workers to make toilet paper or would the system leave the waste encumbered masses to want?

Glad you asked -- I developed a model that addresses this realistic scenario, with the use of labor-hour-based 'labor credits'. I'll include a quick scenario, a link to the blog-entry introduction for 'labor credits', and a diagram for the same:

simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/entries/11269-A-post-capitalist-political-economy-using-labor-credits

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

---

Because the society of workers produces the product of the workers' labor. You are still thinking of socialism in a privately owned society. It is not that the society "acquires" the product of a worker's labor, it's that society is built upon all of the workers laboring together under a society governed by the rule of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The "mechanism" you are talking about is, at most, a mechanism of the people, and often the mechanism is the people themselves. It's not a society of individuals "ruled over" by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the members of society are the dictatorship of the proletariat, upholding each and every proletarian's basic rights and freedoms against bourgeois oppression.

I have the ability to work like a dog and I only need scraps to survive; That statement is not comforting.

I happen to agree with your critique here -- I take that quote from the Communist Manifesto to be a *slogan*, and not to be interpreted literally, because of the problematic you're pointing out with it.

My critique of Marx's proposal is that it's basically *sloganeering* -- it's easy to *say* those things, but then when one looks at what's *entailed* in the labor voucher method, one should realize that it's simply *untenable*, logistically.

How to manage supply and demand in a planned economy?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195493-How-to-manage-supply-and-demand-in-a-planned-economy

---

ALL society is a society of individuals who form a collective.

This is inaccurate and untrue because of the existence of *private property* -- there's no 'collective' when it's individual capitalists and capitalist entities (corporations) that are exercising and exploiting labor for *private* purposes of accumulating surplus labor value and profits.

It sounds like a lot of this is based on the idea that everyone will just work together and that no force will be applied at all. What does the proletarian do against the Tyranny of the Majority?

Here you're making it sound as though a parliamentary-type hierarchy would be retained, with unfettered 'power' to 'dictate' any and all aspects of people's lives at the individual level.

Instead, consider how society could be collectively *self-conscious*, and how it would inter-communicate around issues of societal importance. Bourgeois military offensive in Central America? What political obligations would the workers of Central America and worldwide have in such a situation -- ? Production of shoes required for millions of people in the vicinity of Oregon? What would workers there and beyond do about it, once they've learned of this reality -- ? (Etc.)

---

Once again you have mistaken my belief that a Socialist Society does not need to be ruled over by any form of Dictatorship; of the worker or otherwise with one where I am apparently counter revolutionary?

DOTP = *external*, collectively in regards to the class enemy in the period of a proletarian revolution.

socialist society = *internal*, with no need for palace-type power struggles or any kind of standing hierarchies.

No I want ALL property to be returned to its rightful ownership;

This is actually impossible / impractical given modern circumstances, like calling for U.S. land to be returned to the Native Americans or to Mexico -- productive property needs to be *collectivized*, for *common benefit*, and released from all conceptions of proprietary 'ownership'.

The land and means to Everyone and the Product of the Individuals labors to the Laborer. No Capitalist; state or otherwise is worth supporting.

And the 'return of the product of individuals' labor to the laborers' is *also* impossible / impractical, when one considers that *everything* tangible and socially meaningful in the world is the result of human *labor* -- modern productive conditions *combine* the labor of millions of people at once, so that compartmentalizing each individual's labor, especially in infrastructure-type projects, is simply unrealistic and untenable.

By socializing the means of Production and allowing the individual to freely trade his wares

'Freely trade his wares' -- ??

Modern production is not about a single artisan hunched over the product of his labors, like shoes, in a thatch-roofed cottage just outside of the village square -- you're continuing to ignore anything concerning *industrial* production and all that that reality implies for labor, and inherently-combined labor efforts, as on an assembly line.

you are not reestablishing Capitalism unless you also privatize the means of production to the individual; which would be almost impossible as every individual would have the means to now live without exploitation.

As an individual in a society where the means of production is owned by everyone equally means that he will now have the power to prevent exploitation by the state and of the capitalist.

That is why I am against state Socialism because the existence of a power structure turns the individual into a Worker and the State into a Capitalist.

As long as a hierarchy exists over the Means of production, the Individual and the product of his labor; he will remain a worker and a classless society can never be achieved.
Communism would never be achieved.
[I]Drops Mic

No one is suggesting an *internal* hierarchy, as to overrule self-determination on the ground, or to command the world's means of production -- rather, internal methods of collective worker *self-coordination* are needed to overthrow bourgeois rule and *liberate* the world's means of mass industrial production.

(A)

7th July 2016, 21:50

Freely trade his wares' -- ??

Modern production is not about a single artisan hunched over the product of his labors, like shoes, in a thatch-roofed cottage just outside of the village square -- you're continuing to ignore anything concerning *industrial* production and all that that reality implies for labor, and inherently-combined labor efforts, as on an assembly line.

When a collective of workers such as those who work together in a factory produce a product there labors combine and the product of their collective labor would belong to them collectively.

No one is suggesting an *internal* hierarchy, as to overrule self-determination on the ground, or to command the world's means of production -- rather, internal methods of collective worker *self-coordination* are needed to overthrow bourgeois rule and *liberate* the world's means of mass industrial production.

We are not talking about liberating or overthrowing but the necessity and validity of a Dictatorship of the working class once socialism has been achieved.
In a socialist society any kind of centrally planned economy would be unnecessarily hierarchical. On a world wide scale having one centrally planned economy would be entirely pointless and cumbersome
With our modern means of production. Even on a local scale a planned economy would be unnecessary. More realistic yes but still not warranted.

The question remains about libertarian Socialism & libertarian communism. I would say that the existence of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat after the fall of capitalism would preclude the title libertarian as
the DotP would be unnecessary and preventative to the later stage form of libertarian communism.

I.E. libertarian Socialism & libertarian communism; exist without any meaningful form of state, Dictatorship or centralized planning.

LeftistsAreRadical

8th July 2016, 05:41

You're just spinning this conversation in the same circle over and over and over. I am finished with trying to discuss these things with you when there is literally no amount of discussion that can pull the conversation out of this eternal circle of self-contradictory petty bourgeois tendencies.

(A)

8th July 2016, 06:10

The problem is that almost everything produced in modern society is produced socially. If you work in a factory or business with a thousand other workers and you produce a computer game, then you have only produced a small portion of the product.

The only practical way for you to own your product is if everyone in the factory owned the game and its copyright in common. Now, you could own a 1,000ths share of the game and receive a 1,000ths share of the profits. But first you would have to convince the other 999 workers that this was the most effective way to manage the company. Your problem is that your product is socially produced, and therefore must be socially owned and managed.

I dont quite understand then what you think social ownership of the product is. Are you saying that the 1000 people who made the game own it or that the 7,404,976,783 people who live on earth do?
If it is the former your statement does not disprove my statement that the individual; either individually or as a collective must retain ownership of what they produce and that the society as a whole (7,404,976,783) has no claim on it.

You could only own the product of your work if you owned the means of production of your work. Right now the capitalists own the means of production and, therefore, own the product.

So social ownership of the means of production means that everyone has an equal claim on everything that everyone else produced regardless of their actual input?

The Capitalist owns the Means so they steal the workers product. If Everyone owns the Means then should they steal individuals product?

Under socialism the factories, offices, computers, and other means of production are not owned by individual workers but rather by a society of workers acting in concert.

Acting in concert how? Directed by a ruling hierarchy of Directors and bureaucrats who dictate the needs of the worker so that then the workers can most efficiently preform their mandated tasks?

Would it not be preferable if everyone had equal access to the means of production with no hierarchy determining what the individual has to do?

You're just spinning this conversation in the same circle over and over and over. I am finished with trying to discuss these things with you when there is literally no amount of discussion that can pull the conversation out of this eternal circle of self-contradictory petty bourgeois tendencies.

If you dont like my libertarian stance on socialism you are free to ignore me. I am willing to debate our positions if you change your mind.

ckaihatsu

8th July 2016, 16:47

When a collective of workers such as those who work together in a factory produce a product there labors combine and the product of their collective labor would belong to them collectively.

This is a *flawed* premise / ideological approach because your position *cannot* address either the 'infrastructure' or 'labor genealogy' problematics that derive from your premise -- if a worker happened to contribute labor for a new building, or to maintain or upgrade a municipal power grid, how would the product of those kinds of labor be measured -- ? Would the worker 'own' 7.5% of the building somehow, or .00124% of the power grid -- ? Could they 'will' such "ownership" to their descendants -- ?

And here's about the latter problematic, from the other thread, in reply to you:

This conception suffers from the problematic of what I call 'labor geneaology' -- how far back in historical time would you go to recognize *all* of the labor inputs that coalesce into the production of the product in front of you, perhaps, say, a chair -- ? (Would you take into account the labor that created the *building* within which chairs are produced -- ? How about the labor for the planting of the trees that the lumber is derived-from -- ? How about the labor for the creation of the portion of *electricity* used within the facility for producing chairs -- ? Etc.)

---

We are not talking about liberating or overthrowing but the necessity and validity of a Dictatorship of the working class once socialism has been achieved.

You have it *backwards*: The necessity for a dictatorship of the proletariat is so that bourgeois rule can *be* overthrown and the means of mass production liberated to begin-with, to *achieve* socialism.

In a socialist society any kind of centrally planned economy would be unnecessarily hierarchical.

No, you're making a fetish out of social structure itself -- a centrally planned economy would be hierarchical *overall*, but that doesn't mean that any such hierarchy would have to be *fixed*, or set-in-stone.

The *personnel* around such planning could change indefinitely, and the *locations* on-the-ground anywhere in the world could shift over time as well, in line with actual conditions at any proposed locality / localities. (See the illustration at post #32 for a conception of this.)

On a world wide scale having one centrally planned economy would be entirely pointless and cumbersome

Hardly -- it would be a mode of production that would be *enabled* and *unique* to a post-capitalist society, a kind of worker-based, bottom-up globalization that is impossible today, under capitalism.

The point would be to coordinate resources and production on a *worldwide* scale, for the creation of whatever end products would require such a complexity / sophistication of planning, and it certainly wouldn't have to be cumbersome given the already-developed existence of the Internet for such required communications and coordination.

With our modern means of production. Even on a local scale a planned economy would be unnecessary.

The alternative to a grassroots-founded liberated-production, up to whatever scale, would be a continued dependence on the market mechanism, which has shown itself to be far too unwieldy and problematic to be retained, post-capitalism.

Your model requires a *currency* of some sort, so that workers may 'sell their wares', but you haven't provided any description of how that currency would be *valuated*, from either the private sector or the public sector. You also haven't bothered to address *where the line would be* between common administration (the public sector), and personal accumulations from one's own labor (the private sector) -- what sorts of things could workers *purchase* with their earned funds, and what could they not -- ? What if someone *transgressed* the line and effectively 'raided the commons' to amass ludicrous amounts of materials for themselves, as from nature -- ? What would the *limits* of an individual's 'private ownership' be, exactly -- ?

More realistic yes but still not warranted.

The question remains about libertarian Socialism & libertarian communism. I would say that the existence of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat after the fall of capitalism would preclude the title libertarian as
the DotP would be unnecessary and preventative to the later stage form of libertarian communism.

I would *love* to be able to say the the DOTP would be 'unnecessary', but this isn't simply a mass-subjective thing -- depending on actual conditions it could very well be *absolutely* necessary, to repress the functioning of the ruling class while proletarian expropriation of the means of production is underway.

I.E. libertarian Socialism & libertarian communism; exist without any meaningful form of state,

Now you're being *contradictory* -- in past posts you've *embraced* some kind of state ('the public sector', in my wording) as an integral part of your proposed model, so that the 'commons' -- collectivized land, natural resources, and means of production -- can be appropriately administered for all.

Dictatorship or centralized planning.

D, pay no attention to the nightmares -- you're simply *misinterpreting* the 'DOTP', and 'centralized planning' doesn't have to look in the future the way it did in the past, under Stalinism.

---

The problem is that almost everything produced in modern society is produced socially. If you work in a factory or business with a thousand other workers and you produce a computer game, then you have only produced a small portion of the product.

The only practical way for you to own your product is if everyone in the factory owned the game and its copyright in common. Now, you could own a 1,000ths share of the game and receive a 1,000ths share of the profits. But first you would have to convince the other 999 workers that this was the most effective way to manage the company. Your problem is that your product is socially produced, and therefore must be socially owned and managed.

I dont quite understand then what you think social ownership of the product is. Are you saying that the 1000 people who made the game own it or that the 7,404,976,783 people who live on earth do?
If it is the former your statement does not disprove my statement that the individual; either individually or as a collective must retain ownership of what they produce and that the society as a whole (7,404,976,783) has no claim on it.

Here you'd rather *commodify* the product -- stored, btw, in a format (digital) that is infinitely reproducible at negligible material cost (electricity) -- than to begin by considering who out there, out of 7.5 billion people, might actually *want* ('need') to obtain the game for their own entertainment purposes. (Communism is supposed to be about fulfilling people's unmet *needs* -- not about private property and rewarding labor inputs in proportion to their contribution, because that just spawns *exchange values* and commodifies labor.)

---

You could only own the product of your work if you owned the means of production of your work. Right now the capitalists own the means of production and, therefore, own the product.

So social ownership of the means of production means that everyone has an equal claim on everything that everyone else produced regardless of their actual input?

Yes! (Finally.)

The Capitalist owns the Means so they steal the workers product. If Everyone owns the Means then should they steal individuals product?

'Steal' only applies to an economics that's based in *private property*. Once the means of production, and all goods and services are *socialized*, from liberated-labor, the individual's labor-efforts can benefit *anyone*, arbitrarily.

---

Under socialism the factories, offices, computers, and other means of production are not owned by individual workers but rather by a society of workers acting in concert.

Acting in concert how? Directed by a ruling hierarchy of Directors and bureaucrats who dictate the needs of the worker so that then the workers can most efficiently preform their mandated tasks?

No -- people's needs / wants, for personal consumption, are *not* dictated / imposed from above.

Collectivized *production*, though, *would* objectively require some kind of *coordination* / administration, which does empirically imply a hierarchy of whatever magnitude, concerning that *particular* / specific production -- as for a video game, for example.

If workers are not to have their time wasted (maybe workers on two different continents happen to produce virtually the same video game, without knowing about each other's like efforts), then there has to be some kind of communication and coordination around various particular 'industries', worldwide, as for the video-game industry.

---

Would it not be preferable if everyone had equal access to the means of production with no hierarchy determining what the individual has to do?

No, for the reason just stated -- called 'duplication of effort', and remedied with global post-capitalist economic integration and planning.

The 'individual' in this scenario is *generic* -- it could be *any* appropriately-qualified individual, and does not have to be any *specific* individual. (If one person isn't willing to be a part of creating video games, maybe another one *is* willing.)

If you dont like my libertarian stance on socialism you are free to ignore me. I am willing to debate our positions if you change your mind.

(A)

9th July 2016, 00:27

This is a *flawed* premise / ideological approach because your position *cannot* address either the 'infrastructure' or 'labor genealogy' problematic that derive from your premise -- if a worker happened to contribute labor for a new building, or to maintain or upgrade a municipal power grid, how would the product of those kinds of labor be measured -- ? Would the worker 'own' 7.5% of the building somehow, or .00124% of the power grid -- ? Could they 'will' such "ownership" to their descendants -- ?

Actually we have a system in place for that. Its called a market. When one produces something for someone else that person exchanges something of equal value. So the individual who contributes labor to the building would be paid for the product of his labors. In your system the Laborer works and revives no direct benefit from preforming his task. So unless he if forced to by a higher authority then what motivation would anyone have to work?

You have it *backwards*: The necessity for a dictatorship of the proletariat is so that bourgeois rule can *be* overthrown and the means of mass production liberated to begin-with, to *achieve* socialism.

Listen OK this is very important because this will be the sixth time I have to explain this.

We are not talking about liberating or overthrowing but the necessity and validity of a Dictatorship of the working class once socialism has been achieved.

Once a new social order has been put into place the Proletariat will cease to exist. If done right everyone will have control over the means of production therefor no one will be of the proletariat!
Once the class struggle has ended (post-revolution) the Working class stops being the working class as their are no other classes.
By insisting that the Proletariat will contine to exist implyes that their will still be a seperate ruling class to exploit their labors >after< capitalism.

The final objective of the Proletariat is the destruction of the proletariat. For only when the working class is no more will the individual be free.

No, you're making a fetish out of social structure itself.

I am an Anarchist and a Libertarian. I am not fetishising social structure; I am making an argument against the hierarchy over the individuals Labor.
I am against hierarchical control over an individuals labors as un-libertarian and against the principles of anarchism as I understand them as well as their uselessness.

The alternative to a grassroots-founded liberated-production, up to whatever scale, would be a continued dependence on the market mechanism, which has shown itself to be far too unwieldy and problematic to be retained, post-capitalism.

Except that the opposite is true. Every failed Center planned economy that has ever existed to my knowledge; has either collapses or had to revert in some way to a market bases society.
The market has created MASSIVE industry and wealth that provides for everyone who is provided for. Its failure is that it coexists within a capitalistic society where the Working class has their rightful product stolen.
If not for the capitalist ownership of the means of production (and only the means of production) the wealth created by the freed market would be more then able to feed, cloth and shelter all as well as create luxury's for all to enjoy.
Democratic control over the means of production does not Limit or exclude a Market; if anything it requires one lest we fall under the rule of the administration and a Classless society be forever out of our reach.

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2873720]Your model requires a *currency* of some sort, so that workers may 'sell their wares', but you haven't provided any description of how that currency would be *valuated*, from either the private sector or the public sector. You also haven't bothered to address *where the line would be* between common administration (the public sector), and personal accumulations from one's own labor (the private sector) -- what sorts of things could workers *purchase* with their earned funds, and what could they not -- ? What if someone *transgressed* the line and effectively 'raided the commons' to amass ludicrous amounts of materials for themselves, as from nature -- ? What would the *limits* of an individual's 'private ownership' be, exactly -- ?

The value of currency; C+L=W? What are your thoughts on the labor theory of value? 19th century American individualist anarchists based their economics on the LTV, with their particular interpretation of it being called "Cost the limit of price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_the_limit_of_price)". They, as well as contemporary individualist anarchists in that tradition, hold that it is unethical to charge a higher price for a commodity than the amount of labor required to produce it. Hence, they propose that trade should be facilitated by using notes backed by labor.
A individual owns the "product of his labor" and what he is freely given; or traded. As the community owns the means of production and the community's authority over it is limited to the individuals then the Means of production could never be sold. That being said it depends on all you consider to be the means. To me a car and a vacuum are my means of production. Does that mean that all cars and all vacuums are to be socially owned? What about paper if I am an author?
An individual could conceivably buy anything that another individual wanted to sell. As the individual can only own what he creates (and given and traded) then the individual could only buy what another person creates. The means of production such as factory's are still socially owned regardless of who creates them so they would be bought by the society. The logic behind this is that everyone has a right to work and a right to the means to anyone who tried to keep someone from their right would be imposing force against the individual which is against the natural law.

I would *love* to be able to say the the DOTP would be 'unnecessary', but this isn't simply a mass-subjective thing -- depending on actual conditions it could very well be *absolutely* necessary, to repress the functioning of the ruling class while proletarian expropriation of the means of production is underway.

Once again as I stated above i am 100% talking about after the expropriation of the means of production. Once this has happened the proletariat will cease to exist as the Individuals who make up the class of Workers will no longer be Workers but instead equal members of the new social order.

Now you're being *contradictory* -- in past posts you've *embraced* some kind of state ('the public sector', in my wording) as an integral part of your proposed model, so that the 'commons' -- collectivized land, natural resources, and means of production -- can be appropriately administered for all.

As the means of production are owned by every member of society society must manage the means democratically. Putting restrictions on use of limited or endangered resources and maintenance of the means such as factory's and roads.
This power would logically be limited to that of the individual because the democracy is that of individuals. If the democratic control has power over the individual then it would be power only held by force of numbers (Tranny of the Majority) I.E. "Their are more of me then you so you have better do as we say or we will attack you." This is against the principles of Anarchism and libertarianism.

What you are implying is that since the Society is the owner of the means that they should have power over the individual to decide who does what. In this case the Society stops being one of the individual; even of the Worker but instead of the Capitalist.

D, pay no attention to the nightmares -- you're simply *misinterpreting* the 'DOTP', and 'centralized planning' doesn't have to look in the future the way it did in the past, under Stalinism.

But it could; so would it not be best to avoid the insanity of doing the same thing over and over. Authoritarian socialism had its chance over half the world. Even if you could make an argument for authoritarianism; you cant say that has ever worked the many many times it has been attempted.

Here you'd rather *commodify* the product -- stored, btw, in a format (digital) that is infinitely reproducible at negligible material cost (electricity) -- than to begin by considering who out there, out of 7.5 billion people, might actually *want* ('need') to obtain the game for their own entertainment purposes. (Communism is supposed to be about fulfilling people's unmet *needs* -- not about private property and rewarding labor inputs in proportion to their contribution, because that just spawns *exchange values* and commodifies labor.)

Maybe here I contradicted myself; I am just connecting logical steps here. I have not formed a concrete opinion by reading others works or co-opting their possition I am following a trail of Logic 25 years in the making that has lead me to Anarchism, libertarianism and socialism. I am not an economist.

Yes! (Finally.)

Well shit I am just going to pull up a lawn chair and spend the rest of my life drinking the booze that others have made, reading the books that others have written and eating the food others have pulled from the dirt.
If I have a right to everything and their is no dictatorship to force me to work.

'Steal' only applies to an economics that's based in *private property*. Once the means of production, and all goods and services are *socialized*, from liberated-labor, the individual's labor-efforts can benefit *anyone*, arbitrarily.

The product of ones labor (a clean office) should be mine to sell; not the states or the Capitalist. If I want to offer my labors to someone who is to tell me not to. Who is to steal the end result of my labors?

No -- people's needs / wants, for personal consumption, are *not* dictated / imposed from above.

Collectivized *production*, though, *would* objectively require some kind of *coordination* / administration, which does empirically imply a hierarchy of whatever magnitude, concerning that *particular* / specific production -- as for a video game, for example.

If workers are not to have their time wasted (maybe workers on two different continents happen to produce virtually the same video game, without knowing about each other's like efforts), then there has to be some kind of communication and coordination around various particular 'industries', worldwide, as for the video-game industry.

That's the problem is you want to control production. Production requires labor. If you control production you control labor. By controlling the means of production and the labor that is needed you are becoming the capitalist.
Labor has to be given freely. In order for it to be given freely production has to be controlled by the individual. For the individual to freely offer his labor he must be rewarded for such.
So either you starve those who wont work by refusing them their social dividend or offer them more then everyone else.

The Freed market is the only way to ensure a free people.

No, for the reason just stated -- called 'duplication of effort', and remedied with global post-capitalist economic integration and planning.

The 'individual' in this scenario is *generic* -- it could be *any* appropriately-qualified individual, and does not have to be any *specific* individual. (If one person isn't willing to be a part of creating video games, maybe another one *is* willing.)

Do you know what a 'duplication of effort' means to me in regards to videogames... more videogames.

ckaihatsu

9th July 2016, 15:12

This is a *flawed* premise / ideological approach because your position *cannot* address either the 'infrastructure' or 'labor genealogy' problematics that derive from your premise -- if a worker happened to contribute labor for a new building, or to maintain or upgrade a municipal power grid, how would the product of those kinds of labor be measured -- ? Would the worker 'own' 7.5% of the building somehow, or .00124% of the power grid -- ? Could they 'will' such "ownership" to their descendants -- ?

Actually we have a system in place for that. Its called a market. When one produces something for someone else that person exchanges something of equal value. So the individual who contributes labor to the building would be paid for the product of his labors.

You're not seeing that this would be *problematic* for a system of (purported) socialism -- ?

You said that the 'community' would oversee all means of mass production. So if the building could regularly be a part of a production process, that means it *has* to be taken out of private ownership -- bought-out by the community, basically.

And then it's back to the problematic of how such a building (or anything else) would be *valuated* by 'the community', and also whether the community receives sufficient funding from the larger population to cover all of its oversight duties, for satisfactory functioning of the political economy as a whole.

In your system the Laborer works and revives no direct benefit from preforming his task. So unless he if forced to by a higher authority then what motivation would anyone have to work?

Exactly -- I happen to agree here, and I've termed this the 'rock star problematic'. (Go ahead and do a search, to find past threads that cover this topic, if you like.)

Take a look back at post #43 -- the 'ham and yogurt' scenario addresses this dynamic you've raised, with zero 'authority' required.

---

You have it *backwards*: The necessity for a dictatorship of the proletariat is so that bourgeois rule can *be* overthrown and the means of mass production liberated to begin-with, to *achieve* socialism.

Listen OK this is very important because this will be the sixth time I have to explain this.

We are not talking about liberating or overthrowing but the necessity and validity of a Dictatorship of the working class once socialism has been achieved.

Once a new social order has been put into place the Proletariat will cease to exist. If done right everyone will have control over the means of production therefor no one will be of the proletariat!
Once the class struggle has ended (post-revolution) the Working class stops being the working class as their are no other classes.

No disagreement.

By insisting that the Proletariat will contine to exist implyes that their will still be a seperate ruling class to exploit their labors >after< capitalism.

No one is insisting this.

The final objective of the Proletariat is the destruction of the proletariat. For only when the working class is no more will the individual be free.

Certainly.

---

No, you're making a fetish out of social structure itself -- a centrally planned economy would be hierarchical *overall*, but that doesn't mean that any such hierarchy would have to be *fixed*, or set-in-stone.

I am an Anarchist and a Libertarian. I am not fetishising social structure; I am making an argument against the hierarchy over the individuals Labor.
I am against hierarchical control over an individuals labors as un-libertarian and against the principles of anarchism as I understand them as well as their uselessness.

Okay, we both know that, post-transition, there would be no issue here, since humanity would finally be fully in control of its own labor, and labor-product.

But before that is the task of usurping bourgeois rule -- in this endeavor the working class might have *some* degree of autonomy over *some* of the means of mass industrial production worldwide, in which case there would be a certain objective 'pressure' to continue to spread the revolution, to complete the task, so that there is no longer any private-based (and/or state-based) *opposition* to the workers' full control of the means of production.

In such a situation of *live antagonism* the proletariat would have to be *good* at self-organizing, so as to 'out-maneuver' the moves by the bourgeoisie.

I won't fetishize social structure *myself* -- if a *decentralized* approach happens to be more effective in whatever conditions of struggle prevail, then so be it. But if a more-*centralized* approach would be clearly more efficient and more effective, then the workers *should* do that since so much is at stake. Hence vanguardism, a centrally planned workers economy, etc.

---

The alternative to a grassroots-founded liberated-production, up to whatever scale, would be a continued dependence on the market mechanism, which has shown itself to be far too unwieldy and problematic to be retained, post-capitalism.

Except that the opposite is true. Every failed Center planned economy that has ever existed to my knowledge; has either collapses or had to revert in some way to a market bases society.

This is *scapegoating* the subjective-factor if you're not taking larger historical circumstances into account, such as the invasion of the Russian Revolution by numerous countries' militaries.

Just because bourgeois rule tends to re-assert itself, with the use of the market mechanism for all economic matters, doesn't mean that it should be *admired* or *copied*, as you're saying.

The market has created MASSIVE industry and wealth that provides for everyone who is provided for.

And here the world is, such-as-it-is.

Its failure is that it coexists within a capitalistic society where the Working class has their rightful product stolen.

The term for this is 'private expropriation of surplus labor value'.

If not for the capitalist ownership of the means of production (and only the means of production) the wealth created by the freed market would be more then able to feed, cloth and shelter all as well as create luxury's for all to enjoy.
Democratic control over the means of production does not Limit or exclude a Market; if anything it requires one lest we fall under the rule of the administration and a Classless society be forever out of our reach.

I *heartily* disagree, since the point of overthrowing bourgeois rule -- including the market mechanism -- is to bring about 'economic democracy', a fully collectively-conscious control of all production and consumption. Leaving any economic aspect to market functioning means leaving such on 'autopilot', as I call it, which is *not* conscious control of the economy.

The value of currency; C+L=W? What are your thoughts on the labor theory of value? 19th century American individualist anarchists based their economics on the LTV, with their particular interpretation of it being called "Cost the limit of price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_the_limit_of_price)". They, as well as contemporary individualist anarchists in that tradition, hold that it is unethical to charge a higher price for a commodity than the amount of labor required to produce it. Hence, they propose that trade should be facilitated by using notes backed by labor.

(Down with the LTV.)

'Notes backed by labor' is *still* problematic because it's basically the 'labor vouchers' approach. My critique of labor vouchers is contained within the following graphic -- and here's a quick excerpt about this approach from my blog entry on 'labor credits':

Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)

---

A individual owns the "product of his labor" and what he is freely given; or traded. As the community owns the means of production and the community's authority over it is limited to the individuals then the Means of production could never be sold. That being said it depends on all you consider to be the means. To me a car and a vacuum are my means of production. Does that mean that all cars and all vacuums are to be socially owned? What about paper if I am an author?

Exactly. You're making my case *for* me here -- how would a post-capitalist society make decisions as to what is collectivized under the aegis of 'the community', and what isn't -- ? (Also, what would determine the formal, valid *composition* of 'the community' membership -- what 'membership' would *transients* have, if any -- ?)

[LIST]
An individual could conceivably buy anything that another individual wanted to sell. As the individual can only own what he creates (and given and traded) then the individual could only buy what another person creates. The means of production such as factory's are still socially owned regardless of who creates them so they would be bought by the society. The logic behind this is that everyone has a right to work and a right to the means to anyone who tried to keep someone from their right would be imposing force against the individual which is against the natural law.

And how would *currencies* operate here -- ? Would each respective 'community' issue *its own* currency, for use within the geographical bounds of that locality only -- ? How would each community regulate the *monetary supply* of its own internal economy -- ?

How would various communities settle inter-community purchases, using multiple currencies -- ? (What would prevent someone from using *arbitrage* on the currencies, simply for the sake of increasing their own personal / private exchange values, like forex today -- ?)

Once again as I stated above i am 100% talking about after the expropriation of the means of production. Once this has happened the proletariat will cease to exist as the Individuals who make up the class of Workers will no longer be Workers but instead equal members of the new social order.

Okay.

As the means of production are owned by every member of society society must manage the means democratically. Putting restrictions on use of limited or endangered resources and maintenance of the means such as factory's and roads.

Okay.

This power would logically be limited to that of the individual because the democracy is that of individuals. If the democratic control has power over the individual then it would be power only held by force of numbers (Tranny of the Majority) I.E. "Their are more of me then you so you have better do as we say or we will attack you." This is against the principles of Anarchism and libertarianism.

Okay, your concern is valid, but the shortcoming with your approach here is that you're implicitly counting *everyone*, regardless of social role or inactivity, in democratic decision-making, as over what is to be produced, and how.

To take a step back, the flaw with this approach is that you're still bourgeois-sided, by framing the individual's social role in terms of 'rights', instead of focusing on society's *productivity* as being the key / main trajectory.

So more to the point is what the *active workers* of such a society would be doing -- those who forego doing work for social ends would be *forfeiting* any work-related 'political' power at the same time. Want to be a 'rock star' -- ? Fine, but then your input at the factory floor would be *irrelevant* since you're not actually being a worker in that case.

What you are implying is that since the Society is the owner of the means that they should have power over the individual to decide who does what.

No, nothing that I've said implies that the collective of active workers should be able to dictate to the individual and/or decide which specific individuals should do what tasks. (You'll find no evidence in my posts.)

In this case the Society stops being one of the individual; even of the Worker but instead of the Capitalist.

---

D, pay no attention to the nightmares -- you're simply *misinterpreting* the 'DOTP', and 'centralized planning' doesn't have to look in the future the way it did in the past, under Stalinism.

But it could; so would it not be best to avoid the insanity of doing the same thing over and over. Authoritarian socialism had its chance over half the world. Even if you could make an argument for authoritarianism; you cant say that has ever worked the many many times it has been attempted.

Again, your line is suffering from a tragic *misinterpretation* of history -- you're ascribing culpability to the *subjective* factor, 'central planning', and national-historic consolidation-of-power within one country, within the context of a larger bourgeois-dominated world.

---

Here you'd rather *commodify* the product -- stored, btw, in a format (digital) that is infinitely reproducible at negligible material cost (electricity) -- than to begin by considering who out there, out of 7.5 billion people, might actually *want* ('need') to obtain the game for their own entertainment purposes. (Communism is supposed to be about fulfilling people's unmet *needs* -- not about private property and rewarding labor inputs in proportion to their contribution, because that just spawns *exchange values* and commodifies labor.)

Maybe here I contradicted myself; I am just connecting logical steps here. I have not formed a concrete opinion by reading others works or co-opting their possition I am following a trail of Logic 25 years in the making that has lead me to Anarchism, libertarianism and socialism. I am not an economist.

Okay, then you're conceding the point -- ?

Well shit I am just going to pull up a lawn chair and spend the rest of my life drinking the booze that others have made, reading the books that others have written and eating the food others have pulled from the dirt.
If I have a right to everything and their is no dictatorship to force me to work.

Yup. Go for it.

This is equivalent to my 'rock star' scenario, where *no one* wants to do any kind of labor, preferring instead to be self-serving 'rock stars' of their own making and vagaries.

What you obviously *haven't* considered is that there are plenty of people in the world who *like* to work -- at least somewhat -- and would be *fine* with being the laborer 'movers and shakers' in society, actively determining *how* work gets done, even steadily *transforming* the types of machinery that they use as part of the society's overall productive process.

Include the fact that machinery / means-of-production dramatically *leverage* individual work-inputs, and perhaps only a fraction of *one* person's work input over their lifetime (equivalent) would be sufficient to provide you and others with booze, books, and food for *your* lifetime(s).

If such a society found that booze, books, or food wound up being in *short supply* then such a society would have to address such socio-material issues *consciously* and *proactively*, otherwise it would just be gypping *itself*.

The product of ones labor (a clean office) should be mine to sell; not the states or the Capitalist. If I want to offer my labors to someone who is to tell me not to. Who is to steal the end result of my labors?

Your unfounded concerns about arbitrary 'tyranny' aside, the overall problematic with *commodifying labor*, as for services, is that you're 'giving birth' to a realm of exchange-values and are effectively abandoning the communistic premise of 'supplying to unmet human need' -- and you just admitted that you *can't address* such matters of economics thoroughly-enough:

Here you'd rather *commodify* the product -- stored, btw, in a format (digital) that is infinitely reproducible at negligible material cost (electricity) -- than to begin by considering who out there, out of 7.5 billion people, might actually *want* ('need') to obtain the game for their own entertainment purposes. (Communism is supposed to be about fulfilling people's unmet *needs* -- not about private property and rewarding labor inputs in proportion to their contribution, because that just spawns *exchange values* and commodifies labor.)

Maybe here I contradicted myself; I am just connecting logical steps here. I have not formed a concrete opinion by reading others works or co-opting their possition I am following a trail of Logic 25 years in the making that has lead me to Anarchism, libertarianism and socialism. I am not an economist.

---

That's the problem is you want to control production.

'I' want to control production -- ? What did I say, exactly, that brought you to this incorrect conclusion -- ?

Production requires labor. If you control production you control labor. By controlling the means of production and the labor that is needed you are becoming the capitalist.

Okay, but not me *personally*, okay -- ?

Labor has to be given freely.

Yes.

In order for it to be given freely production has to be controlled by the individual.

Well, this is a *scale*-based *dialectical* dynamic: Society / the world overall has a *general* interest in enjoying the fruits of labor, for consumption, but *individuals* are required as laborers for the requisite work to be accomplished for that.

An *individual* worker doesn't have much of a sphere of control in the workplace, since they are only *one person* -- but *collectively* a number of workers in the same workplace can certainly decide *together* what kinds of policies should be in place over 'the commons'.

The individual can also decide to *withhold* their own liberated-labor, and just consume booze, books, and food, in which case that person would be *dependent* on the larger society for the availability of those things.

For the individual to freely offer his labor he must be rewarded for such.

I happen to *agree* here -- hence the system of labor credits that I included at post #43.

So either you starve those who wont work by refusing them their social dividend or offer them more then everyone else.

See, here's that 'rights' / 'deserving' *moralistic* mindset again -- consumption should be based on *material availability*, and on nothing else. Shouldn't communism be able to make the materials of humane life and living available to *all*, without reservation -- ?

(From above, those who won't work would be *dependent* on the products of others' labor, and their withholding of their own labor shouldn't be affecting the *exchange value* valuation of their potential labor-power, if there *are no* exchange values in a communist-type political economy.)

The Freed market is the only way to ensure a free people.

I disagree, of course.

Do you know what a 'duplication of effort' means to me in regards to videogames... more videogames.

Okay, sure -- but what if it's about *food production* -- ?

Should a larger percentage of the world's people (more than 2%) be *obligated* to spend a sizeable portion of their day's efforts at mere, locally-circumscribed *food production*, or should the production of food be coordinated at a *world-collective* level -- 'central planning' -- so that the world's resources for such, including labor, can be deployed as efficiently as possible, to free-up people to be booze-books-and-food consumers, rock-stars or video-game players, or whatever -- ?

(A)

10th July 2016, 04:38

1: Be aware that the term "Gyp and its derivatives" are considered derogatory to some; including myself.

2: I concede nothing. You have agreed with all of my premises against the exploitation of labor by other AND that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not be warranted after socialization of the means of production.
I am Happy with the arguments I have made. I am not a communist I am a socialist. I dont believe that Communism is a necessary end goal and just another form of social order.

to answer the threads question.
The difference between libertarian socialism and Libertarian communism is that libertarian socialism covers a wide array of economic and social orders where as Libertarian (Anarco)Communism is a very specific one.

ckaihatsu

10th July 2016, 14:19

1: Be aware that the term "Gyp and its derivatives" are considered derogatory to some; including myself.

Noted.

2: I concede nothing. You have agreed with all of my premises against the exploitation of labor by other

Your premises *allow* for profits to be made from labor, as we've discussed at the 'Vanguard' thread.

My point stands that your approach is definitely aimed at retaining the production of commodities and exchange values.

AND that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not be warranted after socialization of the means of production.

No one said that it would be.

I am Happy with the arguments I have made. I am not a communist I am a socialist. I dont believe that Communism is a necessary end goal and just another form of social order.

Communism is just another, *generic* form of social order -- ? That's a new one....

(A)

10th July 2016, 22:35

I never said generic. It is quite unique; but it is still just another possibility/

Your position that it is Communism and only communism that must be the goal; ignoring the socialist phase altogether; I think that is harmful to the socialist movement as a whole.
Your position makes it sound that any type of socialism not geared to the immediate and necessary goal of communism is just non-sense and that only your way is the right way.
Its that kind of zeal that ostracizes you from the movement as a whole. Its that position that lead to the Ussr becoming a dictatorship.

If Communism is the end phase of human development and socialism is the first step to communism; then focus on the first step. Forget about communism and focus on the movement that is happening now.
Without socialism communism can never occur.

LeftistsAreRadical

11th July 2016, 01:35

Your position that it is Communism and only communism that must be the goal; ignoring the socialist phase altogether; I think that is harmful to the socialist movement as a whole.

ckaihatsu does anything but ignore the socialist phase. They have - on several occasions, and even specifically to you - posted their chart of the progression toward communism, going from capitalism --> syndicalism --> socialism --> communism. ckaihatsu is incredibly intellectual, and therefore would in no way "ignore the socialist phase altogether", and has defended its necessity as a transition period several times. Yes, communism must be the goal, and socialism is a step toward that goal. Communism is unreachable without socialism, and socialism is pointless without striving toward communism.

Your position makes it sound that any type of socialism not geared to the immediate and necessary goal of communism is just non-sense and that only your way is the right way.

This contradicts your above argument stating that ckaihatsu "[ignores] the socialist phase altogether", as your statement here directly addresses what you perceive to be ckaihatsu's opinion of socialism. The reason I say "what you perceive" to be their opinion of socialism is that you're not quite correct (at least in your select words) of what is advocated by ckaihatsu. They advocate socialism as a transition period, therefore describing ckaihatsu's view of socialism as geared toward nothing but the immediate goal of communism is not correct. If communism were the immediate goal/step, there would be no socialist transition period advocated for in the first place. And yes, any type of socialism not geared toward the goal of communism is "non-sense", as socialism without progression becomes socialism with regression, falling back into private ownership. However, that wouldn't entirely matter to you anyway, as your leftism is a petty bourgeois ideal where that isn't really a problem.

Its that kind of zeal that ostracizes you from the movement as a whole.

And exactly what movement is it that you are citing? Clearly not the radical leftist movement of which openly accepts and advocates for many of ckaihatsu's positions.

Its that position that lead to the Ussr becoming a dictatorship.

You have a nasty habit of making endless assertions with no provided (and sometimes not even any unprovided) evidence supporting said assertion.

If Communism is the end phase of human development and socialism is the first step to communism; then focus on the first step. Forget about communism and focus on the movement that is happening now.
Why at all would it be advisable to "forget about" the ultimate goal? Is it not the goal that provides the continued drive to progress through the steps to reach it? Remembering the end goal is what magnifies the focus of the movements happening now and the immediate progression through the steps toward the end goal.

Without socialism communism can never occur.

None of us were ever arguing contrary to this. In fact, we are arguing directly for it in opposition to your belief of 'stopping' at socialism.

(A)

11th July 2016, 05:01

Socialism is pointless without striving toward communism.

I reject this notion completely. I see no evidence that supports the necessity of communism as a final stage of human social evolution; I believe it to be merely a different form of socialism.
If socialism evolved freely into communism then so be it but I see no reason to work towards one specific form of socialism over another save
for the distinction between libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism which one would fight against based on the opposition to force.

LeftistsAreRadical

11th July 2016, 05:12

I reject this notion completely. I see no evidence that supports the necessity of communism as a final stage of human social evolution; I believe it to be merely a different form of socialism.
If socialism evolved freely into communism then so be it but I see no reason to work towards one specific form of socialism over another save
for the distinction between libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism which one would fight against based on the opposition to force.

Communism isn't necessary. Neither is socialism, nor capitalism, nor feudalism, nor any other '-ism'. However, I prefer to live in a society of full equality and free of oppression and discrimination, I don't know about you. Communism isn't a "different form of socialism". Communism is the next step after socialism. Socialism is/was developed as a necessary step toward communism, which not only shows that they are different, but also shows the necessity of communism after socialism. Stopping at socialism is half-assing it and ultimately defeating leftism.

(A)

11th July 2016, 05:32

However, I prefer to live in a society of full equality and free of oppression and discrimination. You mean libertarian socialism.

Stopping at socialism is half-assing it and ultimately defeating leftism. Just wrong.

Communism is the next step after socialism. Only to Communists.

You think your left is the only left but you forget that left is a leaning that includes every position in opposition to capitalism.
Just as libertarian is not a set list of programs but an opposition to authoritarianism.

LeftistsAreRadical

11th July 2016, 06:16

You mean libertarian socialism.

No, actually, I don't. I mean communism, had you actually read what I wrote you would realize that.

Just wrong.

So it's finally gotten to the point where you make two word assertions contrary to my explained and argumentatively supported stance while providing no evidence nor reason of your own, just the 'fact' that you are completely and unequivocally right in your grossly under-supported convictions.

[Communism is the next step after socialism] only to Communists. You think your left is the only left but you forget that left is a leaning that includes every position in opposition to capitalism.

Actually, communism is literally the next step after socialism, as theorized and supported by radical leftist studies. Socialism literally originated as the transition stage to communism, not as the end stage of a post-capitalist society. So, in fact, communism is both the intended and the logical next step after socialism. Socialism was not created to be an end stage, it was created as a transition into communism, and it is absolutely illogical to treat it as anything otherwise. There's a difference between 'the left' and what you dub as "my left" (especially when 'your left' is extremely petty bourgeois and quite honestly not radical leftist at all). My left is revolutionary. Liberals are left-leaning too, but does that mean that they are instantly accepted as leftists? No, because they are not an ideology of the radical/revolutionary left. Frankly, I see anarcho/libertarian socialism/communism as counterproductive to the revolution and the radical left as a whole. There's a piece on it by Engels that I think explains my train of thought well: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

(A)

11th July 2016, 06:43

No, actually, I don't. I mean communism, had you actually read what I wrote you would realize that.

You literal described features of any system that falls under the banner of libertarian Socialism from Mutualism to Anarco-Communism.

So it's finally gotten to the point where you make two word assertions contrary to my explained and argumentatively supported stance while providing no evidence nor reason of your own, just the 'fact' that you are completely and unequivocally right in your grossly under-supported convictions.

Yes because creating a new socialist order and casting down capitalism will ruin the left. Fuck was I thinking.

Actually, communism is literally the next step after socialism, as theorized and supported by radical leftist studies. Socialism literally originated as the transition stage to communism, not as the end stage of a post-capitalist society. So, in fact, communism is both the intended and the logical next step after socialism. Socialism was not created to be an end stage, it was created as a transition into communism, and it is absolutely illogical to treat it as anything otherwise. There's a difference between 'the left' and what you dub as "my left" (especially when 'your left' is extremely petty bourgeois and quite honestly not radical leftist at all). My left is revolutionary. Liberals are left-leaning too, but does that mean that they are instantly accepted as leftists? No, because they are not an ideology of the radical/revolutionary left. Frankly, I see anarcho/libertarian socialism/communism as counterproductive to the revolution and the radical left as a whole. There's a piece on it by Engels that I think explains my train of thought well: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

You are quite literally defining Marxism while quoting Marx's partner.

LeftistsAreRadical

11th July 2016, 07:24

You literal described features of any system that falls under the banner of libertarian Socialism from Mutualism to Anarco-Communism.

Communism is inherently anarchist, Jesus Christ why is this so hard to get through your thick skull???

Yes because creating a new socialist order and casting down capitalism will ruin the left. Fuck was I thinking.

If the "new socialist order" isn't intended to be a step toward communism, and if the "new socialist order" is extremely centrist and petty bourgeois (AKA not socialism), then yes, it will ultimately lead to or retain private accumulation of capital and means of production.

You are quite literally defining Marxism while quoting Marx's partner.

And what is that 'argument' supposed to mean? That I'm a radical leftist? Good job, you've figured it out.

(A)

11th July 2016, 08:18

Communism is inherently anarchist, Jesus Christ why is this so hard to get through your thick skull???

Yes but from what I understand anarcho-communists reject the authoritarian principles of non libertarian communists (Marxist-Leninist, ) as incapable of bringing about true communism. This fight has been going on since the heights of the left back before the 1860s.

Bakunin's viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the state as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx's views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin's disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud and schism between libertarian socialists and what they call "authoritarian communists", or alternatively just "authoritarians". Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism,[123] he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a State bureaucracy."

If the "new socialist order" isn't intended to be a step toward communism, and if the "new socialist order" is extremely centrist and petty bourgeois (AKA not socialism), then yes, it will ultimately lead to or retain private accumulation of capital and means of production.

Like the Leninist 'Democratic centralism' Centrist or the non-extremist type of Centrist?
Your opposition to anything not communist is noted.

And what is that 'argument' supposed to mean? That I'm a radical leftist? Good job, you've figured it out.

Again you fail to grasp that Marxism is not only ideology of the left. Marxism is a set of ideas that are NOT supported by everyone on the left and NOT even supported by ALL Marxists. Their are socialists who dont want communism. ONLY to Marxists; is socialism a path to Communism. Communism was created after socialism. Socialism inspired communism. It sits within the left; it is not the left.

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism)is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production within a more general criticism of the state form itself as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace. Instead it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace[136] and decentralized structures of political government asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Past and present political philosophies and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, and mutualism) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, revolutionary syndicalism, and libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,; as well as some versions of "utopian socialism" and individualist anarchism.

ckaihatsu

11th July 2016, 16:18

I never said generic. It is quite unique; but it is still just another possibility/

'Just another possibility' -- ? You're outright ignoring the *qualitative* aspects / benefits of the communism proposal.

Your position that it is Communism and only communism that must be the goal; ignoring the socialist phase altogether;

No, I never said that the socialist phase should be ignored altogether, but it would be far 'messier' for the revolution if things got too prolonged in the DOTP phase, as in a protracted conflict between the two classes.

I think that is harmful to the socialist movement as a whole.

The point of emphasizing communism as the goal is to show that there's something *tangible* to win -- an egalitarian, moneyless political economy, in short.

Your position makes it sound that any type of socialism not geared to the immediate and necessary goal of communism is just non-sense and that only your way is the right way.

Hmmmm, I don't see how you'd reach that conclusion from what I've stated -- I recognize that the DOTP would probably be a necessary step on the road to communism.

Its that kind of zeal that ostracizes you from the movement as a whole.

At this point you're overstepping and just making stuff up -- it's not appreciated.

Its that position that lead to the Ussr becoming a dictatorship.

Again, not my position, and you're inserting flippant phrases about history.

If Communism is the end phase of human development and socialism is the first step to communism; then focus on the first step. Forget about communism and focus on the movement that is happening now.
Without socialism communism can never occur.

You would be far from the first person I'd ever take political advice from.

ckaihatsu

11th July 2016, 16:32

Socialism is pointless without striving toward communism.

I reject this notion completely. I see no evidence that supports the necessity of communism as a final stage of human social evolution; I believe it to be merely a different form of socialism.

Your particular concept of socialism would retain currency, markets, use of labor as a commodity, and overall commodity production.

Communism is a definitive *elimination* of all of these aspects of bourgeois economics and its political rule.

If socialism evolved freely into communism then so be it

There you go -- then you're actually *unopposed*.

but I see no reason to work towards one specific form of socialism over another

'One specific form of socialism over another' -- ?

If you acknowledge that the point of bringing about socialism is so that 'socialism [may evolve] freely into communism', then you wouldn't be concerned about the 'form' of socialism -- as though there *were* 'different forms' -- during the DOTP phase, since the end goal would be to reach communism.

save
for the distinction between libertarian socialism or authoritarian socialism which one would fight against based on the opposition to force.

You're still conflating internal with external -- internally no wage-worker or post-capitalist liberated-laborer has *any* interest in politically supporting a repressive apparatus against their own.

If a Stalinistic-type apparatus *did* manage to carve out a base of support internally -- perhaps for a 'socialism in one country' politics -- then it would *also* have to be opposed and overthrown on the world's way towards full communism.

'Authoritarian socialism' refers to the DOTP, basically, which is *externally* directed, including the potential use of force against the bourgeoisie. (Not internally.)

ckaihatsu

11th July 2016, 16:56

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

I'll just note that this kind of authority / hierarchy referred to by Marx has to do with the *logistics* of organization for any given productive process, and shouldn't be taken as the practice of *commanding specific individuals* into place, since that would negate the 'self-determination' on-the-ground -- the organic voluntarism / liberation that the individual is supposed to be able to enjoy as a result of capitalism being overthrown.

(I also don't see any objective need for inherently-substitutionist 'delegates', or political representatives of any sort, being necessary any longer, thanks to the communication technologies of the Internet.)

LeftistsAreRadical

11th July 2016, 21:30

Yes but from what I understand anarcho-communists reject the authoritarian principles of non libertarian communists (Marxist-Leninist, ) as incapable of bringing about true communism. This fight has been going on since the heights of the left back before the 1860s.

But you still talk about communism as if there's some kind of hierarchy/state-like authoritarianism involved in a communist system.

Like the Leninist 'Democratic centralism' Centrist or the non-extremist type of Centrist?

As in the liberalism/democratic socialism centrist.

Your opposition to anything not communist is noted.

I don't have an opposition to anything not communist, I have an opposition to private control of the means of production and the kind of center-leftism that you advocate for that restricts or denounces a society's ability to reach communism.

Again you fail to grasp that Marxism is not only ideology of the left. Marxism is a set of ideas that are NOT supported by everyone on the left and NOT even supported by ALL Marxists.

I am well aware of the fact that Marxism is not the only leftist ideology (as I have said before, I was formerly an anarchist myself). I wasn't saying nor implying that Marxism is the only school of the radical left, I was making a sarcastic remark at the fact that you literally just narrated what it was that I had said and thought it was an argument.

Their are socialists who dont want communism.

I recognize that these types of people exist. Just because I completely and totally disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't recognize their existence.

ONLY to Marxists; is socialism a path to Communism.

See: Leninism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Maoism, Dengism, Hoxhaism, Castroism, etc.

(A)

12th July 2016, 00:01

There you go -- then you're actually *unopposed*.

I am Unopposed to a libertarian path to Communism as a natural progression of human socioeconomic evolution.
I am Apposed to the Marxist-Leninist vanguardist approach which attempts to circumvent the evolution of the working class by imposing Communist rule over a socialist society.

'One specific form of socialism over another' -- ?
If you acknowledge that the point of bringing about socialism is so that 'socialism [may evolve] freely into communism', then you wouldn't be concerned about the 'form' of socialism -- as though there *were* 'different forms' -- during the DOTP phase, since the end goal would be to reach communism.

I dont acknowledge that the point of socialism is to evolve into communism. I acknowledge that communism may be the possible end phase of human socioeconomic evolution.

You're still conflating internal with external -- internally no wage-worker or post-capitalist liberated-laborer has *any* interest in politically supporting a repressive apparatus against their own.
If a Stalinistic-type apparatus *did* manage to carve out a base of support internally -- perhaps for a 'socialism in one country' politics -- then it would *also* have to be opposed and overthrown on the world's way towards full communism.
'Authoritarian socialism' refers to the DOTP, basically, which is *externally* directed, including the potential use of force against the bourgeoisie. (Not internally.)[/QUOTE]

I am apposed to a Authoritarian (Democratic Centrist, Marxist Leninist) path towards communism.

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege.(...)But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism."

But you still talk about communism as if there's some kind of hierarchy/state-like authoritarianism involved in a communist system.

I talk about some communists tendency to authoritarianism and democratic centralism as a cancer of the revolution which will yield no evolution of class conciseness and No communism.

As in the liberalism/democratic socialism centrist.

So you believe Democratic Socialism is the path back to Capitalism?

I don't have an opposition to anything not communist, I have an opposition to private control of the means of production and the kind of center-leftism that you advocate for that restricts or denounces a society's ability to reach communism.

You need to do a bit more reading on Socialism I think.

(as I have said before, I was formerly an anarchist myself).

Then why did you decide that Anarchism could not lead to Communism?

See: Leninism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Maoism, Dengism, Hoxhaism, Castroism, etc.

And between themselves they still have no unified vision on how to achieve communism or what communism will look like. What one are you?

LeftistsAreRadical

12th July 2016, 02:15

So you believe Democratic Socialism is the path back to Capitalism?

Democratic socialism is capitalism, just the reformist 'fixed' version of capitalism.

You need to do a bit more reading on Socialism I think.

How is this related at all to what I said? Telling someone that they need to read up on an ideology they advocate for is not in and of itself a counterargument, by the way.

Then why did you decide that Anarchism could not lead to Communism?

Because as I progressed in study and in critical thinking of what I was studying, I just couldn't see how loose restriction on bourgeois and capitalistic tendencies would be able to continue to progress past and eliminate a return to capitalism.

And between themselves they still have no unified vision on how to achieve communism or what communism will look like. What one are you?

That's why they are separate schools, they don't follow the exact same ideas as each other. However, that's not what I was trying to say by that reply, I was countering your statement about how Marxism is the only ideology that advocates a socialist to communist transition. At this point I'm not quite sure what school I am, but I do agree with many of the proposals of Luxemburgism.

(A)

12th July 2016, 03:55

You are confusing Democratic socialism with Social Democracy.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Luxemburgism promotes revolutionary Democratic socialism as a path to Communism in opposition to Marxist-Leninist Vanguardism which Rosa Luxemburg saw as Authoritarian.

Luxemburg criticized Lenin's ideas on how to organize a revolutionary party as likely to lead to a loss of internal democracy and the domination of the party by a few leaders. Ironically, in her most famous attack on Lenin's views, the 1904 Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy, or, Leninism or Marxism?, a response to Lenin's 1903 What Is To Be Done?, Luxemburg was more worried that the authoritarianism she saw in Leninism would lead to sectarianism and irrelevancy than that it would lead to a dictatorship after a successful revolution

She died before Stalin assumed power of the Party vindicating her criticisms.

Also Anarchism is not loosening the restrictions of Capitalism it is a outright dismissal of capitalism as a legitimate force and seeks its destruction like all other illegitimate hierarchy's such as the state.

ckaihatsu

12th July 2016, 14:42

I am Unopposed to a libertarian path to Communism as a natural progression of human socioeconomic evolution.

I am Apposed to the Marxist-Leninist vanguardist approach which attempts to circumvent the evolution of the working class by imposing Communist rule over a socialist society.

Not an M-Ler (socialism-in-one-country) myself, and the 'evolution' of the working class can certainly be aided by its own internal 'vanguard', or vanguard party.

I now *object* to your continued characterization of communism as having a bourgeois-like fixed hierarchical apparatus of 'rule' (and 'rights').

You're not seeing the goal of *communism* as simply being 'fulfillment of human need'.

I dont acknowledge that the point of socialism is to evolve into communism. I acknowledge that communism may be the possible end phase of human socioeconomic evolution.

I am apposed to a Authoritarian (Democratic Centrist, Marxist Leninist) path towards communism.

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege.(...)But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism."

I tend to call this 'self-determination'.

(Unfortunately revolutionaries tend to emphasize either the 'upper' or 'on-the-ground' aspects of scale, regarding collectivist production -- anarchists and syndicalists miss the forest for the trees, while 'central-planners' tend to emphasize the totality / efficiency of centralized production while not-addressing how self-determination is to be maintained on the ground at the same time.)

---

But you still talk about communism as if there's some kind of hierarchy/state-like authoritarianism involved in a communist system.

I talk about some communists tendency to authoritarianism and democratic centralism as a cancer of the revolution which will yield no evolution of class conciseness and No communism.

I'll just remind that communistic authoritarianism should be seen as *externally directed*, to overthrow class rule, and I, for one, prefer 'organic centralism' -- the *emergence* of a mass line for any given situation, as with the inclusion of a vanguard -- instead of the clunky 'democratic centralism' vehicle.

(A)

12th July 2016, 20:16

Not an M-Ler (socialism-in-one-country) myself, and the 'evolution' of the working class can certainly be aided by its own internal 'vanguard', or vanguard party.

I would not disagree but the question as to if the vanguard possess a hierarchical power over the working individual or if it is merely a beacon to aid in the safe transition.
My first thread back to this forum was specifically talking about a platform for Libertarian Socialists so clearly I am not opposed to the idea of a political party of revolutionary's. I am opposed to
the Marxist Leninist Vanguard as Undemocratic and authoritarian.

I now *object* to your continued characterization of communism as having a bourgeois-like fixed hierarchical apparatus of 'rule' (and 'rights').

You're not seeing the goal of *communism* as simply being 'fulfillment of human need'.

OK so I have two different characterizations that I think are being mixed up.

<Pre Communism> I characterize some communists (people seeking communism) as authoritarian Internally. That is the idea that A vanguard party should lead a revolt against capitalism and then control the post-capitalist society with the ultimate goal of Communism.
I reject this as non-libertarian, non-socialist and not able to lead to communism.

<Post communism> Then I have a concern with the idea of collectivized production over collectivized ownership of the means of production. The idea that Production should be controlled by society democratically VS the means of production being free for the individual to use is possibly the divide between libertarian communism and Authoritarian communism. If the collective control's production and distribution then it has control over what the individual can produce and obtain. This can lead to Democratic authoritarianism. What if the collective decides not to produce Alcohol? or porn? Or Weed?

On the other hand if the collective merely protects and maintains the means of production free for use and free for trade then people who want the freedom to view porn, to drink alcohol and to smoke a little weed will be free to.

I tend to call this 'self-determination'.

(Unfortunately revolutionaries tend to emphasize either the 'upper' or 'on-the-ground' aspects of scale, regarding collectivist production -- anarchists and syndicalists miss the forest for the trees, while 'central-planners' tend to emphasize the totality / efficiency of centralized production while not-addressing how self-determination is to be maintained on the ground at the same time.)

I think i addressed this above.

I consider Libertarianism (Big L as apposed to Little l) to be a sub-set of libertarian ideology's that are closer to the line between Authoritarianism and libertarianism while not as far down the chart as Anarchism.

I.E. Laissez-Fair Libertarians (minimal state) V.S. Anarco-Capitalists (No state)

A Minarchist system bridges the gap between anarchist tendency's that you say miss the forest for the trees and Central planning which may not address an individuals goal of self-determination.

I'll just remind that communistic authoritarianism should be seen as *externally directed*, to overthrow class rule, and I, for one, prefer 'organic centralism' -- the *emergence* of a mass line for any given situation, as with the inclusion of a vanguard -- instead of the clunky 'democratic centralism' vehicle.

Agreed but the existence of hierarchy within the socialist movement I believe is only to its detriment. Having a leader pull the people together and form a vanguard is one thing but having a ruler directing the working class is something that can not be ignored as a possibility. Power over another in any form is corruptive.

I oppose the idea of a single party socialist state or collective especially one that control's production. Hence my objection to a (singular) vanguard in the first place.
Once capitalism has been cast down it HAS to be the Society of individuals; supported but not controlled by a vanguard of communists that evolve and become ready for communism or else it will never be true communism.

ckaihatsu

13th July 2016, 13:21

I would not disagree but the question as to if the vanguard possess a hierarchical power over the working individual or if it is merely a beacon to aid in the safe transition.

Okay, fair-enough. Agreed.

My first thread back to this forum was specifically talking about a platform for Libertarian Socialists so clearly I am not opposed to the idea of a political party of revolutionary's. I am opposed to
the Marxist Leninist Vanguard as Undemocratic and authoritarian.

Okay, except for the reformist nature / arena of where you would tend to put forth your political efforts (electoralism).

OK so I have two different characterizations that I think are being mixed up.

<Pre Communism> I characterize some communists (people seeking communism) as authoritarian Internally. That is the idea that A vanguard party should lead a revolt against capitalism and then control the post-capitalist society with the ultimate goal of Communism.
I reject this as non-libertarian, non-socialist and not able to lead to communism.

So you do, but I'll juxtapose that if things happened to turn out this way, through this vehicle (with no negatives, of course), then so be it.

(Keep in mind that the 'authoritarian internally' can only happen if it's *allowed*, since the workers themselves are more numerous than their subset, the vanguard / party, which would need a willing social basis for its functioning, internally.) (Worst case, if a particular organization went 'off the rails', it would have to be *overthrown* and possibly replaced with a better one.)

<Post communism> Then I have a concern with the idea of collectivized production over collectivized ownership of the means of production. The idea that Production should be controlled by society democratically VS the means of production being free for the individual to use is possibly the divide between libertarian communism and Authoritarian communism. If the collective control's production and distribution then it has control over what the individual can produce and obtain. This can lead to Democratic authoritarianism. What if the collective decides not to produce Alcohol? or porn? Or Weed?

On the other hand if the collective merely protects and maintains the means of production free for use and free for trade then people who want the freedom to view porn, to drink alcohol and to smoke a little weed will be free to.

Okay, first off -- no porn, no booze, no weed. (Just kidding.)(grin) This is the legacy of the 'War on (Some) Drugs', btw.

Production [...] controlled by society democratically VS the means of production being free for the individual to use

I'll just refer to my model for this....

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

So this means, of course, that any practical use of machinery (means of production) would have to have *popular* support, akin to politics, if there was *any* controversy over who-uses-what.

The method above can be re-iterated daily, indefinitely, for fine-tuning as to Proposal A vs. Proposal B, etc., for any given equipment and calendar scheduling.

---

I tend to call this 'self-determination'.

(Unfortunately revolutionaries tend to emphasize either the 'upper' or 'on-the-ground' aspects of scale, regarding collectivist production -- anarchists and syndicalists miss the forest for the trees, while 'central-planners' tend to emphasize the totality / efficiency of centralized production while not-addressing how self-determination is to be maintained on the ground at the same time.)

I think i addressed this above.

I consider Libertarianism (Big L as apposed to Little l) to be a sub-set of libertarian ideology's that are closer to the line between Authoritarianism and libertarianism while not as far down the chart as Anarchism.

I.E. Laissez-Fair Libertarians (minimal state) V.S. Anarco-Capitalists (No state)

A Minarchist system bridges the gap between anarchist tendency's that you say miss the forest for the trees and Central planning which may not address an individuals goal of self-determination.

Okay, interesting -- would you like to *elaborate* on this particular hybrid approach that you're referring-to -- ?

I hadn't come across anything in detail regarding a feasible post-capitalist economics, so I developed my own.

On the point, I don't think it would be the *role* of central planning to 'address an individual's goal of self-determination'.

History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

http://s6.postimg.org/44rloql0x/160309_History_Macro_Micro_politics_logistic.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/r686uhkod/full/)

Using the framework at the graphic above, I'll note that the smaller-scale one goes, the more likely the environment and dynamics are going to be *specific* and *personal* to individual lives themselves -- 'lifestyles'.

But as one *generalizes*, as for productive capacities to meet the needs of *many* people, things are going to be more about *logistics* -- how to make things happen, for needs in *common*.

So back to the 'central planning' thing, that should be 'higher-level' in operation, obviously, since the logistics for productivity for many will *not* be individual-specific, and 'self-determination' certainly isn't a societal-*logistical* thing.

---

I'll just remind that communistic authoritarianism should be seen as *externally directed*, to overthrow class rule, and I, for one, prefer 'organic centralism' -- the *emergence* of a mass line for any given situation, as with the inclusion of a vanguard -- instead of the clunky 'democratic centralism' vehicle.

Agreed but the existence of hierarchy within the socialist movement I believe is only to its detriment. Having a leader pull the people together and form a vanguard is one thing but having a ruler directing the working class is something that can not be ignored as a possibility. Power over another in any form is corruptive.

I'll repeat that any kind of vanguard-type hierarchy is only *logistical*, for particular material ends, and cannot be *coercive* if there's no existing social context for it.

In other words, your concern is valid, but we also have to ask *why* any given hierarchy would even potentially *be used* if it didn't have to be. Perhaps the larger environment is one of protracted alternating victories and losses against the class enemy -- maybe the use of a hierarchy in such a situation would confer a much-needed *orderliness* and efficiency of effort from many, for a final decisive blow that ushers-in socialism and communism.

I'll *ask* that you not invoke the 'rulership' notion unless you can provide some tangible social circumstances that would *invite* such past-monarchical-type control over people's lives. (The notion is historically obsolete.)

I oppose the idea of a single party socialist state or collective especially one that control's production. Hence my objection to a (singular) vanguard in the first place.

Strictly speaking the 'vanguard' instrument would only pertain to the political struggle against the bourgeois ruling class.

After the revolution any 'single party' would simply have to be effective and enjoy popular support since the issue of using such would be an *internal* matter to the people of such a society.

I'm not necessarily *arguing* for such -- my conception of potential organizational structures, for social production, is more of a 'hybrid' approach, at whatever scales are relevant for actual societal circumstances -- seen visually in this illustration:

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

Once capitalism has been cast down it HAS to be the Society of individuals; supported but not controlled by a vanguard of communists that evolve and become ready for communism or else it will never be true communism.

Once capitalism has been cast down there would no longer be any objective / empirical *need* for a vanguard, as you yourself have noted elsewhere.

I *don't* support any 'standing' / 'fixed' organizational hierarchies themselves, in the 'institution' form -- either a collection of production-directed people would be directing themselves to actual concrete conditions / situations, or else they *wouldn't* be, which could then possibly be problematic, in the 'institution' direction. (Issues of *personnel*, internally, shouldn't overshadow the overall organization around objective conditions that need to be actively addressed and dealt-with.)

(A)

13th July 2016, 23:32

Okay, except for the reformist nature / arena of where you would tend to put forth your political efforts (electoralism).

I know that you cant reform capitalism into socialism (Reformist) but that does not mean you can have a political party of and for the working class that holds no political opinion.

Even the Marxist Leninist party of Canada has political opinion that you would call reformist.
http://cpcml.ca/program/

(Keep in mind that the 'authoritarian internally' can only happen if it's *allowed*, since the workers themselves are more numerous than their subset, the vanguard / party, which would need a willing social basis for its functioning, internally.) (Worst case, if a particular organization went 'off the rails', it would have to be *overthrown* and possibly replaced with a better one.)

I'll repeat that any kind of vanguard-type hierarchy is only *logistical*, for particular material ends, and cannot be *coercive* if there's no existing social context for it.

We dont allow the state to exist; it exists threw the means of force; The same could be possible in a workers state internally. During the revolution the working class will be at its strongest and most vulnerable to internal power struggles. It seems likely that if a Working revolution casts down a state that the vacuum of power could possibly be filled by an already organized political workers force instead of destroyed and the power returned to the individual workers.

Instead of the power that the state has taken from the people being returned to the people it could be co-opted by the vanguard.

Okay, first off -- no porn, no booze, no weed. (Just kidding.)(grin) This is the legacy of the 'War on (Some) Drugs', btw.

But the Legacy of Capitalist society will still exist in a socialist state for many generation's so giving the majority power over the minority when it comes to production could lead to a majority imposed ban on certain productions.
If the majority decides that smoking should be illegal and now has the power to shut down the entire industry then people who want to smoke will be unable to.

Even that level of Democratic power is collectivist and in opposition to the libertarian principles of individuals choice and freedom from coercion and force.
I.E.Democratic restriction of production would be tantamount to force.

The principle then should be you can Produce and distribute anything you want as long as it does not inflict force or harm to another individual without their consent such as harmful forms of pornography where the subject of the film is unable to or does not give consent. Without any laws by legislation this is still against the libertarian/anarchist natural law.

ckaihatsu

14th July 2016, 20:18

We dont allow the state to exist; it exists threw the means of force; The same could be possible in a workers state internally. During the revolution the working class will be at its strongest and most vulnerable to internal power struggles. It seems likely that if a Working revolution casts down a state that the vacuum of power could possibly be filled by an already organized political workers force instead of destroyed and the power returned to the individual workers.

Okay -- here's where 'the thing' is: You're seeing a *power vacuum* opening-up during the transition from capitalism to communism / anarchism.

Also, you're being *contradictory* -- should there be a state-like apparatus under workers' control, or shouldn't there be -- ?

(I'd say it would depend on actual real-world *circumstances* during the time of the revolution -- perhaps that's why you're alternately using 'state' and 'stateless', in the context of a workers revolution.)

Back to the 'power vacuum' thing -- the revolution / transition-to-communism is aimed at a societal *self-consciousness*, collectively, so that the traditional / conventional 'power struggle' dynamic that we're all used to seeing would actually *have no basis for happening*.

There would be *no state* or any other kind of elitist, class-based division over the world's spoils if class is in the process of being dissolved -- at *most* I could offhand imagine a number of vanguardist 'factions' that could each have a somewhat different take on the situation-at-hand, with some internal controversies over the policy directions (struggle) of one faction or another, but even *this* wouldn't be *different bases of power*, as in one kingdom versus another during the time of feudalism.

'Power' would be fully (and most-likely forever) *displaced* as a social dynamic of any kind, simply because there would no longer exist any material 'leverage' for anyone to *wield* -- social mores would change to focus on human need, so with this as the overriding ethos, *no one* would consent to see -- effectively -- a *privatization* of what is now *common* to everyone, without exception.

Sure, I think that a post-capitalist / collectivist 'politics' would exist, in terms of Proposal-A-vs.-Proposal-B, but, as with the 'vanguardist factions', it would all be about cooperatively finding a collectively-self-conscious *resolution* to whatever social issues-in-common are outstanding and unresolved.

Instead of the power that the state has taken from the people being returned to the people it could be co-opted by the vanguard.

But why should 'power' go to 'the people' -- ?

The only 'power' that could conceivably exist, by definition, would be that of the use of the means of production, as with industry -- and, also by definition, the only ones *with* this kind of "power" would be those who are *using* the means of production, to produce for all of society (human need). Workers, in other words, and *not* 'people' generically.

And, once again, the vanguard only has the *working class* as its material base of support, and nothing else -- it *can't* be elitist because the whole revolution, spreading outward, is in the process of *collectivizing* the material world. Only when revolutions get *limited* and *constrained* is there a situation of 'dual power', or revolution-stagnation, with all of the deleterious effects of 'implosion' that you're so concerned about.

But the Legacy of Capitalist society will still exist in a socialist state

The only valid definition of 'socialist state' *now*, going-forward, would be the *takeover* of the existing bourgeois state apparatus during the time of revolution, to wield it for the purposes of suppressing the ruling class, so as to enable the revolution and the build-up of *proletarian* social structures, for its own benefit.

Long-term there would be *no* state of any kind, and *no* legacy of capitalism, in terms of political economy.

for many generation's so giving the majority power over the minority when it comes to production could lead to a majority imposed ban on certain productions.

Traditional parliamentary norms like democratic centralism do *not* have to be used for a timeframe of working class *revolution* -- so, no majority-minority split, etc.

Also, 'majority-minority' pertains to the exercise of *power* -- the bourgeois state -- while collectivist *production* would be at one or more *locations* of production, operating cooperatively, yielding something that is better-termed a *network* rather than a singular, concentrated state vehicle of power.

Here's regarding the politics and militancy of the period of revolution, from earlier in the thread:

[I], for one, prefer 'organic centralism' -- the *emergence* of a mass line for any given situation, as with the inclusion of a vanguard -- instead of the clunky 'democratic centralism' vehicle.

---

If the majority decides that smoking should be illegal and now has the power to shut down the entire industry then people who want to smoke will be unable to.

I won't speak to the 'civil society' aspects of a post-capitalist society because I *can't* -- it would be entirely mass-subjective (the 'superstructure' to the 'base'), so that leaves nothing available to us in the here-and-now for structural-type *analysis*. Anything along those lines would have to agree with the principle of 'for human need', and anything beyond that would be sheer *guesswork*.

Even that level of Democratic power is collectivist and in opposition to the libertarian principles of individuals choice and freedom from coercion and force.
I.E.Democratic restriction of production would be tantamount to force.

The principle then should be you can Produce and distribute anything you want as long as it does not inflict force or harm to another individual without their consent such as harmful forms of pornography where the subject of the film is unable to or does not give consent. Without any laws by legislation this is still against the libertarian/anarchist natural law.

Again, I won't address this kind of aspect -- I find that you anarchist types are far more concerned with this kind of stuff, so if I'm around when all this goes-down, I'd probably watch with distanced interest at whatever social policies are decided then.

Kohai

14th July 2016, 23:07

ckaihatsu

15th July 2016, 16:10

good question. but Libertarian Communism is a wage-less economic system and Libertarian Socialism/Social Anarchism still has a wage system. basically the major difference is with Lib Com societies, they're typically supposed to be much smaller than Lib Soc societies and the use of a wage system is also a major difference.

'Libertarian communism' is *redundant* in meaning, and I don't see what the point of retaining a wages system in 'libertarian socialism' would be, unless it was only in the interim while the revolution is being expanded, so as to get *past* the need for using wages, completely.

(A)

15th July 2016, 21:24

'Libertarian communism' is *redundant* in meaning, and I don't see what the point of retaining a wages system in 'libertarian socialism' would be, unless it was only in the interim while the revolution is being expanded, so as to get *past* the need for using wages, completely.

Libertarian communism is meaningless but Libertarian communists are not. If we agree that all Communism is libertarian by definition then Libertarian communists believe that only libertarian socialism can lead to Communism and reject authoritarian socialists like
Lenin, Stalin and their state form of unDemocratic authoritarian socialism.

As for the wage system; Not all forms of socialism want to abandon the wage system or share the goal of communism as a part of their immediate or stated goals and see communism as an evolution of socialism and not something to be implemented.

ckaihatsu

16th July 2016, 13:44

Libertarian communism is meaningless but Libertarian communists are not. If we agree that all Communism is libertarian by definition then Libertarian communists believe that only libertarian socialism can lead to Communism and reject authoritarian socialists like
Lenin, Stalin and their state form of unDemocratic authoritarian socialism.

I'll readily agree that there's no need to *constrain* the revolution, as into socialism-in-one-country, but you continue to *misinterpret* the term 'authoritarian socialism' to mean 'repression within', while it *really* means 'repression of the external foe, the ruling class'.

As for the wage system; Not all forms of socialism want to abandon the wage system or share the goal of communism as a part of their immediate or stated goals and see communism as an evolution of socialism and not something to be implemented.

Socialism, by definition, is supposed to be *transitional* to full-fledged communism, and would be the period in which the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be in-control, so as to repress the bourgeoisie and internally organize its own control over society and productivity.

The wages system is an instrument of *exploiting* workers and should *not* be retained long-term because it *commodifies* labor, into exchange-values.

You're also missing that the *whole point* of revolution / socialism / communism is to mass-consciously *take control* over social productivity, and *not* be 'hands-off' about it, as with some conception of 'evolution'.

In other words, either society *wants* to transcend the 'hands-off' market mechanism (which encourages *speculation* over exchange-values, btw), or else it *doesn't*. There would be no willless, hands-off 'evolution', because a revolution that suppresses the ruling class would be in conscious control of *all* social activity / productivity, and wouldn't *need* to leave things to any kind of hands-*off* market mechanism.

(A)

16th July 2016, 20:44

ckaihatsu

17th July 2016, 13:39

I'll readily agree that there's no need to *constrain* the revolution, as into socialism-in-one-country, but you continue to *misinterpret* the term 'authoritarian socialism' to mean 'repression within', while it *really* means 'repression of the external foe, the ruling class'.

Tell that to the Russian anarchists who played no small part in the revolution of Russia but then where Attacked, Arrested and Exiled.
Working class men and woman who fought for the freedom of Russia internally attacked by an Authoritarian, Despotic, Undemocratic, state.

I happened to just come across a good historical treatment along these lines:

[T]he crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy [...] arose under conditions of the international isolation of the October Revolution. Ignoring all historical context, Paschyn refers to the crimes of Stalinism, presenting them as yet another manifestation of Russian oppression against the Tatars

The deportation of the Crimean Tatars, to which Paschyn falsely refers as “genocide,” took place in spring 1944. It is now estimated that 240,000 Crimean Tatars, including the elderly and children, were deported. Between 25 and 44 percent died either in the trains to Central Asia or from hunger and forced labor in exile. They were branded “enemies of the people” and not allowed to return to Crimea or even leave the place of their forced exile until the late 1980s. On the Crimea, many religious monuments and libraries of the Tatars were destroyed and their houses and villages were settled by Ukrainians and Russians.

The two bureaucrats responsible for these deportations were Lavrentiy Beryia, former head of the secret service NKVD and one of the bloodiest figures of the purges of the 1930s, and Ivan Serov, then first deputy people’s commissar for internal affairs in the USSR. Serov had already organized the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians in 1939-1940. Later, he was to become head of the NKVD and led its bloody crackdown of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.

The official justification provided by the Stalinist bureaucracy was that the Crimean Tatar people as a whole had collaborated with the Nazis, and they were declared a people hostile to the USSR. This was a lie. While there was collaboration among the Crimean Tatars—as it occurred in sections of all other peoples of the USSR—tens of thousands fought for the Red Army and with the partisans. They too were deported in 1944.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/16/tat1-j16.html

---

ALL forms of collectivist control over the individual; socialist or capitalist must be opposed. Communism can never be achieved by a ruling class or party.

No disagreement -- you're continuing to use boogeyman tactics, though, and unwelcome stereotyping. ('Collectivism' = 'oppression', 'communism' = 'ruling class', 'communist party' = 'elitism'.)

Full Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society) or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marxism) theory transitional between capitalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism) and communism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism) and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Your a Marxist so I understand your point of view but I reject it as untrue.

You're not clear as to what my 'point of view' is.

Socialism is only a transitional phase according to Marx and those who believe in Marxism.

And I've said as much earlier in the thread:

'One specific form of socialism over another' -- ?

If you acknowledge that the point of bringing about socialism is so that 'socialism [may evolve] freely into communism', then you wouldn't be concerned about the 'form' of socialism -- as though there *were* 'different forms' -- during the DOTP phase, since the end goal would be to reach communism.

---

The WHOLE point of socialism is to take back the means of production. After that their are many different theory's as to How and what to do after.

You're also missing that the *whole point* of revolution / socialism / communism is to mass-consciously *take control* over social productivity, and *not* be 'hands-off' about it, as with some conception of 'evolution'.

In other words, either society *wants* to transcend the 'hands-off' market mechanism (which encourages *speculation* over exchange-values, btw), or else it *doesn't*. There would be no willless, hands-off 'evolution', because a revolution that suppresses the ruling class would be in conscious control of *all* social activity / productivity, and wouldn't *need* to leave things to any kind of hands-*off* market mechanism.

(A)

18th July 2016, 13:11

I happened to just come across a good historical treatment along these lines:

I'm sorry are you trying to justify Lenin's actions?
Leninism is an authoritarian form of communist theory. He and his vanguard where everything libertarians stand against and because of him the left has suffered immensely.

No disagreement -- you're continuing to use boogeyman tactics, though, and unwelcome stereotyping. ('Collectivism' = 'oppression', 'communism' = 'ruling class', 'communist party' = 'elitism'.)

Collectivism is not the left; it is the north; it is authoritarianism. The greater good over the freedom of the individual. Neo-liberalism & Leninism alike.

Collectivism holds that the collective need is greater then the individuals freedom. I believe colectivism is considered to be leftist because the right wing believes the left to be authoritarian. Stealing what is rightfully theirs but they (individualist anarchists) destroy their own argument using natural law.

Their is a hard line that seperates socialism from capitalism just as their is a hard line between libertarianism and authoritarianism.

You're not clear as to what my 'point of view' is.

You are a Marxist. You believe that socialism is just a phase that leads to communism. I am not a Marxist I don't believe socialism is just a phase that leads to communism. I admit that socialism is requires before communism; but not that communism is a natural end result human socio-economic evolution nor the best one anymore.

You're also missing that the *whole point* of revolution / socialism / communism is to mass-consciously *take control* over social productivity, and *not* be 'hands-off' about it, as with some conception of 'evolution'.

In other words, either society *wants* to transcend the 'hands-off' market mechanism (which encourages *speculation* over exchange-values, btw), or else it *doesn't*. There would be no willless, hands-off 'evolution', because a revolution that suppresses the ruling class would be in conscious control of *all* social activity / productivity, and wouldn't *need* to leave things to any kind of hands-*off* market mechanism.

Take control of ALL social activity. You are literally describing authoritarianism. So either communism is (can be) authoritarian or you do not understand communism.

I don't know if it was Marx who called for the revolution to continue it's existence threw socialism into communism or something someone added later but it does not make sense to me.

True communism; a stateless, classless, moneyless society can't exist without anarchy. You can't force the minority by legislation without a ruling class. You can't be moneyless without legislation stating that you can't sell what you make; And you can't be stateless while having a government that makes rules for others to live by.

True communism then must be anarchism.

Voluntary.

ckaihatsu

18th July 2016, 16:44

I'm sorry are you trying to justify Lenin's actions?

No -- the historical context, from the article, is:

[T]he crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy

And the year is:

spring 1944

---

Leninism is an authoritarian form of communist theory. He and his vanguard where everything libertarians stand against and because of him the left has suffered immensely.

Unfortunately this is like the *inverse* of the 'Great Man Theory', where you're ascribing everything *negative* to one person, when in fact there are many larger social forces in effect as well.

You're suffering from the same kind of myopia as the author who's noted in the article:

Ignoring all historical context, Paschyn refers to the crimes of Stalinism, [...]

---

Collectivism is not the left; it is the north; it is authoritarianism. The greater good over the freedom of the individual. Neo-liberalism & Leninism alike.

You're *still* refusing to take a deep breath -- society is much different than during the time of the October Revolution, and you're also stuck in the past political mindset of bourgeois 'rights' (counterposed to the aristocracy) .

Since all revolutionaries and sympathetic people would be 'internal' to a revolutionary upsurge, such people in that movement -- as in *any* movement, really -- would have *no interest* in being anti-social or causing harm to others in the same movement.

A revolutionary movement that spreads worldwide would have the same internal dynamic -- there are *no* material interests within that would compel or encourage anti-social behavior against others in the same movement.

'Collectivism' implies 'egalitarianism' for social matters, and a full cooperation over the means of production, for productivity.

Collectivism holds that the collective need is greater then the individuals freedom.

You're using an *abstraction* here -- much of how class struggle, revolution, and 'collectivism' would be done would depend greatly on prevailing social conditions at that time of upheaval.

Worse, though, is that you're being *pessimistic* with your invocation of the definition / principle -- taking that 'Collectivism holds that the collective need is greater then the individuals freedom', this means that all *common* interests, as for food and shelter, *would* be more important for the *entire* population, over any one individual's 'freedom' to do whatever they want with farms, foodstuffs, and building materials. That's *absolutely* fair.

I believe colectivism is considered to be leftist

Collectivism *is* leftist because it's about transcending private property relations.

because the right wing believes the left to be authoritarian.

Now you're going to take your political definitions from the *right wing* -- ? -- !

Stealing what is rightfully theirs but they (individualist anarchists) destroy their own argument using natural law.

There's no 'stealing' under the social organization paradigm of collectivism, because there wouldn't be any individualistic-type interests in amassing private property, as there are today -- collective production implies collective *consumption*, so anything that people need would be socio-politically discussed and decided-upon, without any objective need for the use of exchange values.

Their is a hard line that seperates socialism from capitalism just as their is a hard line between libertarianism and authoritarianism.

The 'libertarian-authoritarian' dichotomy is a *false* one, as others here have attempted to explain to you -- in the near- and mid-term the fomenting of revolution would be an *authoritarian* act against the ruling class (not *internally*), while a *post-capitalist* social order would have 'plateaued' everyone in that society so that social relations would be *egalitarian* and not subject to any kind of 'libertarian-authoritarian' continuum, since no one's basic humane needs would be dire / *pressing* and available for blackmailing by private interests.

You are a Marxist. You believe that socialism is just a phase that leads to communism. I am not a Marxist I don't believe socialism is just a phase that leads to communism. I admit that socialism is requires before communism; but not that communism is a natural end result human socio-economic evolution nor the best one anymore.

It's not a 'belief' -- it's a political *position*, based on an analysis of what it would take for society to actually fulfill human need.

*Your* position allows for the commodification and exploitation of labor, through exchange values, so that people can make profits. Not much socialism there.

---

You're also missing that the *whole point* of revolution / socialism / communism is to mass-consciously *take control* over social productivity, and *not* be 'hands-off' about it, as with some conception of 'evolution'.

In other words, either society *wants* to transcend the 'hands-off' market mechanism (which encourages *speculation* over exchange-values, btw), or else it *doesn't*. There would be no willless, hands-off 'evolution', because a revolution that suppresses the ruling class would be in conscious control of *all* social activity / productivity, and wouldn't *need* to leave things to any kind of hands-*off* market mechanism.

Take control of ALL social activity.

Either you're in *error*, or you're deliberately being *disingenuous* -- I said the point is to mass-consciously take control over social *productivity*.

Your 'anti-boogeyman' position is misconstruing what revolution is all about, all so that you can have a contrived 'boogeyman' political enemy to insert alongside any expressed pro-socialism sentiments.

You are literally describing authoritarianism.

No, I'm literally describing full *cooperation* over all social production.

So either communism is (can be) authoritarian or you do not understand communism.

Authoritarian *outward*, to repress the ruling class in the transition to socialism and communism.

I don't know if it was Marx who called for the revolution to continue it's existence threw socialism into communism or something someone added later but it does not make sense to me.

Please figure it out then instead of just showcasing your political fears to the rest of us.

True communism; a stateless, classless, moneyless society can't exist without anarchy.

You can't force the minority by legislation without a ruling class.

Again you're showing yourself to be in thrall to bourgeois political concepts -- no one's suggesting *parliamentary* modes of politics, as with a majority-minority split over social policy.

(Social policy would basically have to be *unanimous*, so that's it's *consistent* regardless of geography -- but the process for getting to unanimity could potentially take as long as it had to, organically, so that everyone is on-the-same-page.)

You can't be moneyless without legislation stating that you can't sell what you make; And you can't be stateless while having a government that makes rules for others to live by.

True communism then must be anarchism.

Voluntary.

So you prefer the term 'anarchism', over 'communism'. Semantics.

And now you're being unclear whether you prefer a *moneyless*, stateless communism / anarchism, or whether you'd prefer to retain commodity production and currency so that '[people] can sell what [they] make'.

Your politics is inconsistent since you give lip service to communism / anarchism, but you keep expressing sentiments for communal-based private property, for the sake of individualistic profit-making, as from the labor of others.

It has to be one or the other -- it can't be both. Either exchange values continue to exist, or else they *don't*, in favor of moneylessness and de-commodifying labor effort.

(A)

19th July 2016, 02:49

No -- the historical context, from the article, is:

Unfortunately this is like the *inverse* of the 'Great Man Theory', where you're ascribing everything *negative* to one person, when in fact there are many larger social forces in effect as well.

You're suffering from the same kind of myopia as the author who's noted in the article:

The actions of those who prescribe to a theory called Marxist Leninism who after they seized power from the Whites failed to give up their power; instituted "Democratic" despotism and then exiled or killed anyone on the left who was anti-despotic.

You're *still* refusing to take a deep breath -- society is much different than during the time of the October Revolution, and you're also stuck in the past political mindset of bourgeois 'rights' (counterposed to the aristocracy) .

Since all revolutionaries and sympathetic people would be 'internal' to a revolutionary upsurge, such people in that movement -- as in *any* movement, really -- would have *no interest* in being anti-social or causing harm to others in the same movement.

A revolutionary movement that spreads worldwide would have the same internal dynamic -- there are *no* material interests within that would compel or encourage anti-social behavior against others in the same movement.

'Collectivism' implies 'egalitarianism' for social matters, and a full cooperation over the means of production, for productivity.

*deep breath. Internal despotism. Cooperation has to be voluntary; the state capitalism of China, Russia, Cuba is not voluntary. Even if we agree that their are two kinds of Collectivism; horizontal and vertical; Then any form of Vertical collectivism is still authoritarian and is NOT communist. Communist mode of socially controlled production has to be voluntary or else it is not communist. Remember Collectivism is also a part of Neo-liberalism, Authoritarianism, Fascism.

You're using an *abstraction* here -- much of how class struggle, revolution, and 'collectivism' would be done would depend greatly on prevailing social conditions at that time of upheaval.

Worse, though, is that you're being *pessimistic* with your invocation of the definition / principle -- taking that 'Collectivism holds that the collective need is greater then the individuals freedom', this means that all *common* interests, as for food and shelter, *would* be more important for the *entire* population, over any one individual's 'freedom' to do whatever they want with farms, foodstuffs, and building materials. That's *absolutely* fair.

I am trying to say that using the collective interest to justify an involuntary collective (State) is non-libertarian and authoritarian regardless of how it is run. Collectivism V individualism is false as society is a collection of individuals. Eveyone is both collective and individual so that giving the collective more power then the individual is unjust and can only occur under a state mechanism. I.E. Power backed only by force.

Collectivism *is* leftist because it's about transcending private property relations.

And Capitalism is also collective. Collectivism is divided horizontally and vertically. We as socialists hold that economic and social collectivism (horizontal) is required for an individuals freedom. A vertical collectivist is one who believes in control over the individual freedom. As a libertarian I oppose this hierarchy as unjust and unnecessary. Right now we live in a society that is authoritarian; that uses collective interest to justify war, wage slavery, private ownership of the means of production, taxation, nationalism.

There's no 'stealing' under the social organization paradigm of collectivism, because there wouldn't be any individualistic-type interests in amassing private property, as there are today -- collective production implies collective *consumption*, so anything that people need would be socio-politically discussed and decided-upon, without any objective need for the use of exchange values.

The question then is whether or not the social organization would be voluntary? If it is not voluntary then it requires a state mechanism to enforce its laws and therefor not true communism.
If it is voluntary then that means that it is not necessarily world wide and exists within Communes (planned community's). This would fit the definition of Communism; Stateless, classless, money-less.

The 'libertarian-authoritarian' dichotomy is a *false* one, as others here have attempted to explain to you -- in the near- and mid-term the fomenting of revolution would be an *authoritarian* act against the ruling class (not *internally*), while a *post-capitalist* social order would have 'plateaued' everyone in that society so that social relations would be *egalitarian* and not subject to any kind of 'libertarian-authoritarian' continuum, since no one's basic humane needs would be dire / *pressing* and available for blackmailing by private interests.

Their is a clear dichotomy between authoritarian and Libertarian. I maintain that this line is separated by power wielded by force. Our current state system is authoritarian as it wields the force of the Majority backed by the military force of the state. The Majority can dictate laws by legislation that all must follow and if you do not your freedom or life will be taken from you.

The funny part is that laissez-faire Libertarians and Anarco-Capitalists destroy their own Capitalist stance by their Libertarian one as their property can only be maintained by force.
Just as collective control of production can only be libertarian if it is voluntary as if it is enforced by might then it is not communism and actually state capitalism.

It's not a 'belief' -- it's a political *position*, based on an analysis of what it would take for society to actually fulfill human need.

*Your* position allows for the commodification and exploitation of labor, through exchange values, so that people can make profits. Not much socialism there.

Socialism is not the elimination of trade. It is the elimination of the private ownership the the means of production.
Communism is the elimination of trade apparently.

Either you're in *error*, or you're deliberately being *disingenuous* -- I said the point is to mass-consciously take control over social *productivity*.

Your 'anti-boogeyman' position is misconstruing what revolution is all about, all so that you can have a contrived 'boogeyman' political enemy to insert alongside any expressed pro-socialism sentiments.

I miss read that. Although control over productivity is control of an individuals labors. If its not voluntary then it is not communism.

No, I'm literally describing full *cooperation* over all social production.

That is incredibly utopian. You believe several billion socialists will reach consensus? Look at this site and tell me how that is working out so far.
Full cooperation is not necessary for communism to exist; merely cooperation of a small group; at least by definition.
A stateless; classless, money-less society has no determined size. It is Utppian to belive that communism can exist on a global scale and Authoritarian to try and force it by might of the majority.

Authoritarian *outward*, to repress the ruling class in the transition to socialism and communism.

I am not talking about the transition/revolution. I am talking about any authoritarian attempts to force the entire human post-capitalist/socialist population to be communists.
i.E. Not communism.

Please figure it out then instead of just showcasing your political fears to the rest of us.

Do you know?

Again you're showing yourself to be in thrall to bourgeois political concepts -- no one's suggesting *parliamentary* modes of politics, as with a majority-minority split over social policy.

(Social policy would basically have to be *unanimous*, so that's it's *consistent* regardless of geography -- but the process for getting to unanimity could potentially take as long as it had to, organically, so that everyone is on-the-same-page.)

Lenin was. Stalin was. Any attempt to force the entire post-capitalist/socialist population would be statist and Parliamentary.

So you prefer the term 'anarchism', over 'communism'. Semantics.

And now you're being unclear whether you prefer a *moneyless*, stateless communism / anarchism, or whether you'd prefer to retain commodity production and currency so that '[people] can sell what [they] make'.

Your politics is inconsistent since you give lip service to communism / anarchism, but you keep expressing sentiments for communal-based private property, for the sake of individualistic profit-making, as from the labor of others.

It has to be one or the other -- it can't be both. Either exchange values continue to exist, or else they *don't*, in favor of moneylessness and de-commodifying labor effort.

I actually agree. Communism must be anarchist otherwise it is not communism. SO maybe we should all make sure we know what Anarchism is and start fighting for Anarchism instead of fighting each other over Semantics.

ckaihatsu

19th July 2016, 15:27

The actions of those who prescribe to a theory called Marxist Leninism who after they seized power from the Whites failed to give up their power; instituted "Democratic" despotism and then exiled or killed anyone on the left who was anti-despotic.

I'm not going to apologize for the crimes of Stalinism, but I will note that the surrounding context was one of foreign invasions and isolating the October Revolution -- if Stalin hadn't existed someone *like* him would have most-likely done the exact same thing, a *consolidation* of internal power, in the direction of socialism-in-one-country at best, or despotism at worst.

Allied concerns[edit]

The Allies became concerned at the collapse of the Eastern front and the loss of their Tsarist ally to communism and there was also the question of the large quantities of supplies and equipment in Russian ports, which the Allies feared might be commandeered by the Germans. Also worrisome to the Allies was the April 1918 landing of a division of German troops in Finland, increasing speculation they might attempt to capture the Murmansk-Petrograd railroad, and subsequently the strategic port of Murmansk and possibly Arkhangelsk. Other concerns regarded the potential destruction of the Czechoslovak Legions and the threat of Bolshevism, the nature of which worried many Allied governments. Meanwhile, Allied matériel in transit quickly accumulated in the warehouses in Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. Estonia had established a national army with the support of Finnish volunteers and were defending against the 7th Red Army's attack.[3]

Faced with these events, the British and French governments decided upon an Allied military intervention in Russia. They had three objectives:[4][not in citation given]

prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk
mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railroad[not in citation given]
resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions[not in citation given] and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.

Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that President Wilson provide American soldiers for the campaign. In July 1918, against the advice of the United States Department of War, Wilson agreed to the limited participation of 5,000 United States Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia Expeditionary Force" [5] (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) were sent to Arkhangelsk while another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia,[6] were shipped to Vladivostok from the Philippines and from Camp Fremont in California. That same month, the Canadian government agreed to the British government's request to command and provide most of the soldiers for a combined British Empire force, which also included Australian and Indian troops. Some of this force was the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force; another part was the North Russia Intervention. A Royal Navy squadron was sent to the Baltic under Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair. This force consisted of modern C-class cruisers and V- and W-class destroyers. In December 1918, Sinclair sailed into Estonian and Latvian ports, sending in troops and supplies, and promising to attack the Bolsheviks "as far as my guns can reach". In January 1919, he was succeeded in command by Rear-Admiral Walter Cowan.

The Japanese, concerned about their northern border, sent the largest military force, numbering about 70,000. They desired the establishment of a buffer state in Siberia,[7] and the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff viewed the situation in Russia as an opportunity for settling Japan's "northern problem". The Japanese government was also intensely hostile to communism.

The Italians created the special "Corpo di Spedizione" with Alpini troops sent from Italy and ex-POWs of Italian ethnicity from the former Austro-Hungarian army who were recruited to the Italian Legione Redenta. They were initially based in the Italian Concession in Tientsin and numbered about 2,500.

Romania, Greece, Poland, China, and Serbia also sent contingents in support of the intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

*deep breath. Internal despotism. Cooperation has to be voluntary; the state capitalism of China, Russia, Cuba is not voluntary. Even if we agree that their are two kinds of Collectivism; horizontal and vertical;

Then any form of Vertical collectivism is still authoritarian and is NOT communist.

No, you're just assuming that some nominal vanguard-type 'leadership' (for lack of a better term) would automatically be a runaway catastrophe, with zero accountability to the working class as a whole.

I'll maintain that the revolution could not *stagnate* -- that it would have to continue to grow and spread worldwide, or else the problems of revolutionary isolation that we saw with the October Revolution could then happen all over again.

Communist mode of socially controlled production has to be voluntary or else it is not communist. Remember Collectivism is also a part of Neo-liberalism, Authoritarianism, Fascism.

No -- these three are, by definition, run by substitutionist *elites*, while 'collectivism' implies a flat, *distributed* exercise of determination over social policy.

I am trying to say that using the collective interest to justify an involuntary collective (State) is non-libertarian and authoritarian regardless of how it is run. Collectivism V individualism is false as society is a collection of individuals. Eveyone is both collective and individual so that giving the collective more power then the individual is unjust and can only occur under a state mechanism. I.E. Power backed only by force.

I'll repeat that you're just deciding to be pessimistic -- and also *dismissive* about fully-realized collectivism / communism.

Your overriding concern about top-down hierarchies is *so* severe that you'd rather retain the speculative *market* system of economics, all for the sake of presumably preserving 'individual' 'power'.

And Capitalism is also collective.

A better term here would be 'social', as in 'socially determined by the class division'. Capitalism is *not* collectivist in its structuring of social relations.

Collectivism is divided horizontally and vertically. We as socialists hold that economic and social collectivism (horizontal) is required for an individuals freedom.

A vertical collectivist is one who believes in control over the individual freedom.

No one on the left is interested in bringing about any kind of top-down elitism as a matter of *ideology*. That's a *right-wing* concept, as in certain privileged people purportedly being more 'knowledgeable' or 'worthy' of wielding control over society.

As a libertarian I oppose this hierarchy as unjust and unnecessary. Right now we live in a society that is authoritarian; that uses collective interest to justify war, wage slavery, private ownership of the means of production, taxation, nationalism.

Yup.

---

There's no 'stealing' under the social organization paradigm of collectivism, because there wouldn't be any individualistic-type interests in amassing private property, as there are today -- collective production implies collective *consumption*, so anything that people need would be socio-politically discussed and decided-upon, without any objective need for the use of exchange values.

The question then is whether or not the social organization would be voluntary? If it is not voluntary then it requires a state mechanism to enforce its laws and therefor not true communism.
If it is voluntary then that means that it is not necessarily world wide and exists within Communes (planned community's). This would fit the definition of Communism; Stateless, classless, money-less.

Why are you so insistent on the communal-patchwork layout -- ?

I've mentioned before that since the various communes would have to interact on some basis, as for material exchanges, there would have to be a medium of interchange among them, meaning *currency* of some sort -- and the use of currency retains the system of exchange values, commodity production, and the commodification of labor. It wouldn't be socialism, much less communism.

[QUOTE=Democracy;2874101]

Their is a clear dichotomy between authoritarian and Libertarian. I maintain that this line is separated by power wielded by force.

Oh! Well, this *explains* it -- you think that the basis of politics (social organization) is in the *wielding of force*. Now this does explain your virtual *obsession* with 'power' and the contrived 'libertarian-authoritarian' dichotomy.

The basis of social organization is in *production*, and not some kind of abstract 'force' -- the quickest proof is that *workers* are required for the production of *war materiel*, with which to wield 'force', and also that any society simply can't exist on the basis of elitist force-wielding, termed 'Bonapartism'. The larger general population can't withstand, and won't abide, an extended, indefinite period of nationalist warmongering, because the environment people live in is a *domestic* one, with domestic *needs*, while warfare requires a different type of *mindset* that's not in the direct interests of the overall civilian population. (Consider the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, circa 2001-2005, for the people of the United States.)

Our current state system is authoritarian as it wields the force of the Majority backed by the military force of the state.

There's no decisive 'majority' undergirding the functioning of the state -- the state functions to maintain its capitalist economic system which has dynamics all of its own. People *tolerate* this bureaucratic functioning to varying degrees because the capitalist system has economic (etc.) *hegemony* over the world, until it can be *replaced* through the actions of a proletarian revolution.

The Majority can dictate laws by legislation that all must follow and if you do not your freedom or life will be taken from you.

Legislation, too, is not driven by 'the majority'. It's driven by the empirical needs of the bourgeois state for its own existence.

The funny part is that laissez-faire Libertarians and Anarco-Capitalists destroy their own Capitalist stance by their Libertarian one as their property can only be maintained by force.
Just as collective control of production can only be libertarian if it is voluntary as if it is enforced by might then it is not communism and actually state capitalism.

Okay, no argument.

Socialism is not the elimination of trade.

Yes, socialism *is* the elimination of private property and trade, in favor of a rising 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which incrementally reorganizes all of society's production in humane-rational ways. The DOTP displaces private interests and the bourgeois state so that workers themselves may determine how production is done, for the benefit of everyone in society.

[Socialism] is the elimination of the private ownership the the means of production.
Communism is the elimination of trade apparently.

I don't know why you think that 'trade' -- which requires a societal-wide working concept of 'private property' -- would continue-on under socialism / DOTP. You're incorrect on that.

---

Either you're in *error*, or you're deliberately being *disingenuous* -- I said the point is to mass-consciously take control over social *productivity*.

Your 'anti-boogeyman' position is misconstruing what revolution is all about, all so that you can have a contrived 'boogeyman' political enemy to insert alongside any expressed pro-socialism sentiments.

I miss read that. Although control over productivity is control of an individuals labors.

After much discussion here at RevLeft over the years I think I can safely say that the consensus is there's no need for any kind of 'blueprint' treatment of social planning, as from the top-down.

I'll ask you to consider that material-productive planning can be done at broad scales, even globally, for *logistical* determinations, while the bottom-up component would be people's own *self-determination*, on whether to fit themselves into those logistical plans, or not. (No top-down control over an individual's labors required.)

If its not voluntary then it is not communism.

Yes.

---

No, I'm literally describing full *cooperation* over all social production.

That is incredibly utopian. You believe several billion socialists will reach consensus? Look at this site and tell me how that is working out so far.
[B]Full cooperation is not necessary for communism to exist; merely cooperation of a small group; at least by definition.
A stateless; classless, money-less society has no determined size. It is Utppian to belive that communism can exist on a global scale and Authoritarian to try and force it by might of the majority.

Again -- no 'blueprint' needed, and no 7.5-billion 'sign-offs' needed on a single plan, either.

(For comparison consider if the workers of the world all seized their respective means-of-production / factories / workplaces at about the same time -- these could all be called small-scale 'communes', for the sake of convenience. From that point onward how would these mini-communes interact economically with each other, consciously and decisively, *without* using currencies or markets as a 'hands-off' intermediary -- ?)

[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

---

Authoritarian *outward*, to repress the ruling class in the transition to socialism and communism.

I am not talking about the transition/revolution. I am talking about any authoritarian attempts to force the entire human post-capitalist/socialist population to be communists.
i.E. Not communism.

How about this -- leave the overthrow of the ruling class to the revolutionaries (a 'vanguard'), and see what people think once the class divide has been annihilated.

---

I don't know if it was Marx who called for the revolution to continue it's existence threw socialism into communism or something someone added later but it does not make sense to me.

Please figure it out then instead of just showcasing your political fears to the rest of us.

Do you know?

Ask *yourself* what makes sense -- what would a 'permanent revolution' imply -- ?

---

Again you're showing yourself to be in thrall to bourgeois political concepts -- no one's suggesting *parliamentary* modes of politics, as with a majority-minority split over social policy.

(Social policy would basically have to be *unanimous*, so that's it's *consistent* regardless of geography -- but the process for getting to unanimity could potentially take as long as it had to, organically, so that everyone is on-the-same-page.)

Lenin was. Stalin was. Any attempt to force the entire post-capitalist/socialist population would be statist and Parliamentary.

That was almost 100 years ago -- what about *now*, *today* -- ?

I actually agree. Communism must be anarchist otherwise it is not communism. SO maybe we should all make sure we know what Anarchism is and start fighting for Anarchism instead of fighting each other over Semantics.

I'm *not* fighting you -- we've been in an extended discussion, on a few different threads, regarding matters of political economy.

If you agree that the only difference between 'communism' and 'anarchism' is *semantics*, you wouldn't be so insistent on 'fighting for anarchism', as counterposed to 'fighting for communism'.

(A)

19th July 2016, 21:28

I'm not going to apologize for the crimes of Stalinism, but I will note that the surrounding context was one of foreign invasions and isolating the October Revolution -- if Stalin hadn't existed someone *like* him would have most-likely done the exact same thing, a *consolidation* of internal power, in the direction of socialism-in-one-country at best, or despotism at worst.

Lenin is the one who betrayed the revolution and attacked the anarchists.

"Bolshevik-anarchist relations soon turned sour as the various anarchist groups realized that the Bolsheviks were not interested in pluralism, but rather a centralized one-party rule. A few prominent anarchist figures such as Bill Shatov and Yuda Roshchin, despite their disappointment, encouraged anarchists to cooperate with the Bolsheviks in the present conflict with the hope that there would be time to negotiate. But most anarchists became disillusioned quite quickly with their supposed Bolshevik allies, who took over the soviets and placed them under Communist control. The sense of betrayal came to a head in March 1918, when Lenin signed the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany. Though the Bolshevik leaders claimed that the treaty was necessary to allow the revolution to progress, anarchists widely saw it as an excessive compromise which counteracted the idea of international revolution. After months of increasing anarchist resistance and dwindling Bolshevik patience, the Communist government decisively split with their libertarian agitators in the spring of 1918. In Moscow and Petrograd the newly formed Cheka was sent in to disband all anarchist organizations, and largely succeeded. On the night of April 12, 1918 the Cheka (secret police) raided 26 anarchist centres in Moscow, including the House of Anarchy, the headquarters of the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups. A fierce battle raged on Malaia Dimitrovka Street. About 40 anarchists were killed or wounded, and approximately 500 were imprisoned. A dozen Cheka agents had also been killed in the fighting. Anarchists joined Mensheviks and Left Socialist revolutionaries in boycotting the 1918 May Day celebrations. By this time some belligerent anarchist dissenters armed themselves and formed groups of so-called “Black Guards” that continued to fight Communist power on a small scale as the Civil War began. The urban anarchist movement, however, was dead."

No, you're just assuming that some nominal vanguard-type 'leadership' (for lack of a better term) would automatically be a runaway catastrophe, with zero accountability to the working class as a whole.

I'll maintain that the revolution could not *stagnate* -- that it would have to continue to grow and spread worldwide, or else the problems of revolutionary isolation that we saw with the October Revolution could then happen all over again.

Nominal? Have you read any of Lenin's works before the Russian revolution? 'What is to be done' and the like? Nothing nominal about vanguardism.

Accountability? I would say at best they would be as accountable as Hillary Clinton and at worse; stalin.

Lenin's works where the cause of the failure as it was his idea to lead a vanguardist revolution in a single state and implement A dictatorship of the party.

The vanguard is not meant to be In Political power which is exactly what vanguardists want; otherwise they would be neutral on vanguardism as the vanguard is simply the group that is most able, ready and willing to fight and lead. A position that would wield no actual political power and could only lead by the 'propaganda of deed'

I think Platformism is a smarter approach. The anarchist elite would spend it's time expanding the class consciences and organizing so that the vanguard would no longer be elite but the majority. Make the movement as a whole stronger and more organized & more libertarian.

No -- these three are, by definition, run by substitutionist *elites*, while 'collectivism' implies a flat, *distributed* exercise of determination over social policy.

Majority rule is still rule. I.e. Not anarchism.
Nationalism / fascism includes the ideology that the collective is more important than the individual. Neo-liberals and capitalists consider public shares and the like to be collectivist as it allows anyone to own a part of the company. Collectivism

Full Definition of collectivism
1
: *a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : *a system marked by such control
2
: *emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

I'll repeat that you're just deciding to be pessimistic -- and also *dismissive* about fully-realized collectivism / communism.

Your overriding concern about top-down hierarchies is *so* severe that you'd rather retain the speculative *market* system of economics, all for the sake of presumably preserving 'individual' 'power'.

And your being intentionally optimistic about the benevolence of the vanguard and a centrally planned economy & dismissive of all the evidence / critiques to the contrary. Your views sound decidedly utopian.

A better term here would be 'social', as in 'socially determined by the class division'. Capitalism is *not* collectivist in its structuring of social relations.

Parts of even the most Laissez faire /anarcho capitalism are collectivist in an individuals ability to own shares.

When you add neo-liberal policies to it it becomes even worse.

Vertical/identity/state collectivism is nationalism, fascism.

As for socialism; I am against collective controll/ownership of the means in comparison to collective management.

Ownership/control of the means makes you a capitalist.

Management means that the society/community takes care of the means but does not own/controll it.

Hmm.

No one on the left is interested in bringing about any kind of top-down elitism as a matter of *ideology*. That's a *right-wing* concept, as in certain privileged people purportedly being more 'knowledgeable' or 'worthy' of wielding control over society.

If right wing is capitalist as opposed to socialist then top down control is not
A right-wing consept or ideology. Thy is why the left right spectrum is incomplete. You need a top and a bottom to represent authoritarianism and libertarianism.

Why are you so insistent on the communal-patchwork layout -- ?

I've mentioned before that since the various communes would have to interact on some basis, as for material exchanges, there would have to be a medium of interchange among them, meaning *currency* of some sort -- and the use of currency retains the system of exchange values, commodity production, and the commodification of labor. It wouldn't be socialism, much less communism.

Because a one world society can't exist without community's within it and trying to make every community abide by the exact same rules and standards is insane and would require a single world state to dictate laws.

Marxism is based in science and looks good on a chart. Anarchism is based in morality and looks like shit on a chart.

Oh! Well, this *explains* it -- you think that the basis of politics (social organization) is in the *wielding of force*. Now this does explain your virtual *obsession* with 'power' and the contrived 'libertarian-authoritarian' dichotomy.

The basis of social organization is in *production*, and not some kind of abstract 'force' -- the quickest proof is that *workers* are required for the production of *war materiel*, with which to wield 'force', and also that any society simply can't exist on the basis of elitist force-wielding, termed 'Bonapartism'. The larger general population can't withstand, and won't abide, an extended, indefinite period of nationalist warmongering, because the environment people live in is a *domestic* one, with domestic *needs*, while warfare requires a different type of *mindset* that's not in the direct interests of the overall civilian population. (Consider the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, circa 2001-2005, for the people of the United States.)

I'm sorry? the basis for social organization is production...

I had wondered if you where a computer generated Marxist but now I know it to be true.

We DO LIVE in a extended, indefinite period of nationalist warmongering that the majority has; and will continue to abide. Only us; the "vanguard" can shake the sleeping giant that is the working class; the oppressed.

If the USSR had won and we where living under a despotic state the vanguard would be anarchists and libertarians.

There's no decisive 'majority' undergirding the functioning of the state -- the state functions to maintain its capitalist economic system which has dynamics all of its own. People *tolerate* this bureaucratic functioning to varying degrees because the capitalist system has economic (etc.) *hegemony* over the world, until it can be *replaced* through the actions of a proletarian revolution.

Yes any state exists only to exist. Capitalism needs the state to survive as capitalism is predicated on the use of force. Eliminate the state and the use of state/legal/militarized force and capitalism can not survive.

Legislation, too, is not driven by 'the majority'. It's driven by the empirical needs of the bourgeois state for its own existence.

As would any socialist state. The existence of the state would be driven by the "needs" of a planned economy and the laws required to uphold it.

Yes, socialism *is* the elimination of private property and trade, in favor of a rising 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which incrementally reorganizes all of society's production in humane-rational ways. The DOTP displaces private interests and the bourgeois state so that workers themselves may determine how production is done, for the benefit of everyone in society.

*marxism

I don't know why you think that 'trade' -- which requires a societal-wide working concept of 'private property' -- would continue-on under socialism / DOTP. You're incorrect on that.

*marxism

After much discussion here at RevLeft over the years I think I can safely say that the consensus is there's no need for any kind of 'blueprint' treatment of social planning, as from the top-down.

I'll ask you to consider that material-productive planning can be done at broad scales, even globally, for *logistical* determinations, while the bottom-up component would be people's own *self-determination*, on whether to fit themselves into those logistical plans, or not. (No top-down control over an individual's labors required.)

So everyone asks for their needs to be met and then people will fulfill their needs. Anarchists believe in mutual aid so I can get behind that. What i cant get behind is the need/possibility that that level of human cooperation can be reached threw any form of state socialism or central control over the means of production.

Anarcho/syndicalism>Anarcho/socialism>Anarcho/communism

Alternatively

Vanguardism>State/socialism>Platformism>Anarcho/syndicalism>Anarcho/socialism>Anarcho/communism

Again -- no 'blueprint' needed, and no 7.5-billion 'sign-offs' needed on a single plan, either.

(For comparison consider if the workers of the world all seized their respective means-of-production / factories / workplaces at about the same time -- these could all be called small-scale 'communes', for the sake of convenience. From that point onward how would these mini-communes interact economically with each other, consciously and decisively, *without* using currencies or markets as a 'hands-off' intermediary -- ?)

Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism

They would... Your chart shows that syndicalism would be the first step.

Syndicalists having seized the means of production now revolt.

Now it could go two ways. A vanguard could seize power and become the new socialist state and create a planned economy combining the state and the means in one super productive force. Ideally the abundance of goods would cause the state to wither away somehow and now you have communism.

Alternatively they could destroy the state and become Anarcho/socialists. Without the state their can be no capitalists, without the capitalist their can be no exploitation. Communes of communists form and as people shed the trauma of our history. More ad more people become communist as it is the best system.

How about this -- leave the overthrow of the ruling class to the revolutionaries (a 'vanguard'), and see what people think once the class divide has been annihilated.

And I will be their to fight anyone who tries to form A new state.

Ask *yourself* what makes sense -- what would a 'permanent revolution' imply -- ?

What makes sense is to fight the power and rage against the machine until the end of the human race.

That was almost 100 years ago -- what about *now*, *today* -- ?

Today the left is so small that people think liberals are socialists.

I'm *not* fighting you -- we've been in an extended discussion, on a few different threads, regarding matters of political economy.

If you agree that the only difference between 'communism' and 'anarchism' is *semantics*, you wouldn't be so insistent on 'fighting for anarchism', as counterposed to 'fighting for communism'.

Because their are communists who think they can achieve communism without anarchism. You think communism is anarchist but not that anarchism is a prerequisite for communism.

I fight for anarchism because anarchism is more important then communism. I can live without communism; I can't abide authoritarianism.

ckaihatsu

21st July 2016, 17:36

Nominal? Have you read any of Lenin's works before the Russian revolution? 'What is to be done' and the like? Nothing nominal about vanguardism.

Accountability? I would say at best they would be as accountable as Hillary Clinton and at worse; stalin.

Lenin's works where the cause of the failure as it was his idea to lead a vanguardist revolution in a single state and implement A dictatorship of the party.

The vanguard is not meant to be In Political power which is exactly what vanguardists want; otherwise they would be neutral on vanguardism as the vanguard is simply the group that is most able, ready and willing to fight and lead. A position that would wield no actual political power and could only lead by the 'propaganda of deed'

I think Platformism is a smarter approach. The anarchist elite would spend it's time expanding the class consciences and organizing so that the vanguard would no longer be elite but the majority. Make the movement as a whole stronger and more organized & more libertarian.

D, I still think that it's a mistake on your part to generalize any historical instance, into a purported future *inevitability*.

You *are* addressing the objective need for a vanguard-type organization, but then you become insistent on your anarchist-style *branding* -- call it vanguardism or platformism, whatever, but we are both describing the same / similar socio-political dynamic.

Majority rule is still rule. I.e. Not anarchism.
Nationalism / fascism includes the ideology that the collective is more important than the individual. Neo-liberals and capitalists consider public shares and the like to be collectivist as it allows anyone to own a part of the company. Collectivism

Full Definition of collectivism
1
: *a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : *a system marked by such control
2
: *emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Okay so we subscribe to different interpretations of 'collectivism'. I mean it in the sense of 'distributed participation over social production'.

And your being intentionally optimistic about the benevolence of the vanguard and a centrally planned economy & dismissive of all the evidence / critiques to the contrary. Your views sound decidedly utopian.

No, I'll maintain that I'm *not* being a cheerleader here -- a vanguard-type organization would most-likely be *objectively* necessary for revolution, while a centrally planned economy would enable a fully post-capitalist moneyless communist-type global cooperation over social production.

Parts of even the most Laissez faire /anarcho capitalism are collectivist in an individuals ability to own shares.

When you add neo-liberal policies to it it becomes even worse.

Vertical/identity/state collectivism is nationalism, fascism.

Okay, again, we have differing conceptions of the term 'collectivism'.

As for socialism; I am against collective controll/ownership of the means in comparison to collective management.

Ownership/control of the means makes you a capitalist.

Management means that the society/community takes care of the means but does not own/controll it.

Hmm.

As usual, D, you're being too nit-picky over semantics -- my use of 'ownership' and 'control' in my model are terms of *convenience*, since the particulars are all spelled-out in the content, anyway:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

If right wing is capitalist as opposed to socialist then top down control is not
A right-wing consept or ideology. Thy is why the left right spectrum is incomplete. You need a top and a bottom to represent authoritarianism and libertarianism.

It really sounds more and more like your ideology (as with many anarchists) is *dependent* on this false dichotomy of 'libertarianism-authoritarianism'. The false dichotomy is *exposed* once we take 'internal' and 'external' into account -- once again an overwhelmingly societal revolutionary consciousness, as for revolution, would wield authority *externally* to suppress the ruling class, and would have no collective interest in allowing power to be imposed on its own *internally*, especially post-revolution. As long as liberated-production was being realized *internally* ('post-scarcity'), the need for political-type fixed hierarchies would be completely *obviated*.

---

Why are you so insistent on the communal-patchwork layout -- ?

I've mentioned before that since the various communes would have to interact on some basis, as for material exchanges, there would have to be a medium of interchange among them, meaning *currency* of some sort -- and the use of currency retains the system of exchange values, commodity production, and the commodification of labor. It wouldn't be socialism, much less communism.

Because a one world society can't exist without community's within it and trying to make every community abide by the exact same rules and standards is insane and would require a single world state to dictate laws.

See, you're unreasonably stereotyping central planning and world cooperation as being 'a single world state to dictate laws'.

No. Just because human beings have the capacity for coordination, as over liberated-production, doesn't mean that your nightmarish fears are automatically validated -- even if such coordination and planning *does* go all the way up to the global scale.

Also a patchwork of different localist guidelines over social conduct is *self-defeating* because anyone who happened to transgress social mores in one community could just point-out the inconsistency in relation to other communes and claim injustice to their person. If this person could *leave* the community that cried 'foul', they would, for the relative leniency of *another* constrained commune.

Marxism is based in science and looks good on a chart. Anarchism is based in morality and looks like shit on a chart.

Matters of style and depiction aside, 'morality' can be extremely *subjective* from one person to the next, and it's this inconsistency of social mores that leaves your method of politics to be *fractured* and *fragmented* into the 'patchwork' of various localist communes.

I'm not even going to defend 'science' here, but I will note that the point of proletarian revolution is supposed to be so that we human beings can be 'hands-on' over all matters of society and social production -- *not* constrained by localist cultures or market-dependent interchanges.

I'm sorry? the basis for social organization is production...

Well, it's *true* -- without ongoing productive activity humanity would just *stagnate*, at best, and more-likely fall victim to nature's forces, at worst.

I had wondered if you where a computer generated Marxist but now I know it to be true.

Yeah, more fun with words from D -- I'm available to meet in person if it happens to be convenient for you.

We DO LIVE in a extended, indefinite period of nationalist warmongering that the majority has; and will continue to abide.

Okay, noted, and no-argument, but I strictly was referring to the politics of Bonapartism.

Only us; the "vanguard" can shake the sleeping giant that is the working class; the oppressed.

Okay, agreed.

If the USSR had won and we where living under a despotic state the vanguard would be anarchists and libertarians.

Given all of these stretched, imaginary 'if's, I suppose this would be true.

Yes any state exists only to exist. Capitalism needs the state to survive as capitalism is predicated on the use of force. Eliminate the state and the use of state/legal/militarized force and capitalism can not survive.

Yes, *but* -- you're again fetishizing *force*, when the engine of humanity is *production*.

As would any socialist state. The existence of the state would be driven by the "needs" of a planned economy and the laws required to uphold it.

Revolutionaries should *not* be aiming for the institution of any kind of 'state' (fixed bureaucratic hierarchy) within socialism -- the seizing of the *bourgeois* state apparatus is to wield it in the service of the revolution (as a revolutionary *strategy*, I would say), and then to *dissolve* it as the workers society gets its legs and holds it own, collapsing the class divide once and for all.

---

After much discussion here at RevLeft over the years I think I can safely say that the consensus is there's no need for any kind of 'blueprint' treatment of social planning, as from the top-down.

I'll ask you to consider that material-productive planning can be done at broad scales, even globally, for *logistical* determinations, while the bottom-up component would be people's own *self-determination*, on whether to fit themselves into those logistical plans, or not. (No top-down control over an individual's labors required.)

So everyone asks for their needs to be met and then people will fulfill their needs. Anarchists believe in mutual aid so I can get behind that.

Good to hear.

What i cant get behind is the need/possibility that that level of human cooperation can be reached threw any form of state socialism or central control over the means of production.

You continue to mischaracterize the DOTP as being a permanent-type 'state', and this is problematic for communication and discussion.

Also you're continuing to be skittish about 'central planning' (*not* 'central control over the means of production'), even though you just relented to the idea of '[E]veryone asks for their needs to be met and then people will fulfill their needs.'

This phrase is synonymous with a communistic gift-economy, and there's no reason it can't be done comprehensively, to address the entire *world's* needs at once.

The best analogy I can think of, for the sake of clarity, is of a staffing agency that covers the globe. If people (necessarily locally on-the-ground) are not-available for whatever task that they may be open-to, then so be it -- other professionally-similar appropriate liberated-laborers would have to be found if the project is to be fulfilled, for the needs of others (that the project's output covers).

Bottom-up-to-top-down, centrally-coordinated logistical considerations is *not* synonymous with your nightmare-sided 'central control over the means of production'.

Anarcho/syndicalism>Anarcho/socialism>Anarcho/communism

Alternatively

Vanguardism>State/socialism>Platformism>Anarcho/syndicalism>Anarcho/socialism>Anarcho/communism

---

Again -- no 'blueprint' needed, and no 7.5-billion 'sign-offs' needed on a single plan, either.

(For comparison consider if the workers of the world all seized their respective means-of-production / factories / workplaces at about the same time -- these could all be called small-scale 'communes', for the sake of convenience. From that point onward how would these mini-communes interact economically with each other, consciously and decisively, *without* using currencies or markets as a 'hands-off' intermediary -- ?)

[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

[QUOTE=Democracy;2874114]

They would... Your chart shows that syndicalism would be the first step.

Syndicalists having seized the means of production now revolt.

'They' 'would' *what* -- ? You're being unclear.

I support localist 'syndicalism' everywhere as an initial step because the scale-based-aspect of locally-physically-located means of production can't be empirically sidestepped or ignored -- sure, a global *vanguard* could be helping to *coordinate* such local revolts, for an overall *strategy*, say, seizing the bourgeois state, but 'at-the-end-of-the-day' we all know that production takes place on-the-ground, at a local level of geography by the workers themselves.

Now it could go two ways. A vanguard could seize power and become the new socialist state and create a planned economy combining the state and the means in one super productive force.

No, once again you're inserting your own nightmarish vision of imagined runaway *problems*, without bothering to describe *how* such could conceivably happen -- recall that a vanguard is only needed for class warfare against the ruling bourgeois class. Once the class foe has been decisively defeated the vanguard would have no task in front of it and so would be empirically *superfluous*. The working class itself would hardly be *passive* in the revolution, and post-revolution, would certainly be able to re-organize social production for its own benefit. Never would the political goal be for '[a] new socialist state'.

Ideally the abundance of goods would cause the state to wither away somehow and now you have communism.

Okay.

Alternatively they could destroy the state and become Anarcho/socialists. Without the state their can be no capitalists, without the capitalist their can be no exploitation.

No, I've shown in the other thread that, with your system of retained markets, exploitation *could* be possible if liberated-labor is to be involved in economic activity:

[E]xploitation can happen *outside* the use of wages. Within your model the author of a book could control all of the printed copies of the book, and its sales, so that the author decides how the pie is divided up among themselves and the print workers.

(Again my position is that any use of *exchange values*, through the commodification of goods and services, is *not socialism*, much-less communism.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195810-Market-Anarcho-Syndicalism?p=2874085#post2874085

---

Communes of communists form and as people shed the trauma of our history. More ad more people become communist as it is the best system.

Why do you think that communism would require separate *communes* -- ?

I'm very suspicious of any geographical-based subdivisions that could potentially balkanize a post-capitalist society, forming spurious 'boundaries', as into 'communes'.

If you can accept bottom-up-to-top-down 'central planning' then that would eliminate any arbitrary / spurious geography-based 'subdivisions' around liberated-production.

---

How about this -- leave the overthrow of the ruling class to the revolutionaries (a 'vanguard'), and see what people think once the class divide has been annihilated.

And I will be their to fight anyone who tries to form A new state.

Yes, understood.

---

Ask *yourself* what makes sense -- what would a 'permanent revolution' imply -- ?

What makes sense is to fight the power and rage against the machine until the end of the human race.

Okay -- this is not objectionable.

---

You can't force the minority by legislation without a ruling class.

Again you're showing yourself to be in thrall to bourgeois political concepts -- no one's suggesting *parliamentary* modes of politics, as with a majority-minority split over social policy.

(Social policy would basically have to be *unanimous*, so that's it's *consistent* regardless of geography -- but the process for getting to unanimity could potentially take as long as it had to, organically, so that everyone is on-the-same-page.)

Lenin was. Stalin was. Any attempt to force the entire post-capitalist/socialist population would be statist and Parliamentary.

That was almost 100 years ago -- what about *now*, *today* -- ?

Today the left is so small that people think liberals are socialists.

(You may want to address the original topic of this section.)

---

I'm *not* fighting you -- we've been in an extended discussion, on a few different threads, regarding matters of political economy.

If you agree that the only difference between 'communism' and 'anarchism' is *semantics*, you wouldn't be so insistent on 'fighting for anarchism', as counterposed to 'fighting for communism'.

Because their are communists who think they can achieve communism without anarchism. You think communism is anarchist but not that anarchism is a prerequisite for communism.

I fight for anarchism because anarchism is more important then communism. I can live without communism; I can't abide authoritarianism.

You may want to explain how 'anarchism is a prerequisite for communism'. (In other posts you've termed the two as being identical.)

Konikow

21st July 2016, 17:41

The difference is a word. The claimant of either title declares his irreconcilable opposition to the rule of the working class, because the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeoisie -- private property and commodity exchange -- are known to Revolutionary Leftists as "liberty."

ckaihatsu

21st July 2016, 18:45

The difference is a word. The claimant of either title

What are the two 'titles' -- ?

declares his irreconcilable opposition to the rule of the working class,

No one here is counter-revolutionary, except maybe in the 'Opposing Ideologies' section of the board.

because the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeoisie -- private property and commodity exchange -- are known to Revolutionary Leftists as "liberty."

No, revolutionary leftists would not *support* private property and commodity exchange. These are components of capitalism, which revolutionary leftists look to *overthrow*, by definition.

Konikow

21st July 2016, 19:15

No one here is counter-revolutionary, except maybe in the 'Opposing Ideologies' section of the board.

You are right. That is what they say, so it must be true.

No, revolutionary leftists would not *support* private property and commodity exchange. These are components of capitalism, which revolutionary leftists look to *overthrow*, by definition.

Again, silly me. I forgot about the definitions, and had I not forgotten, I would not have been so woefully confused. Maybe this diagram will help explain my confusion.

19490

(A)

22nd July 2016, 01:01

Anarchism as a prerequisite to Communism:

You ask how Anarchism is a Prerequisite for Communism and I will ask how it is not?

Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Money-less society. For A communist society or community to exist one must meet all of these criteria correct?

The issue then is how can a Collective become communist.

Statelessness: First we must ask what a state is. "A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government."
A community can not be made to be communist threw political means as the government itself can not exist in a communist society so any community that is to be communist must first rid itself of any form of government.
This would be an Anarchist state (point)

Classlessness: Secondly we must ask what is a class. "Social class is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories."
A community with a set Hierarchy such as Managers/planners/ > Workers/Laborers > Unemployed/individual where the Managers have power over the workers or the workers have priority (Labor credits) over the non workers/unemployed would still contain classes. Basically any form of social power over another would be non-communist. Anarchism would be the first step to achieving classlessness as Anarchism opposes Involuntary Hierarchy.

Money-less: Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context, or is easily converted to such a form. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money.
This would include Labor credits or Labor backed currency as they are a Medium of exchange where they Store the value of labor. Only a community where items are traded directly, in a communal market or given freely could be considered Money-less as their would be no medium of exchange. While Anarchism is not explicitly a money-less society many forms of Anarchism favor or logically/economicly lead to a Money-less society.

Communes and communism:

You ask why Communism would "Require" Communes. As above communism must be voluntary; with the members of society who wish to use a communist economy and live in a communist community must all do so willingly. As such if their are socialist or anarchist individuals/communitys who do not wish to solely use a money-less economy and instead a freed market or other mode of production then they could not be forced to.
By the Logic of Communist society being Voluntary it is logical to assume that A truly communist community would form in Planned community's and by definition not be instituted by a state or new class.
Alternatively an Anarchist market could Deflate to the point where the value for labor across society reaches such a low that the world wide collective of anarchist/socialist&communist communes (Communilism) would become Communist by virtue and not my organization.

ckaihatsu

22nd July 2016, 14:57

[W]orkers have priority (Labor credits) over the non workers/unemployed would still contain classes.

This *proves* your unfamiliarity with the framework of labor credits (at post #43).

Labor credits don't function as *trophies*, conferring elevated *social status* in regards to *priority* for new work roles, as you're misrepresenting -- rather they confer a kind of 'pay it forward' ability, where those possessing (necessarily-personally-earned) labor credits would be able to use them to activate *new liberated labor*, in *proportion* to the amounts of labor credits passed-forward upon completion of the work.

Here's from the introduction:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

[I developed] a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

---

Anarchism opposes Involuntary Hierarchy.

(It sounds like you're implying that labor credits would cause the formation of 'involuntary hierarchies' -- they wouldn't.)

Money-less: Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context, or is easily converted to such a form. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money.
This would include Labor credits or Labor backed currency

My 'labor credits' are *not* comparable to any exchange-value-medium 'labor-backed currency', 'labor vouchers', or anything else that's similar. This is because labor credits are *never* exchangeable for goods / resources / materials / items themselves -- they only pertain to liberated-laborers' *labor hours*.

as they are a Medium of exchange where they Store the value of labor.

With labor credits the 'value of labor' is *never* stored, or even quantified into any abstract valuation in the first place, as happens with any kind of exchange-value-based approach like labor vouchers.

Nothing is being *exchanged* through the use of labor credits, so there are no exchange values.

Only a community where items are traded directly, in a communal market or given freely could be considered Money-less

'Trade' and 'market' implies 'money'.

as their would be no medium of exchange.

Market-based trading *requires* a medium of exchange / currency, to provide a baseline of exchange-value, for interchangeability across all commodities.

While Anarchism is not explicitly a money-less society many forms of Anarchism favor or logically/economicly lead to a Money-less society.

if their are socialist or anarchist individuals/communitys who do not wish to solely use a money-less economy and instead a freed market or other mode of production then they could not be forced to.

Your ideology *requires* a throwback to the mercantilist practice / instrument / vehicle of money.

If people want to continue using exchange-values / currencies *after* a proletarian revolution that *de-commodifies* all production those people should be considered as *counter-revolutionaries*.

(A)

22nd July 2016, 23:15

Labor Credits:

So what can I do with labor credits? You cant exchange them for anything but priority time at a factory?

Trade:

"If people want to continue using exchange-values / currencies *after* a proletarian revolution that *de-commodifies* all production those people should be considered as *counter-revolutionaries*."

So you are going to have them arrested? How? Using your secret police force like Lenin used against the Anarco-Communists who fought with him during the revolution?

Any bad system can simply be fixed by making it law and enforcing it with guns. How do you think capitalism works.

How can you have a communist society when you cant even solve something as simple as trading one possession for another without the use of a state?

Its funny because I consider Lenin's actions to be so very clearly counter-revolutinary from an Anarchist stand point.

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

22nd July 2016, 23:52

Like most terms it depends on who is using it. There are Marxists and Anarchists who identify as Libertarian Communists.

ckaihatsu

23rd July 2016, 13:58

Labor Credits:

So what can I do with labor credits? You cant exchange them for anything but priority time at a factory?

No, the question of how productive assets and resources are used would be mass-determined (mass-prioritized, by policy package) by the larger population, through discrete voluntary 'locality' organizations.

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population [...]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Here's a good rundown, posted to the other thread:

[L]et's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit.

'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192580-What-s-the-best-form-of-Communism?p=2824831#post2824831

---

Trade:

If people want to continue using exchange-values / currencies *after* a proletarian revolution that *de-commodifies* all production those people should be considered as *counter-revolutionaries*.

So you are going to have them arrested? How? Using your secret police force like Lenin used against the Anarco-Communists who fought with him during the revolution?

More of your political nightmares, obviously.

I'm not going to attempt to *predict* how counter-revolutionaries would be handled. (Again, I'm just *one* person.)

Any bad system can simply be fixed by making it law and enforcing it with guns. How do you think capitalism works.

And there's your fetish with militaristic force -- we might call it 'military determinism', which *isn't* a real thing.

How can you have a communist society when you cant even solve something as simple as trading one possession for another without the use of a state?

My framework is fully compatible with the communist-type 'gift economy' conception of a post-capitalist political economy -- no state apparatus required.

No exchanges are necessary since 'communism' implies free-access and direct-distribution.

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

Its funny because I consider Lenin's actions to be so very clearly counter-revolutinary from an Anarchist stand point.

There's your inverted 'Great Man' take on history, once again.

ComradeNinja

23rd July 2016, 17:39

@Democracy:

In your market socialist system, how do you reconcile the fact that the means of production are, themselves, a result of labor? If they are freely available for anyone to use (as they are supposed to be socially available) and not private property, then they are a result of labor that received no compensation in the market. If there is compensation, then someone had to pay for them. If someone paid for them, then they are owned and not socially available.

If the community paid for them in the market, then the community's money had to come from somewhere like a collective account paid into by all members of the community. Like a tax. And who administers the community's accounts? This community is shaping up to be extremely similar to a state.

Additionally, if a community pays for these means of production, then the community owns them. If they just made those means available to anyone outside the community, then they are at a severe disadvantage to other communities who did not pay for means of production and whose members simply utilize your community's purchased means of production. This implies the need for each community to regulate and govern the use of their purchased means of production by those outside of the community. This, of course, intensifies the strength of community borders... on top of all that, a new market will form around communities and their means of production causing competition between communities... do you see how UNDIFFERENTIATED your suggested system is from current capitalist organization of production?

If we revert back to the idea that the means of production are not to be purchased in the market... Then who is creating these means? Who is producing the means of production? Labor has to do it... But if labor needs to earn money in order to participate in the market... Do you see now the problem?

Look, I understand that you said you're not really big into economics... But that is the absolute framework and bassis of Marxism. Marxism is really an economic critique of capitalism. Not just the employer-employee relations, but also exchange values, currency, markets, and the profit motive amongst many other things. If you look into the economic side of this whole argument, you will see how quite contradictory your idea of Market socialism is. I'm not sure about Market socialism in general... But the way you put it forward, it just doesn't seem like it works. Maybe I just don't understand what you're putting forward. Are you able to explain how these seeming contradictions could be rectified?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

(A)

23rd July 2016, 22:30

ComradeNinja

23rd July 2016, 22:45

Thank you for the question ComradeNinja.

The question of what is 'free' use. If you think I meant free of cost then that is at the heart of the confusion. In order to maintain the means Labor must be added to them. A orchard requires tending, a river cleaning, a factory maintenance.
All of these different means would be managed by their users. A river would be managed by the Municipality (Local community); A orchard by the Farmer and the Factory's by the workers their.

If someone wanted to use the means they would have to do so by the rules of those who manage them while themselves becoming one of their managers. Remember Anarchy means without rulers; not without order. That is what the circle around the A stands for; its an o for Order. Their is a reason my name is Democracy.

You are free to join any community/syndicate you like but the community can ask for your participation in return. Participatory economics.

But the actual construction and production of the tools and mechanical means of production is done by laborers. Their product needs to be sold in order for their labor to be worth anything and allow them to use the income to purchase commodities they need in the market. How is that market exchange taking place for the produced tools and means of production? Who is paying for the means of production? You mentioned that the community maintains and administers the means does that mean they are the purchasers, too? This is the crux of the problem. Money is needed to purchase the means of production that laborers produced so they can partake in the market. Where does that money come from? And then the other questions I asked come into effect. A market of communities' means of production will inevitably appear.

There's also the question of what is to be done with people whose products do not survive market competition. Are they SOL? As in, you labored to make something that isn't socially desirable enough to get the money you need to buy commodities in the market that you require to survive (or live comfortably). Are you doomed to starve or scrape by with the absolute bare minimum? Thus, we see the very material conditions that predicate our current social problems materialize in a supposedly post capitalist environment. I'm open to market socialism, but I just don't see a viable option in your suggestion in its current state.

(A)

24th July 2016, 00:33

ckaihatsu

24th July 2016, 15:15

Ckaihatsu I would like to point out you never countered my argument that a Communist society would have to be voluntary to fit within the defining characteristics of communism. I will take this to mean you agree with me and now understand why a world wide communist system would not be communist unless it allowed community's to not participate. I.E. Communalism.

I have no differences here, except that you have to understand that modes of production / economic systems are *not* compatible with each other side-by-side.

There objectively *can't* be a 'mixed' system that combines aspects of markets with aspects of 'the commons' -- if society wants to eschew and discard capitalism it *has* to go fully socialist, worldwide, or else there will continue to be 'friction' between the old and the new (I imagine it as similar to plate tectonics in dynamic).

If an overwhelming percentage of humanity does what it takes to make 'revolution', and it succeeds, no one will-be / should-be *wringing their hands* that some 'objected' to the revolution-in-progress while it was happening and that those counter-revolutionaries were ignored or even actively suppressed (if necessary).

If your only concern is that individuals, and even groups, wanted to 'drop-out' of a post-capitalist mainstream society, *I* can see nothing objectionable about that, *assuming* that overall empirical material circumstances happened to allow for it (that every last person wasn't needed at the front-lines, etc.). Your concern seems to be that you want to make sure things can be done on an individualistic, 'd.i.y.' basis -- again, not a prob as long as the revolutionary / post-revolutionary society had no good reason to call for inclusive participation from such individuals and groups.

(The counter-argument here, which I'm *not* making, is that a post-capitalist society would be far more productive, efficient, and society-like if *everyone* was actively part of a worldwide collective, perhaps only putting in a few hours of work per week, at relatively distasteful but extremely productive globalized processes, for the good of all.) (It would ultimately be up to the people of such a society, anyway -- I could only speculate and opinionate at this point.)

"Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits"
"Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward."

This is called a class. A group of workers receive organizational power by earning credits and then have the power to 'fund" as you put it new Means of production.

I'll thank you for your attentions here, but I'll argue that liberated laborers with past earned labor credits would *not* be a 'class'.

The *only* organizational power they'd have would be what they could *collectively consciously* accomplish among themselves, potentially -- very similar to a bunch of random people today who each have cash in their hands.

Any collection of people with labor credits wouldn't necessarily have to fund *new means of production* -- such could certainly be a social project, and would probably require significant funding, for the total combined labor hours needed for such, most-likely from *many* liberated laborers with their pooled labor credits. (It would be a relatively large-scale, even if local, project.)

Liberated-laborers' labor hours of work-effort could be applied to *anything*, of course, given that they want to do it and that they would receive sufficient rates of labor credits per hour for their fulfillment of the terms (possibly *zero* labor credits per hour, or a non-labor-credit communistic gift-economy).

Also please recall:

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

---

In order to value; disseminate and regulate these labor credits you would need some form of state.

I'll disagree here, too -- my premise is that overall general social mores and specific economic practice (as with a gift-economy and/or labor credits, for example) would be the greater societal 'ethos' at work.

Here's from past threads, on the topic:

The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits -- but it's a *political* act since they're expecting their "local brand" (by serial numbers) to be honored at face value by everyone else in the world. The people of that issuing locality haven't done *any work* for their issuing of those labor credits, and everybody knows it because it's all part of the public record.

What that locality *could* do is send enough of its own people out to anywhere else, to do work and bring labor credits from outside back to their own locality, so as to show real backing for the batch of labor credits that they issued from debt. That, too, would be part of the public record.

Here's from a recent thread:

The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)

---

I appreciate the work you put in to your system but where was the basis drawn from. What logic did you use to decide on this system and how it operates.

Sure -- good question(s), appreciated.

I had the time a few years ago to really think all of this 'communist workings' stuff through, and I built up my 3D graphics skills so as to realize these concepts / diagrams / models / frameworks thoroughly. The thought process was just based around nailing-down the various 'components' so that everything within any given framework is self-consistent as a whole. Feel free to step-through from any 'component' to any others and back-again, etc., if you haven't done so already, to 'test' it yourself (maybe start with the 'labor credits' illustration / model):

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

My ideas are based on a problem; How does an economy function without a government to regulate it. You have to answer the same problem or your system is not communist.

Agreed. That's only fair.

---

More of your political nightmares, obviously.

I'm not going to attempt to *predict* how counter-revolutionaries would be handled. (Again, I'm just *one* person.)

Well we know how they where handled in the past; and I am sure you have an idea on how you would want to handle me.

I sincerely don't want to 'handle' *anyone* -- this is *politics* (of a yet-unrealized kind), and *not* of actual bureaucratic-power-type *administration*. Even if we were in a time of the proletariat being ascendant, I'd imagine that all social-type decision-making would emanate from *collective* deliberations and decision-making and would *not* be from a fixed-bureaucratic-type of hierarchy, since society would be in the process of *transcending* that kind of political practice.

The problem is your counter-revolutionary is another mans vanguard just as your vanguard is my counter-revolutionary.

No, I don't think such definitions would be *that* arbitrary.

---

Any bad system can simply be fixed by making it law and enforcing it with guns. How do you think capitalism works.

And there's your fetish with militaristic force -- we might call it 'military determinism', which *isn't* a real thing.

Yah because who would have any negative feelings about armed men slaughtering people on behalf of the government.
I am such a fool for thinking that armed men shooting the working class would be an issue.

Well, I'm not going to attempt to *allay* your anxieties here -- best-case we'll be laughing it all away someday.

Great man; Great Men; either way the actions of the Bolsheviks where counter revolutionary from an anarchist standpoint.
The Anarchists knew this and where attacked for trying to save the revolution.

Hmmmm, this isn't an area of my personal interest, but I tend to see all of that as being on the 'downslope' by that point in historical developments.

Thank you for the question ComradeNinja.

The question of what is 'free' use. If you think I meant free of cost then that is at the heart of the confusion. In order to maintain the means Labor must be added to them. A orchard requires tending, a river cleaning, a factory maintenance.
All of these different means would be managed by their users. A river would be managed by the Municipality (Local community); A orchard by the Farmer and the Factory's by the workers their.

If someone wanted to use the means they would have to do so by the rules of those who manage them while themselves becoming one of their managers. Remember Anarchy means without rulers; not without order. That is what the circle around the A stands for; its an o for Order. Their is a reason my name is Democracy.

You are free to join any community/syndicate you like but the community can ask for your participation in return. Participatory economics.

Jumping-in here, I'll agree with the crux of CN's argument -- I prefer to frame it as a person's *conflict of interest* between the public sector, and the private sector.

In your conception of a post-capitalist social order why should people have to deal with an overall social environment of *divergent interests* -- *either* they work for the common good, through the 'community', or else they can tend to their own *individualistic* concerns, building up personal accumulations of currency that may begin to *rival* the community's means of production that are inherently part of the 'commons'. (And who's to say, exactly, whether what a person 'possesses' is or isn't a 'means of production' -- ? How about a shoemaker's bench -- ? How about a *mechanized* shoemaker's apparatus, for one-off shoemaking -- ? How about *two* of them -- ? How about an ad-hoc self-organized collection of shoemakers that pool-together their earned currency to organize and create a 'guild' of sorts, but one that is *off-limits* to common public use -- ? What if they begin to *compete* with 'commons' production for the same -- ? What if they *overshadow* 'commons' production and decisively use *far more* natural resources for their operation -- ?) (Etc.)

ckaihatsu

24th July 2016, 15:33

ComradeNinja

24th July 2016, 15:45

Means of Production:
Who ever orders the Means to be built would front the cost. They are receiving the use-value of the Means they are having produced.

Lets use a bridge as an example. A municipality agrees that they need a bridge. They dont have the means to build it themselves as it is quite an undertaking so they need a Bridge Builders Union to build it for them.
Within the market context the Municipality would raise the funds by Loan from a Mutual Credit Bank like the Mutualists argue for or Via Mutual aid or even a Geoist use fee. Whatever the community agrees to.

(Mind you the Municipality is the least voluntary form of Anarchist community. Its direct tie with the geography makes it less voluntarily then say a Union or Commune. It would be up to the community to decide how to implement a Municipality.)

After the community raises the means to acquire the Bridge they would order it and then the Bridge Builder Union would build the bridge.

Ownership of the bridge would mean that the community would have the ability to sell the bridge to a private individual or company who could control it. Possession/occupancy/management means that the community that occupies the bridge (Municipality) could charge a fee for use (Geoist) to pay back a Mutualist Loan or just accept the cost of the bridge as it provides a good return in use-value.

Product Failure:
Well the reality of any production is that no one may want the product. Such as a book. The obvious choice would be to produce goods to order/based on demand and not produce an item because you think someone might want it such as using a Kick-starter or simply producing to order. Some things are producible with limited risk like toilet paper.

The book as an example would be to write a book and then offer it to anyone who wanted it for E-Download. If the person wanted they could even E-download it and then have it Printed to their liking.

I would hope that a Socialist market would focus on production to order over mass production as a superior product will have a greater Use-Value and therefore a greater Exchange value. The theory is that without the exploitative nature of the Capitalist demanding cheaper production and cheaper labor that every producer will be able to make the most quality good as the wealth of the individual would have grown without the theft of the Capitalist. I.E. Everything will be better quality and less expensive due to deflation at the hands of a truly freed market.

I think the basis for my market argument is not even specifically that a market is better then a Planned economy but that you cant stop people from using a market without a government to make rules and a police force to enforce the rules. This kind of Liberalism is not libertarian and acts against the worker; the individual and the community as a whole. Anarchism is based on the anti-liberal premise that people will be able to handle their own lives without the control of the state or the capitalist.

Honestly, Dem, I see absolutely no difference between our current system and the one you propose other than the missing employer-employee relation. Private property is, apparently, still a thing as are banks. But the money that these institutions have to lend out has to come from somewhere.

Let's look at another scenario. A group of people want to build a car. Let's say there are 5 machines that are needed to build a car. These machines are, clearly, means of production. The machines are designed and built by other workers and the raw materials used in the building of those means were also mined and transported by yet another group of workers. The machine builders need to buy the raw materials in the market from the miners because the miners need the money due from their labors to participate in the market. But these raw materials are, themselves, means of production yet they have been bought by a private group of individuals. This already violates the no-private-property trait, but let's move on anyway. Now, the machine builders have labored to create the 5 machines needed to build cars. They must sell those machines in the market in order to make money to participate in the market to feed and clothe themselves etc. But those machines are clearly a means of production yet they must be sold and bought by another entity, the community. Let's just say that, somehow, we have already reconciled the problems (which I mentioned before) with a community needing to purchase things. In order for our car manufacturer to use these machines, they now must pay a user fee.

That means we have contradicted another trait of the system you put forth. The means of production are not freely available to everyone if you have to pay to use them. The need to pay to use them implies there's an ownership involved in which the owner needs to be paid a rent of sorts. And then there's the question of security to make sure that people don't use the means of production without paying the user fee. Again we are left with something that very much resembles a state. Not to mention the class divisions that will naturally form between productive groups that are successful enough to afford renting many means of production versus those that haven't been able to do so quite as well and will now need to labor FOR those groups that have done well. Also, will some communities be so successful that they can sit back only needing to rent out their means of production? Is this not similar to landlords? Perhaps I am missing something.

As for your points regarding product failure... I'm really seeing some bad logic in this market socialism. For example, mass production is absolutely essential for the level of human development we have achieved thus far. In order to provide for 7 billion, 8 billion, 10 billion... or however many billions of people will exist in the future, this sort of Boutique production is simply unrealistic. Mass production is the only way to provide for a growing human population. Mass production isn't the problem... socialists know that socialism is only achievable after capitalism has already achieved mass production and coordination/centralization specifically because it will enable all of humanity to enjoy the products of labor... hence "post scarcity". This is why I think a planned economy just works so much better in a post-capitalist environment. Planned economies can make sure that the products that are needed by people to achieve the minimum for a decent life are being provided first and foremost. The ordering system that you suggest wood perfectly in the planned economic environment. With the technology we have today and we computing power... Planned economies are actually a much more efficient way providing for Humanity. When planned economies were first experimented with in the early 20th century, they didn't have the computing ability we have now to coordinate for large populations.

I just don't see the need to repress market desires in people if class consciousness is properly developed. I think if people become conscious of the class divisions in society and their sources, they will start to see inherent contradiction contradictions and problems with markets. Perhaps it will have to be after the first phase of worker liberation...

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

24th July 2016, 19:35

It's merely utopian capitalism, coming form a place which understand's neither capitalism or it's critique. It's, in simple terms, social democracy with a different name and "no state". It completely rejects the concept of class relations as stemming from the economic base of society, but instead lends class to be the product of the political realm... abolish the state to wither away class... not the opposite (abolish class via abolition of capitalism, and thus the state dies) as Marxists and ancomms see it.

(A)

24th July 2016, 22:03

Pancakes:

Trade is not capitalism or capitalist just a means to trade what you have created for something else. It can be done with the use of an exchange medium like Labor backed currency or resource backed currency or without currency at all. But trade is simply giving someone something they need in return for something you need. Markets can be socialist because socialism is not the elimination of trade but the elimination of Property.

Capitalism is the ability to own the means of production privately. Without the property rights granted by the state capitalism cant exist.
The state is the system of class conflict. Since the dawn civilization wherever their has been a state their has been class. Before the state their was Primitive-communism.

the Without the state the existence of capitalism can not be held without the use of private police/military. How do you suppose we abolish class while the state survives?

CKA:

The problem with any system is implementation. Like I said I dont really care about the economics but the logistics. The logistics of implementing a world wide system for everyone to fall into will
lead any group attempting to implement-it to authoritarian or Liberalist means. Implementing a Socialist state to spread its "freedom" across the world is not Libertarian or Communist (As agreed to above)
So how then are you thinking that your or any communist system can be implemented world wide? I think its either voluntary and communalist (Within planned communitys) or with the use of a state and force (Not communist)

Ninja:

Private property cant exist without the force to back them up. The ability to rent land for instance; you need a cop to ensure it is returned. Even a Liberal Socialist state would retain communal property and could lease land (Since it has ownership.)
Property being theft I propose rejecting property all together including the idea of Communally owned property. Without property you cant have capitalism (As capitalism is explicitly private ownership of property (Individually or as a company)).

The simple fact is to end Capitalism you have to end property in all forms. how the system forms after that is up the the society at the time. Of course my idea will stem from an understanding of our current system; but a true anarchist society will have to decide how to function without the rule of a state. It could be slowly with gradual lessening of the state (Libertarian reform) or Quickly (Anarchist Revolution) but it will be the society of the time who figures it out.

Konikow

24th July 2016, 22:40

OMG Democracy, you should try thinking about the world instead of just combining words you saw on Wikipedia.

(A)

24th July 2016, 22:57

Yah because words are so unimportant to debate; that's why I let my fists do the talking for me; want to have a conversation ;-).

ckaihatsu

25th July 2016, 16:18

The problem with any system is implementation. Like I said I dont really care about the economics but the logistics. The logistics of implementing a world wide system for everyone to fall into will
lead any group attempting to implement-it to authoritarian or Liberalist means.

You're *blatantly* showing your only conception of 'revolution' to be that of one led by elitist substitutionism -- more inflexible, demagogic *fatalism* on your part.

Implementing a Socialist state

See -- *no one* is advocating for the implementation of a 'socialist state'. Yet *this* is the formulation you incessantly re-introduce, basically to slander revolutionary politics in general.

to spread its "freedom" across the world is not Libertarian or Communist (As agreed to above)
So how then are you thinking that your or any communist system can be implemented world wide? I think its either voluntary and communalist (Within planned communitys) or with the use of a state and force (Not communist)

You should reflect on the differences between 'means' and 'ends'.

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

25th July 2016, 19:48

Democracy, there can be no Markets in a moneyless society. There can be no "Markets" without private property.

(A)

25th July 2016, 21:49

CKA:

You are a Vanguardist are you not? Is not the goal of the vanguard to form a political party 'of' the working class?
You even use the words revolutionary politics.
The revolution is meant to end politics and capitalism. Replacing a capitalist state with a workers state is not libertarian (the point of this thread).
The state is more so the problem then capitalism. It is older and worse. The Ruling class are not capitalist exclusively they are the ruling class; before capitalism they ruled threw the
state. Kings and queens and tzars; Emperors of dynasty's before them. They still do today only their power is gained by popular support & Capital then backed by the same use of force.

Pancakes:

So if their is a location where people trade goods between themselves without the use of a medium of exchange; that is not a market?
Could one community not trade goods openly without the use of money?
Community A requires food from community B. Community B requires power from community A.
If they exchange those needed goods (food) and services (Power) then they are exchanging them on a moneyless market.
I am not saying that is my system but it is a market.

ckaihatsu

26th July 2016, 15:53

You are a Vanguardist are you not? Is not the goal of the vanguard to form a political party 'of' the working class?

The *goal* is a revolution that overthrows class relations once and for all -- whatever *means* are used for that, as with a vanguard / party, would have to fit the actual circumstances at-hand, for success.

Here are a couple relevant excerpts from previous posts in this thread:

(Keep in mind that the 'authoritarian internally' can only happen if it's *allowed*, since the workers themselves are more numerous than their subset, the vanguard / party, which would need a willing social basis for its functioning, internally.) (Worst case, if a particular organization went 'off the rails', it would have to be *overthrown* and possibly replaced with a better one.)

I would *love* to be able to say the the DOTP would be 'unnecessary', but this isn't simply a mass-subjective thing -- depending on actual conditions it could very well be *absolutely* necessary, to repress the functioning of the ruling class while proletarian expropriation of the means of production is underway.

---

You even use the words revolutionary politics.
The revolution is meant to end politics and capitalism.

Well, I tend to see 'politics' as a real possibility wherever there's less-than-100%-certainty in any given situation, as with revolution and a post-capitalist social order -- this is because there would be a 'scarcity' of the correct line going-forward, until it's figured-out and committed-to, situation-by-situation. People could have varying 'takes' / conclusions at any given moment which means that some process of 'politics' would have to happen to winnow-down a firm line from the array of all realistic available options.

Replacing a capitalist state with a workers state is not libertarian (the point of this thread).
The state is more so the problem then capitalism. It is older and worse. The Ruling class are not capitalist exclusively they are the ruling class; before capitalism they ruled threw the
state. Kings and queens and tzars; Emperors of dynasty's before them. They still do today only their power is gained by popular support & Capital then backed by the same use of force.

Noted -- and here's from the other thread:

Well, the question / issue would be whether or not the government is truly a 'worker-run government'.

If it *is* run by the (active) workers themselves then it would be a *generalization* of the workers' common interests over their own liberated-labor and the social product of their combined efforts.

If it's *not* run by the (active) workers themselves then such a government would be *substituting* for the workers' own common interests over their own liberated labor and the social product of their combined efforts -- an elitist bureaucratic *detachment* that re-establishes the class divide through its very existence.

(A)

27th July 2016, 01:13

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

27th July 2016, 02:55

No. It isn't. And it seems to be an extremely inefficient way to do things.

(A)

27th July 2016, 03:45

What is a market then Pancakes?

Here is a interesting read by the Center for a Stateless Society.
https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/RethinkingMarkets.pdf

Here they actually look at how capitalism and state hierarchy effect the market and not just accept the idea that Markets bad; Planning good.

TKO

27th July 2016, 05:12

Firstly, I would like to point out in case it hasn't been that socialism and communism are not distinct. They describe basically the same thing. With that out of the way "libertarian socialism" is a label that probably has not been around for as long as "libertarian communism" has. It seems to be used more broadly, but I would say they describe basically the same thing and that consistent libertarian socialists should be libertarian communists or anarcho-communists. Libertarian socialism implies a socialism with a libertarian methodology, libertarian socialists seek socialism based on what Sam Dolgoff would refer to as the libertarian spirit of socialism, that is the aim of socialism as the abolition of oppressive social systems and the liberation of all humanity. To me it is thus the most internally consistent and viable form of socialism. Libertarian communism is simply another word for Anarcho-communism which I would say is the most internally consistent and viable form of communism. The terms socialism and communism meaning basically the same thing to me suggests that the most internally consistent form of socialism is a libertarian socialism based on Anarcho-communism.

ckaihatsu

27th July 2016, 13:31

A workers state is just as illegitimate as a Capitalist state.

A state is a Monopoly on legitimate violence. This legitimacy is the only think that distinguishes a tax collector from a pickpocket and a Cop from a Vigilante; A Soldier from a murderer and a Politician from a tyrant.

When you accept that Legitimacy is an illusion then you realize no state is legitimate.

Well, what you're describing is the illegitimacy of the *capitalist* state.

I think you're already informed-enough, through your politics, of the potential for a *post*-capitalist society that wouldn't require a substitutionist social entity (formal 'state') for its functioning. (I would call this 'communism', myself.)

A 'workers state' really applies more to the *transitional* period -- DOTP -- when the working class having control of the bourgeois state, to *wield* against the bourgeoisie, would make *that* kind of state beneficial, for that historical context of pronounced class struggle.

The disclaimer, as always, is that actual conditions will be a very significant factor in that transition -- maybe, under certain circumstances, the bourgeois state *wouldn't* have to be seized, but obviously I can't make any promises here.

I see the possible proletarian seizing of the state to be a revolutionary *strategy*, and not a fixed recipe.

On your concern with violence, I'll ask if mass working-class violence is as 'illegitimate' as bourgeois-state-based violence -- *my* concern is that you're conflating *all* kinds of violence together, when there really are some *distinctions* to make, depending on where the violence is coming from (what its social basis is).

(A)

27th July 2016, 20:41

ckaihatsu

28th July 2016, 15:23

Working class violence in revolution and now is in self defense against the brutality of the state. Just as returning the means of production to their rightful position/possession within their community's; violent action must be used when the state uses it against us. Force is only justified in self defense. Defense against the state and defense against the capitalist and defense against the fascist.

As I said on another thread recently; A state exists when their is a single form of government. That is a state is a community that lives under a single form of government. Communism then by definition cant have a government.

Well, yes and no -- I'm not nearly into all this 'governance' stuff that you are, because the crucial aspect of a post-revolution / post-capitalist society is how it handles *social production*.

If a communist-type social order *doesn't* have a government, I think things would be fine, because, to me, 'governance' implies 'civil society', and I wouldn't forsee any serious problems happening in the domain of civil society, under communism.

If a communist-type social order *did* have a government, I couldn't see it being much more than about how to organize social production at various geographical locations, sizes, and scales, with maybe some 'civil society'-type guidelines as well.

I understand your argument. I just disagree that the method of seizing state power could possibly lead to a stateless society. That basically Social democracy. The idea that the hierarcy of power can be used to the benefit of the oppressed is State reformism.

Yes, we do disagree on that potential revolutionary strategy -- I'll point out that the overall context would be one of *revolution*, though, a real-world situation that's beyond your strictly *abstract* definition-making.

I think by 'state reformism' you mean 'radical reformism', as in the nationalization of whatever industry, like finance or whatever. I agree that state reformism / radical reformism *wouldn't* be revolutionary.

The received-wisdom argument here -- not that I'm making it -- is that the bourgeois state *has* to be taken over (possibly wielded in the interests of the proletariat), and dissolved, or else it won't happen on its own. The state would always reorganize itself, Frankenstein-monster-like, and live another day to protect the interests of wealth, elite control over the means of mass production, etc.

The state system can not be reformed and used for good.

I'm definitely not so categorically dismissive about this point.

(A)

28th July 2016, 23:43

You oppose everything even remotely related to capitalism... except the ONLY mechanism that allows it to exist.
Your only dismissive about everything capitalist save the system that wields it.

Government is non-voluntary and therefor not Anarchism and not Communism.

Only a society of free individuals; not individuals with freedoms but free individuals is a society of communism.

No state (government/polity/coercion/force)
No money (State backed medium of exchange; unit of account; store of value; a standard of deferred payment)
No Class (Inequality in power / rule over another)

"The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!”

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

3rd August 2016, 02:48

Sewer Socialist

3rd August 2016, 03:23

Democracy, the idea is that there is no bargaining. No marketing of product A to trade for product B. No trading of product A for B or C or D.

The communist economy presumes a society where the needs of all are met, not because group 1 has an item group 2 needs. But because group 1 and group 2 are the same. Because regardless if group 2 can provide a "return", group 1 still shares it's item.

You're idea ignores the fact that, if we have these "markets", values need be assigned to these products. The ability for any group to "own" these is antithetical to a communist economy. These products in turn become capital. The presence of capital means the presence of capitalism.

One more thing - why even have a distinction of group a, group b, to whom these products belong? why wouldn't everything just be available to meet needs, rather than these weird bargaining units? group-owned private property is still private property. humanity divided against itself must be abolished in all forms.

and what defends group A's property from group B, if group B is desperately lacking something that group A does not wish to part with? presumably, some kind of physical defense. if group B needs it badly enough, they will take it by force. starvation makes for desperate people, especially when there is a disparity. war, soldiers, property - this is the realm of states, whether you call it that or not.

and if socialism is not communism by definition, democracy, you have the wrong definition of socialism; one that preserves capitalist relationships under a new name. and looking at your descriptions of "socialism" as full of market exchange, that is definitely the case.

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

3rd August 2016, 13:23

One more thing - why even have a distinction of group a, group b, to whom these products belong? why wouldn't everything just be available to meet needs, rather than these weird bargaining units? group-owned private property is still private property. humanity divided against itself must be abolished in all forms.

and what defends group A's property from group B, if group B is desperately lacking something that group A does not wish to part with? presumably, some kind of physical defense. if group B needs it badly enough, they will take it by force. starvation makes for desperate people, especially when there is a disparity. war, soldiers, property - this is the realm of states, whether you call it that or not.

and if socialism is not communism by definition, democracy, you have the wrong definition of socialism; one that preserves capitalist relationships under a new name. and looking at your descriptions of "socialism" as full of market exchange, that is definitely the case.

I'm going to assume you're attempting to continue my argument, and you aren't addressing me with these comments. Correct me if I am wrong.

The definition of "socialism" and "communism" is different depending on who you ask. I look to Marx's definitions of such, because they are consistent. If we are looking at socialism and communism from a Marxian POV, they ARE the same thing. I'm unsure of where Democracy get's his definitions...

(A)

3rd August 2016, 20:55

Marx had one particular idea that I dont necessarily adhere to but even then he separated Communism and Socialism into two distinct phases; one leading into another.

Socialism (To Marx and Marxists) is the state between Capitalism and Communism where Money and class and states "May/Can" still exist where society as a whole starts working towards achieving communism.
Communism is a Stateless, classless and money-less society.

You are apparently supporting the idea that Communism is just one day away after capitalism is destroyed. If you are a Marxist (Which I am not) my argument still holds because Money will still exist during the transition between capitalism and Communism. I am not (Yet) Arguing for a Communist Market (But I have a separate argument for it) I am showing that a Freed Market would be a Socialist one. A socialist market that I believe would be the the only way to transition into communism.

By the way possession of goods is NOT capitalism; Even the trade of goods is not capitalism; Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
A freed Anarchist market would be a Economic system based of Public possession of the means of production and their operation to meet the Demand of the community's. (Supply and demand)
As their is no property and no wage their is no profit to be made off of the backs of the workers.

I am not arguing for any form of property. I am against community ownership as ownership requires a state to enforce it. A state of workers who owns the means of production are just Socialist Liberals like the USSR.

I am for the abolition of all states; all class and all property. Turns out I am an Anarcho-Communist.

The best way I believe to do that is that~

First the state and its authority will be rejected
Then the abolition of class hierarchy in all forms I.E. Patriarchy, Racism, Religion etc
Finally the devaluation of currency into a cooperatively planned market of freed individuals

A communist market is one where the needs (Demand) of the community are met directly by the willingness (Supply) of individual and collectives of workers (Unions). This would be done directly and for the most part locally as the means of production are no longer privatized and moved away from the community's who use them. No state to dictate who gets what and who produces what; no class and no money.

Basically from each according to their Ability (supply); to each according to their Need (demand).

A cooperative market; planned horizontally by its users their community's directly and without the use of money, property or authority.

This would be preferable to a state planned economy where the ruling class (Working Elite/New Class) dictate who is to build what according to their ability and who is to receive what according to their need justified by the ownership (Property) of the means of production. As far as I am concerned; unless its Anarchist, its not communist. Liberal Socialism (ANY past, existing or future state socialism) is no better then Liberal America and are State apologists and reformists.

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

4th August 2016, 00:55

Marx had one particular idea that I dont necessarily adhere to but even then he separated Communism and Socialism into two distinct phases; one leading into another.
No, he actually didn't. He explained how Communism (i.e. socialism) would likely have two "phases" or "stages".

Socialism (To Marx and Marxists) is the state between Capitalism and Communism where Money and class and states "May/Can" still exist where society as a whole starts working towards achieving communism.No, that's incorrect. If we are going to use terms correctly and talk about the lower/first stage/phase of communist** society, then we can talk about how Marx suggested the idea of labour vouchers. Not the same as money. One cannot accrue more than one needs.

Communism is a Stateless, classless and money-less society. Both at the lower and higher stages... This is Marx. Socialism and communism are interchangeable terms to Marx.

You are apparently supporting the idea that Communism is just one day away after capitalism is destroyed. If you are a Marxist (Which I am not) my argument still holds because Money will still exist during the transition between capitalism and Communism. I am not (Yet) Arguing for a Communist Market (But I have a separate argument for it) I am showing that a Freed Market would be a Socialist one. A socialist market that I believe would be the the only way to transition into communism.I am 100% suggesting that, not even one day, but at the immediate abolition of capitalism we will be in a communist society. The abolition of capitalism is what will take time. This process is overseen by the period known as "the dictatorship of the proletariat". This "transition" you speak of is a popular theme among Trotksyists. There is no transitional economy in Marx's theory. We have capitalism. Then we have communism.

Again, you ignore answering how value is attributed to these products in this market. How ownership is attributed.

By the way possession of goods is NOT capitalism;
Posession of personal, hard won items (clothing, your house, etc), is not capitalism.

Even the trade of goods is not capitalism;
Again, to "trade" would suggest there is no economy based on need, instead an economy based on groups monopolizing products to "trade".

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
How does one trade in a "market" if one (an individual or group) doesn't own the means of production to make the product?

How is profit not obtained in a trade? You need to be specific and get into the details of what makes these trades. How do they take place. WHY would someone trade something on this "market"?

A freed Anarchist market would be a Economic system based of Public possession of the means of production and their operation to meet the Demand of the community's. (Supply and demand)
As their is no property and no wage their is no profit to be made off of the backs of the workers.How is there a "market"? How do these "trades" take place if what belongs to village A, by definition of this system, belongs to village A, B, C, D and E?

am not arguing for any form of property. I am against community ownership as ownership requires a state to enforce it. A state of workers who owns the means of production are just Socialist Liberals like the USSR. Oversimplified and incorrect evaluation of the USSR. Ownership is not merely a juridical term when we talk about it from a Marxian standpoint. The working class did not hold state power, or "own" the means of produciton.

The best way I believe to do that is that~

First the state and its authority will be rejected
Then the abolition of class hierarchy in all forms I.E. Patriarchy, Racism, Religion etc
Finally the devaluation of currency into a cooperatively planned market of freed individuals

The Problem here is your belief that class and hierarchy is abolished prior to the abolition of the economy which necessitates class and hierarchy.

A communist market is one where the needs (Demand) of the community are met directly by the willingness (Supply) of individual and collectives of workers (Unions). This would be done directly and for the most part locally as the means of production are no longer privatized and moved away from the community's who use them. No state to dictate who gets what and who produces what; no class and no money. How, in such a society, does one "exchange" goods? What are the fine points of this "market". It seems either you believe groups will barter different products due to them living near factories that can produce them, and trade so much of A for so much of B, or you think that the mere sharing of products is a market.

Basically from each according to their Ability (supply); to each according to their Need (demand).That's not basically it though... you are telling me that for those people to get what they need, they must have something to trade on the market to get it.

A cooperative market; planned horizontally by its users their community's directly and without the use of money, property or authority. Then not a market.

This would be preferable to a state planned economy where the ruling class (Working Elite/New Class) dictate who is to build what according to their ability and who is to receive what according to their need justified by the ownership (Property) of the means of production. As far as I am concerned; unless its Anarchist, its not communist. Liberal Socialism (ANY past, existing or future state socialism) is no better then Liberal America and are State apologists and reformists.

A "state-planned" economy, even under the "Dotp" would still operate as a capitalist mode of production. It's understanding the base-superstructure that you seem to be lacking...that, and what a Market is.

(A)

4th August 2016, 23:16

As I said I am not a marxist and the idea that communism and socialism are the same thing is faulty. They have separate definitions that clearly explain why they are different. The USSR was a soclialist state... yet they where not communist. Apoligits like to say the USSR was state capitalism but that's just what socialism is when the workers form a Liberal state.

Socialism is the social ownership/possession of the means of production (Tools required for labor and the subject of labor)
Communism is a Stateless, classless & money-less society.

The LTV using labor backed currency is still money. Labor credits are still money. Money is any item used to hold value.

---

The state is the authority that gives capitalists their rights. By eliminating the state you eliminate Capitalist property rights. The authority given to the upper class become non existence and their only recourse is to themselves provide for their own defense. A Capitalist becomes a New Feudal lord who; by the same revolutionary force that over threw the State; will fall to.

Class is not directly related to capitalism; their is a capitalist class and a working class to be sure; but class extends beyond that. Class is any belief / structure that goes against the ideals of Egalitarianism.
Once capitalism falls their will still be class warfare. Until all peoples are truly equal their is still class.

---

A market economy is one where the value of a good is determined by supply and demand and the exchange of that good expects a immediate reciprocation.
If the Market economy reaches a state of abundance the value of goods drops to either the value of labor or theoretically to a 0 sum; a gift economy where the value of goods being zero; people can exchange the product of their labors without the promise of immediate return. This Gift or "Cooperative" market is one where individual workers or worker unions can fulfill the demand for labor without the expectation of immediate reward.

This type of market is necessitated by the lack of authority and predicated on the abundance of labor and products created by the rise of technology and the socialization of the Means of Production.

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

8th August 2016, 22:37

As I said I am not a marxist and the idea that communism and socialism are the same thing is faulty.You're not a Marxist, that's not the question, the question is do you accept the Marxian analysis of what capitalism is -- many Anarchists do-- clearly you do not. You are utopian.

They have separate definitions that clearly explain why they are different.Communism and socialism have many definitions, depending on who you ask. Many look at modern Social Democracies like Scandinavia to be "socialism". Many look at Cuba to be "communism". Using dictionary and text book definitions, they'd be correct. Using Marxist or Anarchist definition, no, they are not. When we talk about communism in terms of Marx and the majority of anarchists we have a, generally, singular definition.

The USSR was a soclialist state...It was a state headed by a self-proclaimed "socialist/communist" party...

yet they where not communist. They were not communist... meaning they are not socialist... because socialism/communism is the same thing. A classless, thus stateless, and moneyless society.

Apoligits like to say the USSR was state capitalism but that's just what socialism is when the workers form a Liberal state.The question here is two-fold, and you've already surpassed a lot of people on the left, and you are veering near the right path on the question.

First, what form did the economy take in the USSR? The economy was capitalist, it remained capitalist, never changed, only the ruling class went from individuals separate from the state, to the state itself. It's impossible for a single country to operate a communist (i.e. socialist) economy.

The second is did the working class form the state, and act as the ruling class in the USSR? The answer is no. Working class hegemony never solidified after the overthrow of the bourgeois Russian state. The revolution resulted in the party being divorced from the class, and the party dominating and holding state power -- and then by fact becoming the ruling class in society by owning means of production and profiting.

Socialism is the social ownership/possession of the means of production (Tools required for labor and the subject of labor) You can't have the "social ownership" of the means of production while class still exists. What I think you are trying to argue is the working class organized as the ruling class, one can look at it as a relation of self-exploitation, where political power is held by the working class. i.e. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Communism is a Stateless, classless & money-less society. Also known as "socialism".

The LTV using labor backed currency is still money. Labor credits are still money. Money is any item used to hold value. Labour Vouchers aren't money. Not going to argue this though, I'm more focused on how value is applied. Money is accumulative. Labour vouchers are not for example.

The point is this: How, if the means of production are "owned socially", can one group have a product that no other group can have without having something to trade?

---

The state is the authority that gives capitalists their rights.Oh god...this is problematic...and wrong. The state is the tool of the ruling class...base/superstructure, etc.

By eliminating the state you eliminate Capitalist property rights.No, by eliminating the capitalist mode of production, and thus class society, the result is the abolition (or withering away) of the state.

The authority given to the upper class become non existence and their only recourse is to themselves provide for their own defense. A Capitalist becomes a New Feudal lord who; by the same revolutionary force that over threw the State; will fall to. This makes 0 sense.

Class is not directly related to capitalism Class is directly related to the economic base of society. So, yes, class IS directly related to capitalism. The capitalist mode of production necessitates a bourgeoisie, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, lumpen-proalteriat by the very relations of production in capitalism.

their is a capitalist class and a working class to be sure; but class extends beyond that. Class is any belief / structure that goes against the ideals of Egalitarianism. Once capitalism falls their will still be class warfare. Until all peoples are truly equal their is still class. Again this makes 0 sense, I'll give you the chance to actually explain, in detail, how this is possible, and what you think class is.

A market economy is one where the value of a good is determined by supply and demand and the exchange of that good expects a immediate reciprocation.Again, I ask, HOW in a society where the means of production (this would include the land food is grown, the mines resources such as metals come from) are "socially owned", can any group claim dominion over a certain resource/product?

If the Market economy reaches a state of abundance the value of goods drops to either the value of labor or theoretically to a 0 sum; a gift economy where the value of goods being zero; people can exchange the product of their labors without the promise of immediate return. This Gift or "Cooperative" market is one where individual workers or worker unions can fulfill the demand for labor without the expectation of immediate reward. You're extremely vague.

I'm going to ask you to provide me a very detailed and specific hypothetical scenario of this trade taking place.

This type of market is necessitated by the lack of authority and predicated on the abundance of labor and products created by the rise of technology and the socialization of the Means of Production.
Oy vey...mashugana.

(A)

9th August 2016, 00:09

Like most Liberal Marxist you miss the forest for the trees. Blame all ills on capitalism and fail to see the relative youth of Capitalism.

Class existed before capitalism and will exist after capitalism if not replaced by Anarchism. Any state (polity) is inherently Hierarchical and creates class. Be it the class between the Majority in control and the Minority (True Liberalist Republic); the New class of Communist politicians or the Absolute Monarchy. Capitalism does not create class; power does. Capitalism is just one singular way that class is created as capitalism is simply one means to gain power. The end of capitalism is not tied to the end of class. Patriarchy is a class system that is not capitalistic for example. Only the rejection of All forms of authority can bring an end to class. Class war is not against Capitalism but against class itself.

I dont know how many ways I can explain that Socialism is not a stateless classless society. Socialism is not some Utopian Ideology but a wide range of Economic systems where the Means of production are Owned/managed by the community.
Marxism (and you would hope Marxists) holds that Socialism is a economic system that will lead to communism. NOT communism itself.

Socialism is NOT inherently classless nor Money-less.

Socialism is an economic system.
Communism is a type of society. They are simply two different things.

That is why I reject Liberal Marxism (Leninism) as it ends capitalism while retaining the use of class and its authority. Its Authoritarian and not Communistic.

As Nestor Makhno put it

ANARCHISM - a life of freedom and creative independence for humanity.
Anarchism does not depend on theory or programs, which try to grasp man's life in its entirety. It is a teaching, which is based on real life, which outgrows all artificial limitations, which cannot be constricted by any system.
Anarchism's outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man's sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts. It is also the foundation of true communism.
Anarchism therefore is a part of human nature, communism its logical extension.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/anarchist-revolution.htm

---

An Anarchist market is one where individuals work together to meet the community's demand. No government or hierarchy to decide what is to be produced and no ownership to create scarcity.
If a community needs food those who work the land (Anyone who wants to) meet the demand of food with their supply of food. Those who produce possess what they produce. So it is up to the worker to distribute the products of their labor. This means that society will/must work together to produce and provide for its own needs. This is the Anarchist principle of Mutual aid. That people will work together for their Mutual Benefit.

This could be called a Mutual market or a Gift market or a cooperative market.

I use the term market as the economy is not planned by a hierarchy but democratically by its users. Supply and demand dictates what gets produced and who receives what.
Once the community fully rejects Authority and works together without the use of Money as a Medium for exchange they will have achieved communism.
A Stateless, classless & money-less society.

SonofRage

9th August 2016, 00:15

This is a ridiculous debate. You're arguing over the definition of a word. You're both right because different people define the word differently.

You are attached to name and form. Stop squabbling over dead words.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

9th August 2016, 18:43

Which is why I'm trying to direct the argument to how exactly in a socialist society, as he defines it, can their be "social ownership of the means of production" and also be groups of people who "own" them separately to make different products to then "trade" on a "market".

I'm fairly certain I won't get an answer.

(A)

9th August 2016, 21:42

Well because your question is Full of inaccuracy's. Its almost like you did not read the thread.

As stated above and over two other threads; Anarchism rejects ownership as Ownership and property is a Legal Hierarchy that exists only in capitalists systems.

Only Liberal Socialists want the "social ownership of the means of production" as ownership means that their is Authority over the means of production.
Examples of this would be Leninism and Early stage Syndicalism.

A Mutualisim as an example of a Socialist (Pre-communist) Market advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the "freed" market.
Proudhon thought that this would bringing the price of its own use down to cost and theoretically this would lead to Communism as the cost of goods would drop ever lower to the point where money would become useless and a Gift Market would take over.

Anarcho-Syndicalism also is a Socialist market without ownership (and the means to achieve this). In syndicalism the workers rise up and claim their workplaces as their own. Logically they would continue to produce and use their new powers to abolish the state and ownership. This would end up basically looking like Mutualism as the workers possess,occupy & manage the means of production.

Both of these socialist markets would (Once the state is abolished) act as the transitional phase where people perfect socialism, abolish class and work towards better and more effective means of production and by the way of mutual aid begin to free all oppressed and improvised people. Eventually the scars of statism & capitalism would heal and the need for money would disappear; being replaced by communism. A stateless, classless, money-less society.

This stands in opposition to a planned economy where the ownership of the means of production is held by the state and only managed by the workers. Where the state becomes the capitalist in every way conceivable. Even going as far as taking the product of labor for distribution. Liberalists like Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin thought this was a great idea and killed anarchists (and millions more of their own people) to get it

The point of this thread is to ask what is Libertarian Socialism and how is it different from Libertarian Communism.

Libertarian Socialism (Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Social Anarchism, Counsel communism) Are pre-communist society's that are socialist yet still retain the use of money and possibly class (Patriarchy, Homophobia, Racism) that need to be fought against (Anarchism) to be truly communist.

Libertarian Communism (Anarcho-communism, True Communism, Anarchism) is a society that is post-class, post-state & post-money. I hold that only Anarchism can bring this about because this is the only system that actively fights against all class, all states and all ownership. Unlike most communists (Liberals) who would not know communism if it bit them square on the ass.

SonofRage

9th August 2016, 22:00

More dead words. Why are you dragging around that corpse?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

(A)

9th August 2016, 22:13

I am sorry you dont like words. You can always stop reading.

Meanwhile I continue to explain my point (as asked to by Pancakes) without significant rebuttal by you Son. Where are you CKA i miss our back and fourth.

wehbolno

10th August 2016, 00:56

I never read any Nestor Makhno before now. Is he simple-minded or something? I don't get it.
"Anarchism therefore is a part of human nature, communism its logical extension."
???!

Pancakes RÃ¼hle

10th August 2016, 01:54

The fact that an individual can own a means of production, and thus accumulate capital, means that you have capitalism.

Congrats. You are a member of the left wing of capital.

(A)

10th August 2016, 04:09

Once again you place your Liberalist ideals of ownership on a Non liberal philosophy.
In any real anarchist system (Ancap being the not real anarchist system) ownership as Liberals (Capitalists and Leninists) see it cant exist.
Ownership and property are Laws that wont exists without the state to dictate, regulate and enforce them.

So NO for the thousandth time no one will be able to own the means of production as their would be no state to create nor enforce property rights.

In case you dont know the means of production (according to marx) are the Subjects of Labor (materials worked upon) and the Tools of Labor (Items needed to work upon the materials)
Private or state Ownership of the means of production (Feudalism, Liberalism, Fascism) requires authority to dictate and enforce laws that keep the rightful possessors of these from them.
Hence the term "Property is theft"

This means that the existence of ownership is the means by which the owner steals from the person who rightfully possesses the item being stolen.
So when someone says that communism seeks the social ownership of the means of production I say that they dont know what communism is and are in fact a liberal like Lenin and Trotsky.

(A)

10th August 2016, 04:28

I never read any Nestor Makhno before now. Is he simple-minded or something? I don't get it.
"Anarchism therefore is a part of human nature, communism its logical extension."
???!

“Anarchism is the teaching of freedom. Where there is exploitation, where there is power, where authority holds sway, where centralism exists, where man keeps guard over man, where orders are given and obedience offered there is no freedom. The destruction of all authorities, all privileges, all institutions of property and slavery can come to pass only out of the free communal spirit. The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!”
~Erich Muhsam

Sewer Socialist

10th August 2016, 06:21

Democracy, you seem to be misusing many words to the extent that it's hard to understand what you mean. What do you think "liberal" means?

(A)

10th August 2016, 12:13

Liberalism was the philosophy that founded modern day Capitalism and the Republic.

Liberalism is the idea that society needs to be ruled by a state but that the rule should be given to the people and that they should have protections from the state.

The creation of Capitalism as an economic system came threw this ideology by the same logic; that the people should have the power to own land and the means of production and
that is how they would be most economically free.

By the same Logic a Liberal Socialist recognizes that the workers should command the economy and that Socialism is the true path to economic and social freedom. That being said they
are Liberals because of their continued belief in Statism and Ownership. That the Workers have a right to rule.

As an anarchist I recognize the Authoritarian nature of Liberalism in Both Socialist and Capitalist forms.
A workers state is no less a state then a capitalist state.

The USSR was created by revolutionary's who followed the path of a Social Democrat and Liberal; Lenin. The USSR was A republic the same as America regardless of its Economy.

Leninist's and other socialist statist's are therefor Liberals who seek to create an authority ("Social Ownership") over the means of production.

Anarchists reject this Authority as unjust, unnecessary and Harmful.
That is why Libertarians and Anarchists like Nestor Makhno and Rosa Luxemburg spoke out or acted against the new Liberal Socialist Republic.

I know it is a coincidence but I find it amusing that the Red and Yellow Flag of Statist Communism contains the color yellow which is the political color of Liberalism.

So no I dont believe I am misusing words to me it is clear that the idea of a Socialist republic or a workers state is a Liberal idea.

ckaihatsu

25th August 2016, 17:12

You oppose everything even remotely related to capitalism... except the ONLY mechanism that allows it to exist.

You mean 'government', but you're facilely *glossing over* two different kinds of political economies in your bourgeois-context use of the 'government' term here.

If a *workers* government happened to be used, especially for matters of material productivity, it *wouldn't* be the same as today's understanding of 'government' as being synonymous with 'bourgeois', 'non-voluntary', 'state', 'money', and 'class'.

I'm not *arguing* for a 'workers government' formulation, either, but given certain social circumstances at the time of actual revolutionary revolt, the form of a *collective* workers government may happen to be absolutely appropriate, especially for the period of ongoing and contested revolution against ruling-class forces.

Any social *authority* derived from workers themselves, in their own best collective interests would *not* be comparable to today's capitalist-elitist, top-down 'government' that enforces private-property interests, etc.

Workers have a common interest in having all productive forces (machinery) and resources (nature) controlled by themselves / ourselves *collectively* so that the 'commonest' of humane interests (as for food, etc.) become implicitly prioritized and attended-to on a collective basis, so the basics of life and living can be readily guaranteed to all without conditions.

If an authoritarian 'government' and/or 'vanguard' helps to facilitate this kind of social order, then I say so-be-it, because any impositions it may make would be on the side of the *workers'* interests, and *not* for the elitist bourgeoisie.

Your only dismissive about everything capitalist save the system that wields it.

No, you're conflating two different socio-political contexts, that of our current, capitalist-elitist period, and that of a *post*-capitalist workers society.

I am *not* defending the capitalist system of government in any way.

Government is non-voluntary and therefor not Anarchism and not Communism.

Only a society of free individuals; not individuals with freedoms but free individuals is a society of communism.

No state (government/polity/coercion/force)
No money (State backed medium of exchange; unit of account; store of value; a standard of deferred payment)
No Class (Inequality in power / rule over another)

"The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!”

But what if a (workers) government *was* absolutely voluntary and its authority, if any, was carried-out in the best interests of the workers themselves -- ?

You're treating 'authority' in the *abstract*, as though it would be manifested in the exact same way, to the exact same results, even though the world's political economy went through a revolutionary paradigm shift.

Your default focus on the *individual* scale is myopic since politics, by definition, is a *mass-based* thing, since people have commonalities of interest by *class*.

I agree that no state (a bureaucratic-hierarchical authority) would be required, nor would money / currency, or the class-division.

ckaihatsu

25th August 2016, 19:37

A communist market is one where the needs (Demand) of the community are met directly by the willingness (Supply) of individual and collectives of workers (Unions). This would be done directly and for the most part locally as the means of production are no longer privatized and moved away from the community's who use them. No state to dictate who gets what and who produces what; no class and no money.

Basically from each according to their Ability (supply); to each according to their Need (demand).

A cooperative market; planned horizontally by its users their community's directly and without the use of money, property or authority.

Here's the crux of the problem / difference, D -- by rejecting centralized planning you're having to advocate 'horizontal planning', or a *lateral patchwork* of communal production. The problem with this is that even though there's no private-property-based production, or even 'community production', formally, the community- / commune-based production is *implied* because who else but the geographically local commune, presumably relatively stationary to that location, is going to *control production* for that respective locality -- ? You haven't specified otherwise.

So if a post-capitalist, nominally-collective type of productivity is to take place, constrained to geographic communes, then those communes will have to have economic relations *laterally*, which you've said yourself, above ('planned horizontally').

But if collectivist planning takes place 'horizontally' over several / many communal sites, then such planning effectively emerges as one-plan-for-several-communal-sites, which is virtually the same as 'centralized planning', since either approach may potentially apply to as few as *two* localities, or may scale-up to a *global* application, depending on what's being produced, the appropriate machinery for such, the natural and worked-over supplies of feedstock materials, the available-and-willing liberated labor, and other empirical factors.

Your differences in descriptions *may* turn out to be purely *semantic*, because no one here is suggesting an elitist, substitutionist *top-down* administration for any of it.

This would be preferable to a state planned economy where the ruling class (Working Elite/New Class) dictate who is to build what according to their ability and who is to receive what according to their need justified by the ownership (Property) of the means of production. As far as I am concerned; unless its Anarchist, its not communist. Liberal Socialism (ANY past, existing or future state socialism) is no better then Liberal America and are State apologists and reformists.

Just because there *could* conceivably be a centralized planned economy -- I would say *per-item* -- doesn't mean that it automatically is *a state*.

If, through ongoing conversations and communications, it turned out that most localities' populations on a continent were calling for portable all-weather *tables*, what would be the harm in making this known, with an aim towards developing a singular non-controversial feasible *top-down* (centralized) plan for the mass production and distribution of such tables -- ? All participation from all localities would be strictly voluntary, but the plan would elicit *cooperation* from all of those concerned, thereby not having to resort to any fixed social hierarchy ('institution'), authority, or compulsion.

You seem to be concerned that those who participate in liberated-production politics / planning, and/or provide the actual liberated-labor for the implementation of such plans, would become a 'new elite', or 'class', of some kind.

However, I'll invoke the communistic 'gift economy' here, to say that if all productive efforts are sheerly *voluntary*, then no social obligations of any sort are created or implied in the course of social production -- either there are sufficient numbers of liberated-laborers to *produce* the stuff, for those who want it, or else there *aren't*. (I'll address this 'scarcity of liberated labor' situation / issue later on in this post -- see the portion on 'labor credits'.)

No 'ownership', 'property', or 'communal separatism' (my wording) would manifest since the per-item social production would be done over potentially *many* communes according to a single pre-planned ('centralized') plan.

By the way possession of goods is NOT capitalism; Even the trade of goods is not capitalism;

Yes, the trade of goods *does* imply capitalism -- here's from that other thread:

[T]he act of 'free exchange' implicitly *commodifies* labor in the process -- 'Commune X' might find that 'Commune B' is willing to provide relatively *more* labor (and/or goods) to 'X' than 'Commune A' is offering.

Also:

[W]ould there be communal private property or not -- ? And would there be *individual* private property, or not -- ?

So would those from 'Commune B' be able to visit 'Commune A' and take some of the communal property ('commons') from there, or not -- ? If not, then Commune A would have to have some kind of communal *security personnel* to make sure this didn't happen. And if inter-communal sharing *would* be possible then why even bother with a multi-communal ('patchwork') layout to *begin with* -- ? (Why not just *generalize* all production, maybe up to a *global* scale, so that the whole *world* is one big commune -- ?)

---

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
A freed Anarchist market would be a Economic system based of Public possession of the means of production and their operation to meet the Demand of the community's. (Supply and demand)
As their is no property and no wage their is no profit to be made off of the backs of the workers.

You *say* that yours would be 'an economic system based on public possession of the means of production', but how would the various *types* of means of production (various types of machinery over multiple dispersed locations, as for a supply chain for a finished product), be *controlled* -- ?

If all prerequisite planning over these machinery-sites was done sheerly *horizontally* (strictly laterally, and only within pairs of neighboring communes), such planning and resulting production might not be *sufficient* for what's being called-for by the larger, worldwide population.

(My favorite go-to example here is *farming*, for food production -- the less centralization / coordination over such, the *more people* have to labor on farmwork *locally*, for increasingly-constrained localist types of production.) (Right now less than 2% of the U.S. population has to be associated with any kind of farming production.)

Labor credits are still money.

Since I developed a unique *model* of 'labor credits', I have to take exception to your contention here that they function as money. They only pertain to labor hours *worked*, and to nothing else.

Here's from the introduction, at my blog entry:

[I] have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

---

Class is not directly related to capitalism; their is a capitalist class and a working class to be sure; but class extends beyond that. Class is any belief / structure that goes against the ideals of Egalitarianism.

No, this is not accurate. Class is *not* based-in / derived from 'belief' -- it is an objective factor of who participates in the control of society's means of mass production (basically through financial holdings).

Once capitalism falls their will still be class warfare.

No, there *won't* be, since the advent of a post-capitalist society implies a *post-class-division* society as well, by definition.

Until all peoples are truly equal their is still class.

No, class is one's relationship to the means of mass production -- either one *owns* or otherwise *controls* what society produces, or else one *works* under such private-based control.

[P]eople will work together for their Mutual Benefit.

This could be called a Mutual market or a Gift market or a cooperative market.

I use the term market as the economy is not planned by a hierarchy but democratically by its users.

'Market' is not a good term to use since it directly implies the continued existence of private property ownership.

Mass 'democratic' control over social production could certainly take place in a *workers government* -- for the sake of argument -- where there would not have to be any fixed / institutional hierarchies required.

Only Liberal Socialists want the "social ownership of the means of production" as ownership means that their is Authority over the means of production.

No, 'social ownership of the means of production' just means a *post-capitalist*, *post-class* empirical reality.

Any authority exercised, if necessary, would be derived from those liberated-laborers who actually do the actual work involved, as for overthrowing bourgeois class rule, for example.

Examples of this would be Leninism and Early stage Syndicalism.

Incorrect.

A Mutualisim as an example of a Socialist (Pre-communist) Market advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the "freed" market.

Again, 'trade' and the retention of any kind of 'market' is too problematic -- you're also admitting that within your model individuals would be able to possess (own / control) means of mass production, which is *also* problematic for an authentic revolutionary politics.

Where the state becomes the capitalist in every way conceivable. Even going as far as taking the product of labor for distribution. Liberalists like Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin thought this was a great idea and killed anarchists (and millions more of their own people) to get it

You're misrepresenting history and historical figures here.

Eventually the scars of statism & capitalism would heal and the need for money would disappear; being replaced by communism. A stateless, classless, money-less society.

This stands in opposition to a planned economy where the ownership of the means of production is held by the state and only managed by the workers.

No, again, from above, no 'state' structure is required for workers control of the means of production -- a centralized, planned economy.

Where are you CKA i miss our back and fourth.

I'm flattered -- my absence was unavoidable. I posted to my 'Visitors Messages' page:

ckaihatsu - Yesterday 11:40

Okay, am now back up and running. Will be gradually ramping-up to regular activity, as before.

ckaihatsu - 31st July 2016 13:22

Technical difficulties on my side of things -- will be back asap. Thanks.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/members/16162-ckaihatsu

---

[W]hen someone says that communism seeks the social ownership of the means of production I say that they dont know what communism is and are in fact a liberal like Lenin and Trotsky.

Lenin and Trotsky weren't liberals, they were revolutionaries.

Leninist's and other socialist statist's are therefor Liberals who seek to create an authority ("Social Ownership") over the means of production.

You keep demonizing 'authority' itself, through ignoring its socially-encompassing context of operation, which can vary widely (capitalism vs. socialism).

You're misrepresenting the definition of 'liberal' here.

(A)

25th August 2016, 23:09

Wow no wonder that took you several weeks to respond to it most likely took you several weeks to write that.

Again I wont waste my time trying to reply to every line of text so...

Authority and Liberalism:

You repeatedly make the claim that I demonize Authority as if it is beyond reproach. Authority is ownership over the people and their means for survival; even if it allows "libertys" while being controlled.
You would not abide Capitalism to exist in your Utopia why would I allow the existence of the authority which allows capitalism to exist within mine? Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy of the state run for and by the people. Diving the authority once held by the Monarchy to the people. The idea of worker Ownership over the means of production is no less liberal then the idea of Private ownership over the means. Both are a attempt to create a condition of liberty for the people under state control. The problem with government and its authority is that it is not optional. I dont know where you get the idea of an optional government but it does not exist and I dont think it could ever. An optinal government is called a Employer. I agree to abide by his authority in exchange for a wage. Lenin's ideas where built upon the Liberalist notion of peoples government and a workers economy. He was literally a social Democrat.

Government noun

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.

3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

5.

the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The prime minister has formed a new government.
the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.

6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct.

7. a district governed; province.

Labor credits:

Your labor credits are precisely money. They hold a value (Labor time) and are completely unnecessary in an anarchist society.

Anarchism:

Anarchism Is the rejection of all Authority as unnecessary, Unjust and Harmful to society. Communism is naturally Anarchist as it also stands for a society without Authority. Authority is one person having power; socially or economically, over another.
Its stands against the power of the church over the mind; the power of the State over the citizen, the employer over the employee and the husband over the wife. Where ever there is Inequality, where ever orders given and obedience demanded, Anarchism is needed.

"Anarchists seek to create an awareness that oppression can not only be fought, but ended and that struggle against an Unjust system creates the seeds of the future society that will replace it."

ckaihatsu

26th August 2016, 19:14

Wow no wonder that took you several weeks to respond to it most likely took you several weeks to write that.

Wow, your attempt at being funny is fun. *You're* fun.

Again I wont waste my time trying to reply to every line of text so...

Authority and Liberalism:

You repeatedly make the claim that I demonize Authority as if it is beyond reproach. Authority is ownership over the people and their means for survival; even if it allows "libertys" while being controlled.

Again you're still grasping for an ahistorical abstract definition of authority that doesn't bother to take socio-historical circumstances and context into consideration.

The *positive* potential of a *workers* 'authority' is that its objectively common interest in overthrowing bourgeois rule can be *consolidated* and *focused*, for a consistency of broad-based action over time.

A vanguard / party has no interest in somehow 'repressing' the working class that gives it its existence, while the proletarian revolution is still incomplete. And once the revolution *is* complete the vanguard would have no objective social basis for being supported from post-class humanity since the class struggle itself would be superseded -- humanity would be able to organize its own productivity *itself* at that point.

You keep returning to your personal *nightmare* of Stalinism from the twentieth century, as though that's the only possible result from class struggle and revolution *today*.

You would not abide Capitalism to exist in your Utopia why would I allow the existence of the authority which allows capitalism to exist within mine? Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy of the state run for and by the people. Diving the authority once held by the Monarchy to the people. The idea of worker Ownership over the means of production is no less liberal then the idea of Private ownership over the means. Both are a attempt to create a condition of liberty for the people under state control.

Agreed, with the exception of your use of 'utopia'. 'Post-capitalist society' is a better, more accurate term to use.

The problem with government and its authority is that it is not optional. I dont know where you get the idea of an optional government but it does not exist and I dont think it could ever.

Since I'm only one person and a revolution would involve millions and billions, I can only at-best *surmise* that a formal 'workers government' might be brought-about -- or maybe it *won't* be.

You keep thinking that a workers government and/or authority would somehow have an interest and practice of repressing its own population *internally* -- this is pure dogmatism and demogoguery on your part.

I say that a formal workers government / authority is *optional*, depending on circumstances, because I think a post-capitalist society could certainly exist and function based on widely accepted social norms from sound *guidelines* -- we could roughly equate it these days to the norm of going to college, if at all possible. No formal authority needed:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

Propagation

communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

An optinal government is called a Employer.

I'm *not advocating* any workers government, though such formal party / government organization *could* conceivably be a *good* thing, depending on prevailing conditions of class struggle worldwide.

This is a baseless assertion on your part.

I agree to abide by his authority in exchange for a wage.

No one's suggesting the retention of the wages system -- you're just making stuff up.

Lenin's ideas where built upon the Liberalist notion of peoples government and a workers economy. He was literally a social Democrat.

Nope -- he was a revolutionary.

Labor credits:

Your labor credits are precisely money. They hold a value (Labor time) and are completely unnecessary in an anarchist society.

No, they're *not* money / currency because they're not exchangeable for materials of any kind. Non-exchangeability means they're not money.

They can only apply to various / arbitrary people's own labor hours -- yes, it's value, no it's not exchange-value.

They're meant to address the realistic post-capitalist issue of 'What if there's great unmet *need* for something to be produced, but *no one* wants to do the work required to make it happen, on a strictly voluntary / uncompensated basis?'

Anarchism:

Anarchism Is the rejection of all Authority as unnecessary, Unjust and Harmful to society. Communism is naturally Anarchist as it also stands for a society without Authority. Authority is one person having power; socially or economically, over another.
Its stands against the power of the church over the mind; the power of the State over the citizen, the employer over the employee and the husband over the wife. Where ever there is Inequality, where ever orders given and obedience demanded, Anarchism is needed.

"Anarchists seek to create an awareness that oppression can not only be fought, but ended and that struggle against an Unjust system creates the seeds of the future society that will replace it."

(A)

27th August 2016, 00:37

In what you are advocating for:

Who has ownership over the means of production?

Who dictates laws that are to be followed (Drug consumption, Age of majority, allowed use of material goods, right to bear arms ect)?

Who enforces those laws?

ckaihatsu

27th August 2016, 14:29

In what you are advocating for:

Who has ownership over the means of production?

For the sake of consistency I'll answer with excerpts from the model itself.

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

Who dictates laws that are to be followed (Drug consumption, Age of majority, allowed use of material goods, right to bear arms ect)?

Who enforces those laws?

I don't see these 'civil-society' issues as being potentially problematic in a post-capitalist social order, so I don't tend to address such myself -- social ills like racism, sexism, etc., result *secondarily* from the existence of the class divide (since bosses can and have pitted different groups of workers against each other, through wielding such superficial social differences in divide-and-conquer strategies).

In a wholly undivided post-capitalist human society matters of social policy *wouldn't* be controversial -- and I'd say even if there was considerable *inconsistency*, or *per-person individualization*, regarding such matters as the ones you've listed, it wouldn't be chaotic enough to tear at the fiber of that post-capitalist social order since such *would* be at the 'micro', per-individual scale, and incapable of causing significant wider-scale societal ramifications.

Therefore there wouldn't be any need for a 'state', or any sense of law-enforcement, in my estimation, according to the fully-communism-compatible parameters of my model. Social norms could reflect these 'guidelines' in everyday practice, and would just feel 'normal' in such a society of mass participation and collective social determination.

(A)

27th August 2016, 22:45

I would agree save for

fully-communism-compatible parameters of my model.

Your system has laws that need to be enforced and Property.
The "Communist" Property is by definition owned by someone. If it is owned by everyone (As in not owned) then they would have no interest in following your weird rules.
If the Property is owned by the Administration then they fit the definition of a state.

This is not communism; its nonsense socialism.
Arbitrary rules and systems that have to material basis that no one would follow and for good cause.

You are either forced to conform to the laws or you dont have any. You cant have a voluntary state nor a stateless society with law and order.

ckaihatsu

28th August 2016, 14:11

Therefore there wouldn't be any need for a 'state', or any sense of law-enforcement, in my estimation, according to the fully-communism-compatible parameters of my model. Social norms could reflect these 'guidelines' in everyday practice, and would just feel 'normal' in such a society of mass participation and collective social determination.

Your system has laws that need to be enforced and Property.

Allow me to rephrase / clarify -- the model has 'guidelines' that *wouldn't* need to be enforced because it would be the existing social paradigm of socio-material relations, if accepted. (Just as revolution, too, depends on the sheer *scale* of mass participation in politics for the working class' best collective interests.)

I use the term 'communist property' for the sake of indicating that the overall context is one of a post-capitalist society, with *no private* property.

When it comes to 'communist property', or 'the commons' (or whatever term you'd like), it's [1] either being used, or [2] it isn't being used. If *anything* isn't being actively used then it simply is at risk of being reclaimed by nature and natural processes. If something *is* to be used the point is that there shouldn't be conflicting claims as to its scheduling and usage. This is where the 'daily personal list of prioritized demands' is relevant, and could be used by the population of one or more localities to determine which policy package of usage should prevail, for actual implementation, instead of all possible others.

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

The "Communist" Property is by definition owned by someone. If it is owned by everyone (As in not owned) then they would have no interest in following your weird rules.

I don't know why you're summarily terming my model as having 'weird rules' -- it's another baseless characterization, unless you'd like to explain your reasoning for it.

No, really *no one* would own or be responsible for *anything*, outside of formally accepted, approved policy packages that describe how productive assets and resources are to be used for the common good.

If the Property is owned by the Administration then they fit the definition of a state.

No, no fixed institutions of governance, no state, no standing administration.

If some productive asset or resource is geographically *between* two discrete localities, those localities would have to figure out how to share such together, possibly *alternating* usage of whatever between the two of them, indefinitely into the future.

This is not communism; its nonsense socialism.

Don't just naysay and badmouth stuff, D -- this is an unjustifiable habit of yours. Be prepared to *explain* why you're being so dismissive, regarding whatever.

Arbitrary

These are the *opposite* of 'arbitrary' -- the guidelines are very *orderly* and they interleave as parts of the overall model, or framework.

rules and systems that have to material basis

This is more of your habitual facile accusations -- of *course* there's a material basis for the model:

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

that no one would follow and for good cause.

This isn't up to either you or me since we comprise a total of *two* people only.

You are either forced to conform to the laws or you dont have any. You cant have a voluntary state nor a stateless society with law and order.

Here you're abandoning *any* claim to revolutionary credentials -- you don't think that a post-capitalist society could be fully voluntary, and adequate, and you're obviously more concerned with 'law and order' than with bringing about communism of some kind.

Also you're not taking the guidelines of the model at face-value, preferring to just make dismissive characterizations of the whole thing.

(A)

28th August 2016, 22:35

If you would stop trying to pick my address apart and take it as a whole then you would see how your Rules are Arbitrary because they have no standing basis in society. In order for this system to occur you
would have to be out their with a sign yelling for everyone to fill out their "one-through-infinity ranking" system so that they can get bread tomorrow while all of the people who are producing what they need to subside go about their lives.

You want to recreate the political posses that will be nonsensical without the existence of property. Politics exists as a non-voluntary relation between the owner of land (State) and the working class (Citizen).
My "Revolutionary credentials" as I have said before are not yours you dictate. Your statement regarding this is inaccuracy and fallacious.

I stated that STATES are not voluntary nor can a stateless society can have law and order as states are non-voluntary and Neither is Law and Order.

The system you advocate for is either Non-voluntary and possess law and order; or it is voluntary and all interactions between people, each other and the material world is done freely without a global system.

ckaihatsu

29th August 2016, 13:41

If you would stop trying to pick my address apart and take it as a whole

A system -- *any* system -- is comprised of constituent components, so yours (or mine) should be able to withstand critiques at any level and still remain cohesive and feasible.

You're just asserting and contending stuff on your end of things without providing any reasoning, or the thought-process that's (supposed to be) undergirding it.

And here you're just being defensive without wanting to address particulars.

We're back to the point of talking past each other, so if you'd rather *not* continue these threads please feel free to cease.

then you would see how your Rules are Arbitrary because they have no standing basis in society.

No, of course they don't *now*, but neither is there revolution to overthrow the worldwide bourgeois class, a precondition for the implementation of my 'labor credits' framework, if at all.

And:

These are the *opposite* of 'arbitrary' -- the guidelines are very *orderly* and they interleave as parts of the overall model, or framework.

---

In order for this system to occur you
would have to be out their with a sign yelling for everyone to fill out their "one-through-infinity ranking" system so that they can get bread tomorrow while all of the people who are producing what they need to subside go about their lives.

Nice -- you're invoking the dreaded 'state bureaucracy' formulation, which is a reliable go-to nightmare vision for you.

You don't know the future any better than anyone else -- you're just projecting your Stalinism-back-from-the-dead scenario to disparage my model.

Recall that we're living in a technological period of 'big data' -- all information about the day-to-day functioning of the post-capitalist workers society would be available to everyone since it would be in everyone's interests, both individually and collectively, to have that kind of data available, everywhere.

If people feel they're doing too much in the way of producing bread then they could *stop*. It's the fulfillment of the necessary *work roles* that's significant, not which particular persons exactly are in those work roles.

As long as society can collectively take care of its humane responsibilities in common (just as a person or head-of-household does today), it wouldn't matter much the particular *composition* of individuals for that -- therefore no coercion would be needed, no separate fixed state / bureaucracy.

I'll also point out that you're dismissive of *any* collective efforts, showing that you'd rather have each and every person doing their own farmwork, for the sake of individuated production, whether they may want to collectivize production or not.

Here's from the model regarding the *scheduling* of production runs and the continuous receipt of goods (and services) for the consumer:

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

You want to recreate the political posses that will be nonsensical without the existence of property. Politics exists as a non-voluntary relation between the owner of land (State) and the working class (Citizen).
My "Revolutionary credentials" as I have said before are not yours you dictate. Your statement regarding this is inaccuracy and fallacious.

I stated that STATES are not voluntary nor can a stateless society can have law and order as states are non-voluntary and Neither is Law and Order.

The system you advocate for is either Non-voluntary and possess law and order;

or it is voluntary and all interactions between people, each other and the material world is done freely without a global system.

You're still not comprehending the feasible process of 'bottom-up-to-top-down', meaning that any given 'project' could be pre-planned and described and agreed-upon (prioritized) in advance, while the *implementation* of that plan *could* be worldwide and centralized according to its agreed-upon plan, subject to the voluntary participation, or not, of potentially anyone anywhere on the globe.

You seem to think that if any coordination for production happens that's not face-to-face and neighborly it's doomed to shit and would require a hierarchical leader to implement, with the concomitant carving-out of a personal base of power.

(A)

29th August 2016, 15:27

ckaihatsu

29th August 2016, 15:43

If you would read what is written I said Address not system, idea, plan or anything to indicate I was referring to what I advocate; simply that you tear my statement apart and out of context continually.

Which statement -- ?

Your system is attempting to create a new framework for a system that already exists and has material basis.

No, there's no socio-material basis existing for anything revolutionary -- capitalism is the prevailing norm right now.

My framework would be *feasible* -- yet optional -- for a post-capitalist context. (One only has to 'ask' if liberated-laborers would be willing to work for the common good, for *zero* labor credits per hour -- effectively a communist-type gift economy.)

The market system is the highest current form of planned economy and could conceivably be the most able to provide or everyone without the use of property.

This is utter bullshit since planning itself is *mutually exclusive* to any kind of market system -- 'markets' means 'speculation as to what kind of production would be economically viable', while 'planning' means 'a hands-on collective grasp of needs and then production-and-distribution *for* those unmet needs.

Assuming a lack of scarcity when it comes to the Means of production and free access and democratic management; Individuals or collectives would be able to simply cooperatively produce what they need to survive and more.
If you dont want to use the term market for a economy that is planned by the user on an interaction to interaction basis; Consumer of good to producer of good be it threw Computer; dispensary or face to face; then dont.
But that's what it is and that is what Advocate for. A cooperative market based on the Libertarian communist principles of freedom and equality; cooperation and solidarity.

Your unjustifiable 'one-to-one' limitation is *reactionary*, and even counter-revolutionary, in relation to all of those who would want to *collectivize* productivity, as on a *worldwide* scale.

Economic (material) activity would be artifically constrained and slowed with your localist lateralist approach, compared to economies-of-scale that could be realized by *centralizing*, at various scales of magnitude, with a decidedly *collectivist* approach (like my own).

(A)

29th August 2016, 16:26

labor credits per hour... Again that is currency. You should double check the definitions of currency because getting paid hourly is called wage.

Your system is only not a market because you refuse to call it one and have some form of bureaucracy issuing "credits"

You talked about using a board of demands... that's just another way of saying a market; just a deformed one.

My system you let society determine its demands and then produce to match.
Your society you tell the administration your demands then they tell the producers what it produce.

You ASSUME that your system can produce to order and mine cant. Nothing about the market mechanism calls for pre-production; just your assumptions based on capitalist relations which would be gone in a system without the private ownership over the means of production. As the profit factor would end with the advent of Labor backed currency like a labor credit or use value exchange; my system is equal to yours in scope with less administration.
My Market could and probably would simply put up an online or even local wanted board. I am sorry but every time you re-post your system it says the same thing; Unnecessary administration.

ckaihatsu

29th August 2016, 19:21

labor credits per hour... Again that is currency. You should double check the definitions of currency because getting paid hourly is called wage.

Nope, incorrect -- incidentally I had an extended discussion with tuwix over a year ago on this very topic:

What's the best form of Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192580-What-s-the-best-form-of-Communism

'Labor credits' isn't currency or a wage because currency and wages are exchangeable for material items, while labor credits *cannot* be exchanged for goods / resources / materials of any kind. Here's from the intro:

[I developed] a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

---

Your system is only not a market because you refuse to call it one and have some form of bureaucracy issuing "credits"

Nope, no bureaucracy, and you won't be able to find evidence for one in anything of mine here.

The 'labor credits' system isn't a market because nothing is *commodified* -- it's fully compatible with a communist-type gift economy.

You talked about using a board of demands... that's just another way of saying a market; just a deformed one.

No, I disagree.

A 'live information board' would be just that -- information. The ubiquitously available information about the world's political economy, in realtime, would be possible, but it *wouldn't* automatically imply or confer market-type functioning. (Again you're unable to point to anything in the 'labor credits' framework that functions as a market.)

Here's from the other thread:

[I]f you take a closer look you'll see that *no* bureaucratic system is necessary for my model, in the sense of a fixed 'hierarchy of offices', as we're used to seeing with today's organizations.

Instead think of it more as a 'live information board' that shows ongoing collated tallies over all rank positions ('#1', '#2', '#3', etc.), per locality, per day. Proposals / policy packages that are more favored by a population will receive overall higher rankings, potentially giving the proposal / policy package its most-ranked position of #5, #4, #3, #2, or #1 -- top-five, or top-ten, or top-twenty, etc.

---

My system you let society determine its demands and then produce to match.

How so -- ? You may want to elaborate.

I see a severe limitation in that communes would have to figure-out *vast* collections, from each of the two, for potential barter activity -- if the respective quantities exchanged aren't roughly equivalent in quantity and quality then one party is getting the better end of the deal. (This is just the facts of material-economics.)

Also your system would allow for *speculation* over what items might be more-popular at any given time, so that a commune could focus its productive activity around the production of just that *one* good, so as to get relatively *more stuff in exchange* due to its high implicit exchange-value.

Your society you tell the administration your demands then they tell the producers what it produce.

Nope, you're just making stuff up again -- you can't point to anything within my model that indicates this bullshit you're saying.

What the framework *does* enable is the 'live information board' that is fully public and transparent, letting *everyone* know the tallies of initiatives, demands, proposals, projects, production runs, funding, debt issuances, policy packages, [consumer] orders, [consumer] requests, and slot-donations that have all been submitted, each day, in an aggregated, tallied format, by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.), for every locality on the face of the earth.

You're picking on the label I used, 'communist administration', to make it sound like an *entity* (substitutionist hierarchical bureaucracy), when in fact it's *not* -- it's a *function* as I mentioned at the other thread:

[B]y 'communist administration' I'm indicating a *function*, and not an *institution*, as in 'How would administrative-type functions take place within a communist-type social order'.

---

You ASSUME that your system can produce to order and mine cant.

No, neither -- there could be the case, in the context of my model, where something is popularly demanded, say dairy products, yet no one really wants to get all of the necessary infrastructure up-and-running (agriculture and livestock), so as to *produce* dairy products.

Even with the offering of lots of labor credits everyone finds that kind of work atrocious and so dairy production doesn't happen for the fulfillment of all of the unmet mass demand.

And I never charged your patchwork-of-communes model with being *unable* to 'produce to order' -- I've been looking at its obvious *limitations* in functioning, as with retaining the realm of exchanged exchange-values.

Nothing about the market mechanism calls for pre-production; just your assumptions based on capitalist relations which would be gone in a system without the private ownership over the means of production. As the profit factor would end with the advent of Labor backed currency like a labor credit

I have to point out that my 'labor credits' is *not* a currency, as I've explained above.

What's 'pre-production' -- ?

My *estimations* about the market-mechanism you retain (barter) is that it would implicitly produce commodities -- commodity-production, despite the premise of de-privatization of the means of mass production.

or use value exchange; my system is equal to yours in scope with less administration.

The only 'administration' that can be found in my model is the per-project enabling of the project's backers, in the case that there's sufficient popular support for the project's implementation, and also adequate funding for the activation of available-and-willing liberated-labor.

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

In *your* case you haven't even explained how mass (public) projects like that for transportation would happen -- this would speak directly to matters of how liberated labor is organized, with how specific individuals are selected for any given work role, and also how such volunteers for the public good would be compensated for their work efforts, if at all.

My Market could and probably would simply put up an online or even local wanted board. I am sorry but every time you re-post your system it says the same thing; Unnecessary administration.

More fun from you, huh -- ?

(A)

29th August 2016, 22:54

Even with the offering of lots of labor credits
The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability
directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

So it creates a hierarchy of wealth based on the ability to command labor?

Also I said cooperative market not a barter exchange. after the devaluation of currency their would be no need for barter as the value of any given item would be that of its use.
Any form of barter would be transitional as a post-scarcity level of production has not yet been reached.

Current mode of capitalist production >
Seizing of the means of production and abolition of the state and all forms of citizenship >
Transitional socialist market using Mutual credit bank issued currency or possibly Labor backed currency such as Labor credits which are not exchanged for material goods but labor in kind >
The devaluation of currency due to automation; advanced production; 0-unemployment and Mutual desire for material goods on a world wide scale.

Once the value of a good has dropped to a near zero sum then any trade becomes an act of gifting as the value of the good being given is so low due to a lack of scarcity.
Alternatively this can be accelerated by A voluntary implementation of a Cooperative economy where people produce only to fulfill the needs of others.

Imagine that when you walked out your door to go to your dream job tomorrow that everything you did was for your costumer and not for your boss. Where your labors where yours to give freely
based on the simple love of your fellow man and the mutual respect you share for your working class brothers, sisters and others knowing that they will do the same.

My economy is based on the science of Human relation and not the goal of credit accumulation.
People will produce for each other freely if given the means to do so.

ckaihatsu

30th August 2016, 14:25

Even with the offering of lots of labor credits everyone finds that kind of work atrocious and so dairy production doesn't happen for the fulfillment of all of the unmet mass demand.

The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

So it creates a hierarchy of wealth based on the ability to command labor?

No, there's no *wealth* because there are no exchange values, no finance, no private property, and no open-ended personal accumulations (you'd have to basically keep track of your shit or else if it's too sprawling others might find it unattended and take it, thinking it's part of the commons).

If someone focused on doing a lot of liberated-production, for particularly high-rate work roles for an extended period of time, they'd build up a substantial number of labor credits.

However there'd be no *intrinsic* benefits from possessing many labor credits, apart from whatever the societal culture happened to be -- in other words I can't predict how people with amassed labor credits would be seen and treated in general by the people of that society.

The labor credits *don't* confer any special access to social production, because they're not exchangeable for goods / resources / materials. Someone with many labor credits would still have to submit a 'daily prioritized demands list', like everyone else, for the sake of egalitarianism in access to social production.

The *benefit* would be in *activating* / mobilizing liberated labor for tasks of almost anything imaginable -- perhaps the person happened to want additional efforts at a number of their personal projects, that they didn't want to do themselves. They could offer various rates of labor credits that they have as an incentive for others to do such work, voluntarily. (There could never be any 'commanding' of labor from individuals or small groups -- that's necessarily a socio-*political* thing, if at all.)

Here's a quick outline of the social *significance* of labor credits:

[L]et's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit.

'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192580-What-s-the-best-form-of-Communism?p=2824831#post2824831

---

Also I said cooperative market not a barter exchange.

Well this aspect has been unclear since you've mentioned both currency / markets, *and* moneyless characteristics for your model.

after the devaluation of currency their would be no need for barter as the value of any given item would be that of its use.

So you're saying that there *would* be the use of currency in your model -- that, then, implies the *issuance* of the currency, and the maintenance / regulation of the money-supply, which then implies state-like *governance* of that function. It also implies the need for some kind of *banking* so as to smooth-out the unevenness of *investments* of that currency, versus its *liquidity* and circulation.

Any form of barter would be transitional as a post-scarcity level of production has not yet been reached.

I'll just refer back to this post of yours that says that *currency* would have to be used in your model.

Current mode of capitalist production >
Seizing of the means of production and abolition of the state and all forms of citizenship >
Transitional socialist market using Mutual credit bank issued currency or possibly Labor backed currency such as Labor credits which are not exchanged for material goods but labor in kind >

Please don't conflate my own 'labor credits' with being any kind of 'labor-backed currency', since it *isn't* currency, as I've already explained in post #148.

And what does 'mutual credit bank issued currency' mean -- ?

If a 'commune' of yours issued debt-based currency, what would its 'value' be, in the context of an economic environment that's purportedly 'the commons', with no private ownership or control -- ?

If you can't pin-down what one unit of your currency is *worth* in relation to a piece of all available goods and services that can be purchased with that unit, then that currency has no solid basis of *convertibility* with social production as a whole. You would also need some kind of convertibility from one commune's currency to the next commune's currency, for potentially *thousands* of separate-currency communes worldwide.

The devaluation of currency due to automation; advanced production; 0-unemployment and Mutual desire for material goods on a world wide scale.

All you're doing is *spitballing* on the elements / components of your post-capitalist framework, without even *attempting* to think it through -- just because a nominal currency is in abundant supply ('devalued') doesn't mean that people will have *confidence* in it as a medium of interchange.

For example what if people put in their voluntary liberated-labor and get some of your currency in exchange for their productive efforts, only to find that the currency gets *further devalued* while they're hanging onto it -- ? They've then effectively *lost value* in exchange for the work they did.

Once the value of a good has dropped to a near zero sum then any trade becomes an act of gifting as the value of the good being given is so low due to a lack of scarcity.
Alternatively this can be accelerated by A voluntary implementation of a Cooperative economy where people produce only to fulfill the needs of others.

Okay, this would reflect a situation of post-scarcity / abundance, but I continue to have differences with your particular *approach* to a post-capitalist political-economy economics.

Imagine that when you walked out your door to go to your dream job tomorrow that everything you did was for your costumer and not for your boss. Where your labors where yours to give freely
based on the simple love of your fellow man and the mutual respect you share for your working class brothers, sisters and others knowing that they will do the same.

Yeah, sounds good -- no prob with your political *intentions*....

My economy is based on the science of Human relation and not the goal of credit accumulation.
People will produce for each other freely if given the means to do so.

Yes, but how would a proposed post-capitalist economics handle any objective / empirical societal needs to *scale-up* production, so that, perhaps, several *million* people can receive sturdy *chairs* (or shoes, etc.) without having to become carpenters or shoemakers themselves -- ?

(I'll also take exception to your implying that the 'goal' of my labor-credits-enabled post-capitalist economics would be for '[labor] credit accumulation'. There's nothing in the framework itself that indicates labor-credit-accumulation would necessarily be a societal *goal*.) (Even if a particular society *made* labor-credit-accumulation a goal of *theirs*, it wouldn't be 'wealth', and it wouldn't disrupt the overall communistic *ethos* -- it would just mean that people would be working a lot and that there was a very active economy.)

(A)

30th August 2016, 22:17

Currency exists now.

The argument being made across a few threads in case you need a reminder is that Currency in the form of Labor backed credits or Even a local issuing of Currency by a mutual credit bank is a transitional tool
that with the freedom of society will lead to a Money-less economy.

Capitalism- money
Transitional phase of socialism- Labor credit/mutualist issued currency
Anarchism/communism- No money

The use of labor credits or currency would be unnecessary in a communist society because society's demand for goods would lead to their production; not the the prospect of profit but Mutual aid.
But pre-communist; transitionally; currency or Labor credits would possibly be needed within a Socialist phase of production.
I am open to this possibility but it depends on out actions now.
If we get out their and start building the infrastructure so that when the state is abolished and Anarchism becomes a possibility then we can possibly shorten the transitinal phase or shorten it.
Preventing the need for a new form of currency.

It is possible that the current form of money will continue to circulate until it falls out of use. With no one to issue more money the last of our paper/metal coinage will be a fixed value and will eventually
become worthless as the whole of society and the whole of production becomes socialized and without ownership.

ckaihatsu

31st August 2016, 14:26

Currency exists now.

The argument being made across a few threads in case you need a reminder is that

Currency in the form of Labor backed credits

Please don't conflate my own 'labor credits' with being any kind of 'labor-backed currency', since it *isn't* currency, as I've already explained in post #148.

---

or Even a local issuing of Currency by a mutual credit bank is a transitional tool
that with the freedom of society will lead to a Money-less economy.

Capitalism- money
Transitional phase of socialism- Labor credit/mutualist issued currency
Anarchism/communism- No money

The use of labor credits or currency would be unnecessary in a communist society because society's demand for goods would lead to their production; not the the prospect of profit but Mutual aid.

(I'll just note that profit-making would be entirely obviated with the use of labor credits in circulation.)

But pre-communist; transitionally; currency or Labor credits would possibly be needed within a Socialist phase of production.

I *have* heard this before, that my labor credits framework would be most applicable to the DOTP phase.

But -- I'll contend that whatever the circumstances may be in a 'transitional' period, or even *afterward*, there can simply be the case that some needed work roles are *so* distasteful and still-unmechanized, that *no one* wants to do them sheerly voluntarily....

[I]f we rely on an enlightened voluntarist ethos too much -- even in an oppression-free post-capitalist context -- we could be both straining our social cohesion of politics-in-common, *and* still [be] coming up short in terms of how much (liberated) labor is actually needed.

Voluntarism alone may not be enough, and that's where the valid question of incentives comes in. My model provides growing labor-organizing political power as the measured reward for the contribution of skill-weighted labor hours.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/172227-A-few-questions-on-incentive-and-competition?p=2457678#post2457678

---

I am open to this possibility but it depends on out actions now.
If we get out their and start building the infrastructure so that when the state is abolished and Anarchism becomes a possibility then we can possibly shorten the transitinal phase or shorten it.
Preventing the need for a new form of currency.

This part is unclear -- what do you mean by '[revolutionary] infrastructure' -- ?

It is possible that the current form of money will continue to circulate until it falls out of use. With no one to issue more money the last of our paper/metal coinage will be a fixed value and will eventually
become worthless as the whole of society and the whole of production becomes socialized and without ownership.

This perspective is too *currency-centric* -- the problem with capitalist / bourgeois economics isn't the everyday acceptance of *currency*, it's the private control of the means of mass production.

We shouldn't have to work for private interests for a wage, and then also have to *bribe* the private sector with profits for the wheels of industry to work -- all real productivity needs to be in the hands of the world's working class.

(A)

31st August 2016, 21:12

The point about tasks being preformed voluntarily is that its the use value that one does said task because they want the task completed.
Name the tasks that are so abhorrent that the end result is not worth preforming the task.

Revolutionary infrastructure as in the organization, means held, organizations formed and ability to transition already built before the fall.
Look at the Kurdish revolution; they are very well organized; and have adopted many Anarchist ideas into their movement. One that started as Marxist-Leninist but has since become far more Anarchist.

But during the transition currency will still be used unless you create a new Authority to create new laws and use force to end all socialist unacceptable interactions.
This in my eyes is counter revolutionary as it is Against the goal of communism. Instead by eliminating the systems of oppression and Injustice the new society will be able to
transition from one to the other in the correct fashion. Not driven by ideology but by practicality.
The very notion that a society would not be able to transition if given the ability is counter-revolutionary in my eyes.

ckaihatsu

2nd September 2016, 19:01

The point about tasks being preformed voluntarily is that its the use value that one does said task because they want the task completed.

Yes, of course -- this is the overall general *ethos* of a communistic gift economy.

As usual, though, you're ignoring issues / political content in favor of just barreling forward in *your* chosen direction -- I've mentioned that there shouldn't be a revolution only to then see a *different type* of exploitation, that of self-chosen, self-sacrificing volunteers being *used* consistently by the larger society.

(*Many* people, perhaps less socio-politically inclined, may have the attitude of 'Now we have dependable supplies for our life and living, and we can work as much as we want at the stuff that others don't even want to do!' The point here being that a post-capitalist political economy should make sure it doesn't *inadvertently* wind-up exploiting anyone.)

From the other thread:

There's nothing *humane* or 'enlightening' about doing the work to produce toilet paper -- it's simply one of those things that has to get done.

There could even *be* volunteers, post-capitalism, who *willingly* say 'Hey, no prob, I'm the one who doesn't *mind* doing the work for the production of toilet paper for everyone.'

The question here is 'Should *society* allow those person(s) to be the toilet-paper-producers indefinitely, or is something actually *wrong* / inappropriate about letting that happen -- ?'

I'll contend that if society allowed certain people to be doing the *gruntwork*, *consistently*, it would amount to de-facto *exploitation* because those people's standard-of-living was *reduced* (due to doing distasteful tasks), compared to everyone else's, who *weren't* doing distasteful tasks *at all*.

With the use of labor credits, anyone who *did* relent to doing distasteful tasks would actually gain *incremental political power* with the receipt of labor credits in proportion to the actual work they did (for the general good of society / 'demanders').

---

Name the tasks that are so abhorrent that the end result is not worth preforming the task.

You misunderstand. Nowhere am I summarily saying 'Don't perform the task' -- rather I'm saying that whoever *does* do 'distasteful' liberated-labor -- hazardous and/or difficult tasks or work roles -- should be socially recognized and materially *compensated* in some way.

Now, since it's a communistic gift economy, giving 'stuff' to anyone as a reward for their onerous labors makes no sense because those liberated laborers could just get that stuff *anyway*, just like anyone else, through the regular process of daily prioritized demands lists. (Free-access, direct-distribution.)

So what kind of 'compensation' *would* be appropriate in such a political economy -- ? It would be that which *would* be conceivably 'scarce' in such a society -- liberated-labor itself. The receipt of labor credits from work that benefits the common good would confer the worker with hand-selection of *other* liberated-laborers and their labor power (if willing-and-available), going-forward, in direct proportion to the number of labor credits earned.

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

Revolutionary infrastructure as in the organization, means held, organizations formed and ability to transition already built before the fall.
Look at the Kurdish revolution; they are very well organized; and have adopted many Anarchist ideas into their movement. One that started as Marxist-Leninist but has since become far more Anarchist.

But during the transition currency will still be used unless you create a new Authority to create new laws and use force to end all socialist unacceptable interactions.

You *do* understand that a revolution would be synonymous with the *mass participation* and *co-determination* of the 'new' society going-forward, right -- ?

You're still relying on your chew-toy of a stereotyped boogeyman 'surprise state' that comes out of nowhere to fuck with everyone and shit down everyone's necks.

Maybe the world's population *would* want a new authority, formed from a specific charter, that *would* ban all existing currency in favor of none, or perhaps labor-credits. This would be your dreaded 'workers government', even if was actually based in the collectivized subset of those who wielded collectivized implements for the common good.

This in my eyes is counter revolutionary as it is Against the goal of communism.

The boogeyman says Boo! (grin)

Instead by eliminating the systems of oppression and Injustice the new society will be able to
transition from one to the other in the correct fashion. Not driven by ideology but by practicality.
The very notion that a society would not be able to transition if given the ability is counter-revolutionary in my eyes.

(A)

5th September 2016, 01:44

Explain what you mean by political economy. You mean a economy planned politically by the polity? The group that owns the means of production?

Either you mean that the state will plan the economy or that the workers who control the means will.
One is state socialism and the other is a socialist market.

You *do* understand that a revolution would be synonymous with the *mass participation*

Was the Russian revolution? Was Mao's?

These revolutions directly lead to the creation of new states that where both dictatorial in nature. Anti-working class and imperialistic. Mao's revolution was very militaristic and lead the the creation of a literal Military state.
But no revolutions are all great and cant possibly lead to anything bad happening.

Where is the Marxist critical thinking when it comes to the possibility that the next revolution could lead to the same Liberal or Totalitarian socialism that most others have?
We must be Anarchists in our objection to capitalist relations in all forms.

A state that calls itself socialist is still inherently capitalist by the notion that it has a right to rule.
I refer to no boogeyman; only hold a critical view of the clear and present anti-socialism in the creation of a new hierarchy of owner and worker.

ckaihatsu

5th September 2016, 14:51

Explain what you mean by political economy. You mean a economy planned politically by the polity? The group that owns the means of production?

Yes, basically -- I use it as a generic term to indicate a societal 'mix' of socio-political and material-economic aspects.

Either you mean that the state will plan the economy or that the workers who control the means will.

[N]o one here is suggesting an elitist, substitutionist *top-down* administration for any of it.

---

One is state socialism and the other is a socialist market.

[T]he act of 'free exchange' implicitly *commodifies* labor in the process -- 'Commune X' might find that 'Commune B' is willing to provide relatively *more* labor (and/or goods) to 'X' than 'Commune A' is offering.

My *estimations* about the market-mechanism you retain [...] is that it would implicitly produce commodities -- commodity-production, despite the premise of de-privatization of the means of mass production.

---

Was the Russian revolution? Was Mao's?

These revolutions directly lead to the creation of new states that where both dictatorial in nature. Anti-working class and imperialistic. Mao's revolution was very militaristic and lead the the creation of a literal Military state.
But no revolutions are all great and cant possibly lead to anything bad happening.

Where is the Marxist critical thinking when it comes to the possibility that the next revolution could lead to the same Liberal or Totalitarian socialism that most others have?
We must be Anarchists in our objection to capitalist relations in all forms.

A state that calls itself socialist is still inherently capitalist by the notion that it has a right to rule.
I refer to no boogeyman; only hold a critical view of the clear and present anti-socialism in the creation of a new hierarchy of owner and worker.

Okay, your cautionary stance has been done to death on these threads -- it should suffice to say that no one here wants state authority, nor should any kind of 'markets', with its retention of exchange-values, be seriously considered, either.

(A)

5th September 2016, 21:03

ckaihatsu

6th September 2016, 13:42

Production to meet Demand directly from producer to consumer on a voluntary basis without the use of currency, reward, credit, government, state, ownership, property...

What would you call this?

Well, generically, it would be communism, of course.

But there's a lot of *complexity* still, within the parameters you're naming, so it could go in several 'sociological' directions depending on how people organize themselves within such a society.

You're continually more concerned about *individual* productive capacities, when this scenario could also enable massive *public works* projects that would *not* be reducible to any one liberated-laborer. (Maybe I should be just as concerned about your fetish with the individual as you are with a 'surprise state authority' popping out of nowhere to oppress everyone.)

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized.

THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS

http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Except for Leninist's, Maoists, Stalinist's etc.
Like... Location C

-----

(I'll let LC answer for themselves on this one.)

(A)

6th September 2016, 20:01

You dont need to let him answer he is already has very clearly in another thread. He proves that their are still people who support state capitalism as a form of socialism and that Leninist and Maoists are not of the working class unless they are willing to abandon their support for the state system. Their is nothing progressive about State capitalism.

If it is useful and good for the people, and assuming said person is qualified, he/she would be hired by the people's state and given funding for production. If the venture was successful, the person would be entrusted with even more. As always, promotion and rewards are according to production and merit in a socialist society. The best workers prove themselves by the sweat of their brow rather than the whiteness of their skin or the richness of their parents.

This ideology is what I am calling out as a reality that needs to be ended. This is authoritarian/statistic/nationalistic socialism.

----

I agree it would be communism. You made a good point

depending on how people organize themselves within such a society.

As an Anarchist I believe that the society is best managed by itself and not threw government; police; laws; prisons; nations; states.
That people will organize themselves within a society for their individual AND collective welfare. This is Mutual aid. That when possible people will act altruistically.
And my hypothesis that having power causes mental illness.

My concern for the individual should be yours as well as if one person is not free then no one is. A system that oppresses one group of people by race; sex; faith; or any other criteria is by Marx's books a capitalist one.
If Marx was correct that Capitalism is the cause of class then any society that retains class must logically still be capitalist in some form or another.

ckaihatsu

7th September 2016, 13:34

You dont need to let him answer he is already has very clearly in another thread.

And you're taking up 4+ threads yourself, so why the double standard -- ?

Besides, this is a *discussion board* -- either LC makes a post here, or else they don't. It has nothing to do with *me*.

He proves that their are still people who support state capitalism as a form of socialism

(I'll let LC answer for themselves on this one.)

and that Leninist and Maoists are not of the working class unless they are willing to abandon their support for the state system. Their is nothing progressive about State capitalism.

This ideology is what I am calling out as a reality that needs to be ended. This is authoritarian/statistic/nationalistic socialism.

So *you're* the one who doesn't like elitism. Okay, thanks for cluing the rest of us in.[/sarcasm]

Actually, a collectivist state bureaucracy *is* relatively more progressive than subdivided, separate private concerns with a hegemonic capitalist state as an imperialist 'weapon' that contains all of it.

Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)

---

I agree it would be communism. You made a good point

As an Anarchist I believe that the society is best managed by itself and not threw government; police; laws; prisons; nations; states.

What you keep discarding, though, with your 'no-authority-regardless-of-social-composition' line is that -- particularly during a prolonged period of fierce class struggle, and dual-power -- the world's working class *would* have to use force, and the institutions you listed are the historical methods by which force *has* been implemented.

To deny the proletariat the use of the same kinds of force in its best interests is just counter-productive, and possibly counter-revolutionary.

That people will organize themselves within a society for their individual AND collective welfare. This is Mutual aid. That when possible people will act altruistically.
And my hypothesis that having power causes mental illness.

My concern for the individual should be yours as well as if one person is not free then no one is. A system that oppresses one group of people by race; sex; faith; or any other criteria is by Marx's books a capitalist one.
If Marx was correct that Capitalism is the cause of class then any society that retains class must logically still be capitalist in some form or another.

Yeah -- no disagreements here, but you're talking about a presumed *ahistorical* period following a successful revolution, without addressing the process of revolution *itself* in the slightest. (Now who's being utopian -- !)

(A)

7th September 2016, 19:54

Force does not equal Authority. Force + Law does.

That argument that we need to be authoritarian (Support the Authority of a Nation/Ethnicity,State) in order to destroy those things is illogical.
DO I have to be racist to attack racists? Fascist to attack fascists? A rapist to attack rapists?

The struggle against capitalism is a struggle against the means of oppression including Property laws; Police; Nation states; Ethnic supremacy, Patriarchy, etc...

Recreating these forms of oppression can not end oppression.
That would be like saying what we need to end this capitalism is more capitalism.

Destroying the means of our oppression is an act of self defense; not authority.

ckaihatsu

8th September 2016, 13:24

Force does not equal Authority. Force + Law does.

(I didn't say or imply that force equals authority.)

There are *two* timeframes, or 'phases', at-issue here -- [1] *during* the revolution, and [2] *after* a successful revolution.

If the relevant timeframe is [1] 'during', then the 'authority' would be a *workers authority*, meaning doing everything solidarity-oriented that would displace bourgeois rule. Obviously actions would be real-world-context-dependent, so all we can discuss today are the abstractions of means-and-ends.

If the relevant timeframe is [2] 'after', then society wouldn't *require* authority, force, or law -- once the class division has been relegated to the dustbin of history there would no longer be material scarcity and thus no material basis / cause for authority, force, or law.

That argument that we need to be authoritarian (Support the Authority of a Nation/Ethnicity,State) in order to destroy those things is illogical.

And neither I, nor anyone else, has suggested or implied that the *goal* is to create and use an authoritarian nation-state.

That said, there are two 'gray areas': That of the workers wielding the state apparatus (of any country or countries) as a *strategy* during the proletarian revolution, and the 'gray area' of national liberation, where a country's bid for national independence may or may not be supported, strategically, for reasons of anti-oppression and/or to advance the *class struggle* there.

DO I have to be racist to attack racists? Fascist to attack fascists? A rapist to attack rapists?

The struggle against capitalism is a struggle against the means of oppression including Property laws; Police; Nation states; Ethnic supremacy, Patriarchy, etc...

Recreating these forms of oppression can not end oppression.
That would be like saying what we need to end this capitalism is more capitalism.

Destroying the means of our oppression is an act of self defense; not authority.

(A)

8th September 2016, 19:24

The only flaw in your argument is the idea that a state or government can be of the Proletariat. A government of the people is the most Liberal of ideas and a fallacy.
Never in the existence of the human race has a a state been of the people and not the definitive tool for the ruling class's oppression of the worker.
Taking control of that means of oppression and wielding it against the ruling is a cute idea; but ultimately flawed. Recreation of the ruling class's oppression only gives back the means to them
as the ruling class is not one fixed set of evil souls sitting in a board room but anyone who possesses the means.

During* the revolution we will attempt to destroy the existence of nations and states and thereby the means of the ruling class (Including the capitalist) of oppressing us.
After* the revolution humanity will learn to behave without the bondage of our masters and work together for the betterment of all.

Coggeh

9th September 2016, 06:13

The only flaw in your argument is the idea that a state or government can be of the Proletariat. A government of the people is the most Liberal of ideas and a fallacy.
Never in the existence of the human race has a a state been of the people and not the definitive tool for the ruling class's oppression of the worker.
Taking control of that means of oppression and wielding it against the ruling is a cute idea; but ultimately flawed. Recreation of the ruling class's oppression only gives back the means to them
as the ruling class is not one fixed set of evil souls sitting in a board room but anyone who possesses the means.

Never in human history have we seen stateless, borderless and total class liberation based society. So the argument that its never happened therefore can't happen is redundant. Socialism isn't about some evil state/government doing mean things, its taking power out of the hands of the bourgeoisie and running society on the democratic basis whereby the workers are in power. Class society cannot be got rid of over night so instead we establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat". A society where the working class democratically own and control the means of production.

(A)

9th September 2016, 08:47

Never in human history have we seen stateless, borderless and total class liberation based society
I know the Marxist prefix for you Leninist's is just a joke but you can try harder then this. Maybe read some Marx and try again.
"Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who argued that hunter-gatherer societies were traditionally based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership. A primary inspiration for both Marx and Engels were Lewis Henry Morgan's descriptions of 'communism in living' as practiced by the Iroquois Nation of North America. In Marx's model of socioeconomic structures, societies with primitive communism had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation."

The very foundation of communism and anarchism was based on the FACT that humans evolved in stateless, borderless and total class liberation based society's.

Also how would any modern community be border less when surrounded by borders. the existence of bordering nations would create defacto-borders. Even then their are Autonomous zones and duel power community's that exist now such as the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities or the Democratic confederation of Kurdistan that are working their way well into Libertarian waters based upon anarchist principles. Not to mention all of the past community's that where destroyed by imperialist nations such as the USSR.

What I am talking about is pure anarchism; the most absolute form of Communism.
No States. Borders, property, governments.
No Class. Gods, Patriarchy, Supremacy.
No Money. Production for exchange value, Labor or otherwise.

Libertarian Socialism (As noted above) will lead to Libertarian communism (Anarchism.)

ckaihatsu

9th September 2016, 13:28

The only flaw in your argument is the idea that a state or government can be of the Proletariat. A government of the people is the most Liberal of ideas and a fallacy.

You're conflating the terms 'people' and 'workers' (or 'proletariat') -- yes, a 'government of the people' *has* been done already and it never worked out beyond the rhetoric, due to towering private-sector interests that trump populist-government-type directions, like social welfare programs.

Never in the existence of the human race has a a state been of the people and not the definitive tool for the ruling class's oppression of the worker.

Yes.

Taking control of that means of oppression and wielding it against the ruling is a cute idea; but ultimately flawed.

You're too dismissive. It should be a potential *strategy* for the working class, depending on prevailing conditions of struggle.

(One way to look at it / scenario is how the workers of *government* might respond politically to any given mass uprising -- if bourgeois rule teeters due to the social bankruptcy of its stagnating economic system then the 'first step' could very well be the hollowing-out of existing administrative state structures to make way for soviet-type cooperation over the same.)

Tuzla[edit]

4–5 February

Protests began on 4 February 2014[23] peacefully in the city of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina but turned violent the following day when hundreds of demonstrators, mostly former employees of several big companies, such as Dita, Polihem, Guming and Konjuh, clashed with police near the Tuzla local government building demanding for compensation and called on Tuzla officials to intervene instantly.[24] Demonstrators blame local officials for allowing several state firms to collapse between 2000 and 2008 after being privatized, leaving many unemployed.[25]

The protests later spread to various cities across Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Bihać, Mostar, Zenica, Kakanj and the capital Sarajevo.[26]

Due to the recent closures of factories and firms in Tuzla, at least 600 protesters tried to storm the building of the Tuzla local government, accusing authorities of turning a blind eye to the collapse of a number of state firms after their privatization.[27] Some of the protesters threw eggs, flares and stones at the windows of the building and set tires on fire, blocking traffic in the city center.[28][29] Police eventually forced demonstrators back and cordoned off the building. One of the hundreds of protesters in the city said: "This is the start of the Bosnian Spring," alluding to the ongoing Arab Spring which began in 2010.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_unrest_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

---

Recreation of the ruling class's oppression only gives back the means to them
as the ruling class is not one fixed set of evil souls sitting in a board room but anyone who possesses the means.

During* the revolution we will attempt to destroy the existence of nations and states and thereby the means of the ruling class (Including the capitalist) of oppressing us.
After* the revolution humanity will learn to behave without the bondage of our masters and work together for the betterment of all.

No disagreement, but the question of a possible 'transition' is what's at-issue here -- how *quickly* can the legacy of state structures be dissolved, and could it be potentially advantageous for the working class to *co-opt* state functions in the short-term -- ?

Fellow_Human

9th September 2016, 16:22

I am aware of the differences between socialism and communism... but I have heard 'Libertarian Socialism' and 'Libertarian Communism' used interchangeably... is this accurate?

"Libertarian communism" is used interchangeably with "libertarian socialism" by some, and with "anarchist communism" by others, which only breeds confusion.

Also, "libertarian communism" is not to be confused with "left communism," which refers to early currents of libertarian Marxism.

On top of this, I've also heard both philosophies described as 'collectivist anarchism' and 'social anarchism'....

Not all libertarian socialists are anarchists. Those who aren't are normally Marxists. (There are syndicalists in both camps.)

A very persistent dichotomy in early anarchism was between social(ist) anarchism and individualist anarchism. Collectivist anarchism is one current of socialist anarchism.

Blake's Baby

31st October 2016, 18:42

...

Also, "libertarian communism" is not to be confused with "left communism," which refers to early currents of libertarian Marxism...

There is no such thing as 'libertarian Marxism'. Daniel Guerin invented that term for the 'good' Marxists, the ones (like Luxemburg, or Pannekoek) that you can use to criticise Lenin.

Left Communists might be called 'libertarian' (for example, of the three main strands of Italian Left Communism, 2/3 reject the idea of the proletarian party taking power, which in LibCom's definition means we are 'libertarian') but we reject the libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy. We believe that the working class, in the course of its liberatory revolution, will use extremely authoritarian methods (up to and including forming workers' militia and killing people). So the notion that the revolution is 'libertarian' is false. But so is the notion that the party is 'authoritarian'.

(A)

1st November 2016, 01:54

We reject the libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy. We believe that the working class, in the course of its liberatory revolution, will use extremely authoritarian methods (up to and including forming workers' militia and killing people). So the notion that the revolution is 'libertarian' is false. But so is the notion that the party is 'authoritarian'.

I don't think you understand libertarianism or authoritarianism.

Using violence is not intrinsically authoritarian vs pacifism being libertarian. Pacifists can be extremely authoritarian in their support of the state. Liberal pacifists calling anti-fa just as bad as fascists and supporting state violence against us is authoritarian. Anti-fa attacking fascists and shutting down their rally's using violence; libertarian.

Try anarchy vs archy. Anarchy is libertarian (the term libertarian literally being created to stand in for the term anarchist.) where as archy is authoritarian. Archy is the support for rulers and their authority.

If you support the authority of the nation state, the capitalist or the political party... you are an authoritarian.

If you reject the rule of the state and the political party (as well as the capitalist) over your life then you may be a libertarian.

Violence against authority is NOT authority... That is a very very liberal stance.

Blake's Baby

1st November 2016, 18:13

...
Violence against authority is NOT authority... That is a very very liberal stance.

Only if you see 'authority' as some sort of original sin.

The working class will impose its authority on the capitalist class and their supporters. This is what the revolution is.

Do you agree?

(A)

1st November 2016, 21:07

ckaihatsu

3rd November 2016, 14:17

authority

: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

No. I see the revolution as self defense; not authority. The working class has no authority. Authority being the right (legally) to control others.
A capitalist is an economic authority as they have control over the mode of production.
The state is Authority because it dictates laws and maintains its right to control others by violence.

So you ether seek to end the domination of society capitalist class or you seek to become the domineer yourself.
Justifying this domination over the working class

First off, D, I don't doubt the integrity and righteousness (for lack of a better word) of your political *motivations*, after scores of exchanges with you here over the past several months.

However your stubbornness over definitions, *reasonings* and outright logical *gaps* at times -- as right here -- leave something to be desired, and is the source of frustration for many over the threads.

Above you jump from a fairly decent discussion over 'domination', to a less-than-good-faith *accusation*, implicitly, of working-class / revolutionary people wanting to dominate the working class. This is untoward and inappropriate, I would say.

If a prevailing revolution is to displace bourgeois authority as a matter of self-defense, that's fine -- but you also have to make up your mind as to whether this international grouping of revolutionaries would be doing it out of motivations of class self-defense, or for motives of then 'dominating the working class'. Your lack of clarity over others' motivations leads you to sound nebulous at best, and self-contradictory regarding mass intentions, at worst.

as necessary is Liberalism in its most classical sense.
The entire justification for capitalism and nationalism being that the working class is to stupid to manage itself and requires a nation to keep us controlled.
and the most able should manage the economy (capitalism)

If you believe that we need a state to manage society then you are an Archists, A Liberal or Fascist.

If you know that the working class is able to operate without the control of a ruling class then you would be an Anarchist.
We dont need chains.

And on the topic / issue of the 'state', I'd argue that you should recognize an existing formal social organization of bureaucracy would be *very* different if hollowed-out and its personnel fundamentally changed by the working class itself, by *becoming* the personnel of that bureaucracy, as an interim measure of the ongoing proletarian revolution (transitional 'DOTP', or 'workers state').

This would be the exercise of 'authority' in the generic sense -- something revolutionaries should have no reservations in doing.

Blake's Baby

3rd November 2016, 19:25

authority

: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

No. I see the revolution as self defense; not authority...

So let's be clear: you reject the working class's

"... power to give orders or make decisions ... "

and you reject the working class's

"... power or right to direct or control someone or something (ie, society)..."

in the revolution.

You won't allow the working class to make decisions and you won't accept their (our) right to re-organise society.

I put it to you, that you're neither a revolutionary nor a 'leftist' (by which I suppose is meant 'someone who is for the working class's self-organisation and emancipation'). You're a liberal who thinks it would be nice if things were nice.

(A)

4th November 2016, 03:19

ckaihatsu

4th November 2016, 13:44

The change of rulers is the joy of fools baby.

I am sure I dont have to explain what Anarchism is so no I dont think ANY government or ANY god or ANYone has such a thing as a Legitimate rule over society.
Only Liberals, Fascists, capitalists, monarchists and the religious believe in the legitimacy of rulers.

You dont want to see the freedom of the working class to re-organise society...

I put it to you that You want a bureaucracy to rule the working class and to dictate rules that must be followed by punishment of death and you see that relation as legitimate.

As usual I *don't* appreciate your wanton imputations.

I do *not* want 'a bureaucracy to rule the working class', etc.

Here's from earlier in the thread:

Revolutionaries should *not* be aiming for the institution of any kind of 'state' (fixed bureaucratic hierarchy) within socialism -- the seizing of the *bourgeois* state apparatus is to wield it in the service of the revolution (as a revolutionary *strategy*, I would say), and then to *dissolve* it as the workers society gets its legs and holds it own, collapsing the class divide once and for all.

And:

[I] see the possible proletarian seizing of the state to be a revolutionary *strategy*, and not a fixed recipe.

The *reason* for the option of seizing the existing state and wielding it in the interests of the proletariat is that it's an immediately available 'next-step', once worldwide revolt and revolution is underway, and also that it would be a 'radical reform' of *nationalization* / socialization of familiar institutions, like that of finance, wages, etc.

That said, I'll repeat that I don't advocate this strategy as a *given* -- whether or not the seizure of the bourgeois state is undertaken or not would really depend on empirical realities, and how-quickly the revolution could bring about full communism. (Under more-favorable conditions of revolt perhaps the world could accelerate immediately into a full-blown communist-type 'gift economy'.)

---

If you believe in the "Workers" state liberal democracy then you are A liberal and belong campaigning for Sanders or Clinton; Not as a revolutionary seeking to end the ruling class
hold over society.

You're conflating two *different* things here -- a proletarian-controlled 'workers state', and a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy'. They're not the same thing.

Chris I am not a paladin of righteousness; I am just a guy saying that government has no legitimate claim to the sole right to use violence.

What if the existing *ruling class* uses violence -- ? Would workers have the option of your previously-stated 'self-defense' -- ?

No state can be socialist as it privately owns and operates capital/property for the profit of its shareholders/citizens/bureaucrats.
No government can be Libertarian as it claims a monopoly on violence and a legitimacy that does not exist.

We've been over this before, repeatedly -- just because you don't recognize the theoretical possibility of a worker-controlled workers state doesn't mean that it's forever not a consideration, or possibility.

If you would put your Marx-specticals on; you know the ones that come with every copy of Kapital; and look at the states claim of legitimacy has no standing.

Either you are ignoring any critical analysis of the Liberal system of rule in favor of your ideology or you should be able to see the parallels between states and capitalists.

Nope -- you continue to conflate. Here you're taking bourgeois-political forms ('states') and bourgeois-economic forms ('capital') together, and then smearing that onto a potential *workers state*, which would actually be a whole different thing altogether.

For the sake of clarity, just don't call it a 'workers state', since you obviously don't like the term 'state' in *any* kind of usage -- call it a 'worker-seized transitional apparatus', if you like.

My claim is not that working-class / revolutionary people wanting to dominate the working class.
My claim is that if you think that a state democracy can be revolutionary or working-class is absolutely devoid of Marxist analysis, basic logic and historical evidence.
That the claim of legitimacy is a joke and that any state; ruled by workers or not; is Authoritarian at its core.

I actually do appreciate the concern here, but consider the scenario of a workers apparatus that functions as an *institution* as a whole, and *not* as a fixed, standing bureaucracy of political-specialists.

In other words, it would be an institution in which all workers *take a turn*, similar to military service today, so that no one has any specific careerist claim to extended participation. This would be a strategy for *supplanting* existing bourgeois institutions, carrying out necessary societal functions for larger working-class interests, while spreading the revolution as needed.

You posit past historical situations (the USSR nation-state) as being *fated* for any future worker-created 'state', which is flawed reasoning on your part.

Libertarianism and Socialism are inseparable. One without the other is not possible.

Libertarianism without socialism is not Libertarianism and is in fact the rule of the rich
Socialism without Libertarianism is not Socialism but Slavery and Brutality.

Libertarian socialism is Communism/Anarchism.

The whole point of this thread is to ask Differences-between-Libertarian-Socialism-and-Libertarian-Communism?
Well their are none. Libertarian socialism is Communism. There is not such a thing as Authoritarian-Communism. Its just Totalitarianism or Liberalism.

You're not understanding, though, that 'authoritarianism' and even 'totalitarianism' can be exercised *externally*, against the existing bourgeois social order, which would be absolutely *appropriate*.

What your concern is, is that such strategies and tactics would be exercised *internally*, which is a fair concern, but would actually be contrary to the collective common interest of the proletariat for its own self-determination, given its own overcoming of bourgeois hegemony.

(A)

5th November 2016, 10:28

The *reason* for the option of seizing the existing state and wielding it in the interests of the proletariat

Who is the Proletariat? Only intellectuals like Lenin thought? Only Leninist's and other Liberal Socialists? Are Anarchists? What about workers with no political allegiance?

Who is the Bourgeoisie? During a Revolution I would consider any politician/bureaucrat or statist to be a target for elimination.
You would see every anarchist and non-statist revolutionary as a counter-revolutionary.

One can not wield the oppression of the ruling class without becoming the ruling class. The second the new state imposes law; arrests a worker for not abiding their control; Tax or pay a wage... they would become the ruling class. Totalitarian rule of one group of working class over all others in the name of the workers.

As we saw in the USSR one party attempted to become the new ruling class by abolishing political discourse and multi party system.

You're conflating two *different* things here -- a proletarian-controlled 'workers state', and a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy'. They're not the same thing.
OK cite evidence. Explain the two and their differences. I say that they are the same.

Both are supposedly State democracy's
Both control private property for the benefit of the collective
Both claim to have worker control over government
Both are based on the Liberal notion that the state government is necessary to control the actions of the working class
Both have political party's
Both claim authority over territory
Both are build around Nationalist identity's

Can you offer an explanation as to why you think that a Liberal Democracy is different then a Workers Democracy.

What if the existing *ruling class* uses violence -- ? Would workers have the option of your previously-stated 'self-defense' -- ?

Yes self defense as in abolishing/attacking your oppressor. Just as the Anarchists had the option of self defense against Lenin.

If they had dragged him onto the street and cut off his head they would have had just as much legitimacy to do so as Lenin claimed to have over his rule of Russia.
None.
There is no such thing as Legitimacy of violence yet states are based solely on this use of violence against its members.
Internal and external violence that is called Legitimate.

I say the state has as much right to exist as any private corporation; because that is essentially what they are. A collective of individuals operating private capital for their collective profit.

just because you don't recognize the theoretical possibility of a worker-controlled workers state doesn't mean that it's forever not a consideration, or possibility.

I am not saying its impossible I am saying its not socialist. It is as capitalist as a Corporation or a totalitarian state. Just because the workers of that state control it do not make them socialists.
The state they control precludes them from being considered proletariat's. They are at BEST petty Bourgeoisie at worst full blown fascists.

Here you're taking bourgeois-political forms ('states') and bourgeois-economic forms ('capital') together, and then smearing that onto a potential *workers state*, which would actually be a whole different thing altogether.

How?
The USSR and every other attempt at a socialist state ended up using the very same Political and Economic Forms as what we have now. A Neo-Liberal Totalitarianism.

I actually do appreciate the concern here, but consider the scenario of a workers apparatus that functions as an *institution* as a whole, and *not* as a fixed, standing bureaucracy of political-specialists.

In other words, it would be an institution in which all workers *take a turn*, similar to military service today, so that no one has any specific careerist claim to extended participation. This would be a strategy for *supplanting* existing bourgeois institutions, carrying out necessary societal functions for larger working-class interests, while spreading the revolution as needed.

So now you are supporting conscription into a military style government.
How fast did you go from Democracy to Military rule.
Who would set this up?

that 'authoritarianism' and even 'totalitarianism' can be exercised *externally*

Yes like the ownership of property. That is a form of external Authority. "We" can use violence against anyone who touches our government/corporate property.
But it is also internal such as prohibition.

Neither claims should be considered socialist. Both are based on the erroneous claim of private property and or the ownership of citizens.

What your concern is, is that such strategies and tactics would be exercised *internally*, which is a fair concern, but would actually be contrary to the collective common interest of the proletariat for its own self-determination, given its own overcoming of bourgeois hegemony.

This is the historical basis of ALL nations. The state is this Internal rule. It is a claim on territory and ownership of everything inside that territory including the citizens.
For instance I know I am Canadian property because I am forbidden to kill myself without their permission.
I am required to pay taxes from my earnings
I can be Kicked out or Destroyed by the state.

This proves that they own me. As a member of the state I am Human property. So are you.

ckaihatsu

5th November 2016, 15:33

Who is the Proletariat? Only intellectuals like Lenin thought? Only Leninist's and other Liberal Socialists? Are Anarchists? What about workers with no political allegiance?

The proletariat / working class is made up of anyone who has no income except from that which they get from selling their own labor power, or work-efforts. This would be the 'strict' definition, with a gray-area also existing made-up of those who might get *some* proportion of their income from the ownership of capital. (The 'grayest' would be a 50/50 split between one's own labor, and the proceeds derived from ownership of capital.)

Who is the Bourgeoisie? During a Revolution I would consider any politician/bureaucrat or statist to be a target for elimination.

Understandable, but tactics like the use of physical force would have to be collectively decided within the context of actual revolutionary conditions. Politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalist ideologues could potentially *give up*, in which case they wouldn't be counter-revolutionaries any longer, by definition.

You would see every anarchist and non-statist revolutionary as a counter-revolutionary.

How so -- ? (You're imputing / assuming again.)

One can not wield the oppression of the ruling class without becoming the ruling class.

You need to elaborate here -- 'oppression' of who, exactly -- ?

The second the new state imposes law; arrests a worker for not abiding their control; Tax or pay a wage... they would become the ruling class. Totalitarian rule of one group of working class over all others in the name of the workers.

As we saw in the USSR one party attempted to become the new ruling class by abolishing political discourse and multi party system.

Well, this is the internal-external terrain again -- if you're going to make a formulation of 'internal oppression' in a possible future then there you go -- it's a foregone conclusion in your book. If the scenario is 'external oppression [of the bourgeoisie]', then it's a *different* situation.

---

You're conflating two *different* things here -- a proletarian-controlled 'workers state', and a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy'. They're not the same thing.

OK cite evidence. Explain the two and their differences. I say that they are the same.

Both are supposedly State democracy's

No, the *composition* of each is different -- a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy' is *populism* at best, meaning that the entire cross-class population weighs-in to some degree on the personnel of the government.

A proletarian-controlled workers state would be exactly that -- controlled by the working class, on a class-conscious basis, against the class foe.

Both control private property for the benefit of the collective

Again, the 'collective' (population) at-hand is vastly different, respectively -- a bourgeois nation-state represents the interests of its ruling class, the bourgeoisie, while a proletarian workers state would only acknowledge and fight-for the interests of the *working class*.

Both claim to have worker control over government

No, the bourgeoisie doesn't put workers in control of its government -- practically all national politicians are millionaires at least (property owners), or else have to raise funds from the wealthy, thus putting them in financial obligations to those providers-of-funds.

Both are based on the Liberal notion that the state government is necessary to control the actions of the working class

A successful workers state hasn't been seen yet, so alleging that 'the workers state government [would] control the actions of the working class' is a counterproductive *assumption* on your part.

Both have political party's

This speaks to form, not function.

Both claim authority over territory

You're not explaining how this is significant, respectively.

Both are build around Nationalist identity's

You're attacking socialism-in-one-country -- a proletarian revolution would have to be *worldwide*, by definition.

Can you offer an explanation as to why you think that a Liberal Democracy is different then a Workers Democracy.

(See the points above.)

Yes self defense as in abolishing/attacking your oppressor. Just as the Anarchists had the option of self defense against Lenin.

If they had dragged him onto the street and cut off his head they would have had just as much legitimacy to do so as Lenin claimed to have over his rule of Russia.
None.

Well, I'll disagree with you on the historical thing because the Bolshevik Revolution happened to get *constrained* to its own borders, instead of being able to spread to Germany and the rest of Europe. Lenin and others were doing the best they could in a bad situation.

There is no such thing as Legitimacy of violence yet states are based solely on this use of violence against its members.
Internal and external violence that is called Legitimate.

I say the state has as much right to exist as any private corporation; because that is essentially what they are. A collective of individuals operating private capital for their collective profit.

I won't bicker, but *technically* you're inaccurate in terming a (bourgeois) state as being equivalent to its constitutive corporations.

---

[J]ust because you don't recognize the theoretical possibility of a worker-controlled workers state doesn't mean that it's forever not a consideration, or possibility.

I am not saying its impossible I am saying its not socialist. It is as capitalist as a Corporation or a totalitarian state. Just because the workers of that state control it do not make them socialists.

Yes, yes it does. Workers control is not the same as bourgeois (property-owning) control.

The state they control precludes them from being considered proletariat's.

Just because you assert certain things in your statements doesn't mean that you're correct.

A workers control of an appropriated state would have been done in the first place *for some reason*, that reason being socialism as a goal. This means that workers would proceed to do socially-necessary work, *and* they would collectively be co-administrators of their work, in their / our own best interests.

They are at BEST petty Bourgeoisie at worst full blown fascists.

No, *you* need to provide supporting reasoning / evidence on your part for a dismissive contention like this one.

---

Here you're taking bourgeois-political forms ('states') and bourgeois-economic forms ('capital') together, and then smearing that onto a potential *workers state*, which would actually be a whole different thing altogether.

How?
The USSR and every other attempt at a socialist state ended up using the very same Political and Economic Forms as what we have now. A Neo-Liberal Totalitarianism.

Okay, I'm not pleased with how the Bolshevik Revolution turned out, either, but past events are not automatically fated for the future, either -- you're being presumptuous about a workers-state formulation, based solely on how things played-out 100 years ago.

'Socialism' is an incorrect / inaccurate description for anything that's constrained to just one country.

---

I actually do appreciate the concern here, but consider the scenario of a workers apparatus that functions as an *institution* as a whole, and *not* as a fixed, standing bureaucracy of political-specialists.

In other words, it would be an institution in which all workers *take a turn*, similar to military service today, so that no one has any specific careerist claim to extended participation. This would be a strategy for *supplanting* existing bourgeois institutions, carrying out necessary societal functions for larger working-class interests, while spreading the revolution as needed.

So now you are supporting conscription into a military style government.

Allow me to clarify -- I'm on this same topic at this other thread:

[I] think the vanguard could exist *at-large* (in-general), as it does today, without any intentional formal formulation or vehicle -- a vanguard party may *have* to exist, in addition, to cover any situations where a decisive *decision*, or command, would be required. I'd imagine the party would be derived from the (general) vanguard as-a-whole, but with the baggage of having to have discrete membership -- organizational overhead, basically.

The *instrument* of this vanguard / party would be the workers state (at whatever size and extents worldwide), and [...] it should be thought-of as a routine revolutionary duty, so that it exists and is-empowered as a total *institution*, but one that has no careerist-type 'specialists' over the medium- or long-term (maybe 2 years within any 20 years, subject to adjustment according to realities). I assume that much, if not all, of its workings would be transparent anyway, so certainly its actions and functioning would be the subject of news and discussions far beyond its internal personnel anyway.

The state.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196235-The-state?p=2877057#post2877057

How fast did you go from Democracy to Military rule.
Who would set this up?

Since I'm just one person I can only *proffer* the above -- it wouldn't be top-down 'conscription', it would be *revolutionary duty* in the administrative carrying-out of prevailing political sentiment and plans for implementation. (And you're already somewhat familiar with a *method* I developed for the same. I recently commented on it at another thread....)

[I]'ll elaborate on the relevance of my framework (graphic) at post #3, to highlight its uniqueness in *approach* -- consider that for any given day, for any given person (all of us), a certain organic *prioritization* of tasks is objectively required: Does one stay in bed a little longer, or right away prepare for the commute to work, or go online to RevLeft, or to other websites -- etc.

In the context of the 'class war cabinet', which issues exactly would one direct themselves to, for the window of time that one has reserved (probably in advance on 'calendar time') for 'political activities' for the day -- ? This empirical necessity of 'personal decision-making' over one's daily time and efforts could be termed a process of 'prioritization' as well.

Why, then, shouldn't this organic and empirical routine of prioritization just simply be extended outward into the common political realm -- ?

Instead of handing-matters-off to a 'class war cabinet' (which would be *demonstrable substitutionism*), one should start with a personal prioritization of which active and/or inactive political issues should be *ranked higher* than all others, for an *emergent* overall picture of issue-prioritizations-in-common, over a particular geographic area or areas, or greater.

Besides one's name, location, and current date and time, the most-critical aspects / variables of any discrete 'quantum' of participation would be 'formal policy item addressed', the geographical scale covered by that issue, and 'degree of advancement' / 'maturity' of this particular input of participation -- below the graphic at post #3 I've included the column headers of the spreadsheet database that are superimposed over the graphic itself, with 'rank item type' covering the progressions / types of 'initiative', 'demand', 'proposal', 'project', 'production run', 'funding [of labor-hour credits (non-currency)]', 'debt issuance [of the same]', 'liberated labor internal [locally, on-the-ground]', 'policy package [almost-finalized, or finalized]', 'orders [of existing or anticipated nominally surplus production]', 'requests [for the same]', and 'slot donations [concerning unavoidably scarce materials, like a particular location for one's home]'.

So this approach avoids the majority-minorities schism whenever and wherever possible, because this conventional 'either-or' dichotomy is inherently 'structured-out' due to the alternative elemental focus on a-daily-gradient-of-personal-rankings-over-an-unbounded-number-of-policy-items, rather than one-discrete-vote-for-one-substitutionist-political-representative. (The elected representatives themselves would then fall into the problematic of the conventional majoritarian-minoritarian schisms of regular practice over issues.)

In the case that there *was* unavoidable 'competition' or mutual-exclusion over two or more different proposals on a given issue -- such as where to locate a particularly-needed factory -- the competing proposals would just be normally ranked by everyone geographically relevant (locally), normally iterated over successive days, for a clear emergent picture as to which one was more-favored over the others.

"Class war" cabinets: most effective and efficient form of immediate class rule?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196225-quot-Class-war-quot-cabinets-most-effective-and-efficient-form-of-immediate-class-rule?p=2876952#post2876952

---

that 'authoritarianism' and even 'totalitarianism' can be exercised *externally*, against the existing bourgeois social order, which would be absolutely *appropriate*.

Yes like the ownership of property. That is a form of external Authority. "We" can use violence against anyone who touches our government/corporate property.

We *are* still discussing 'revolution', correct -- ?

The whole *point* of a working class revolution is to appropriate the means of production from bourgeois control, so that such can be used directly for *common* needs and wants, and no longer for private profit.

Your terminology is again misapplied if you insist on calling workers control a form of 'government/corporate property'.

But it is also internal such as prohibition.

What exactly are you saying would be 'internally prohibited' -- ? (And are you *arguing* for such, or are you just making shit up again and *projecting* it onto others -- ?)

Neither claims should be considered socialist. Both are based on the erroneous claim of private property and or the ownership of citizens.

No, by definition appropriated means of production would be *collectivized*, and would not be private property. No one's said or implied anything about 'ownership of citizens', except for yourself.

This is the historical basis of ALL nations. The state is this Internal rule.

The point of revolution is to *break* with this bourgeois tradition that you're referring to.

A workers state would be bottom-up *collective* 'rule' of itself, or self-determination, through to the defeat of bourgeois rule.

It is a claim on territory and ownership of everything inside that territory including the citizens.
For instance I know I am Canadian property because I am forbidden to kill myself without their permission.
I am required to pay taxes from my earnings
I can be Kicked out or Destroyed by the state.

This proves that they own me. As a member of the state I am Human property. So are you.

You're no longer addressing actual proletarian revolution -- you're off on a tangent on your own invention.

(A)

7th November 2016, 03:59

I had a whole thing written out that took me about an hour but it was lost so I am going to do three points.

1:

but tactics like the use of physical force would have to be collectively decided within the context of actual revolutionary conditions.

So only violence approved first by the bureaucracy would be considered Legitimate and all others criminal. I am sure the Ruling class would love this to be law.
O wait that is the law already. That violence is only legal if it is approved first by the state; the only people who have the right to use or justify violence.

Where do you get the idea that a collective is any more legitimate than an individual? Some form of Magic perhaps where a collection of individuals can alter the fabric of reality?

Just because a collection of people tell you that the earth is flat does not make it so. The idea that a group of individuals can dictate laws and that you must obey them or you are
in the wrong is simply ludicrous. The idea that their use of violence is somehow more just then yours is Ideology and not reality.
The Divinity of the Monarchs, The Law of the nations Democracy, the act of a lone gunman; they are all the same.

2:

No, the *composition* of each is different -- a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy' is *populism* at best, meaning that the entire cross-class population weighs-in to some degree on the personnel of the government.

A proletarian-controlled workers state would be exactly that -- controlled by the working class, on a class-conscious basis, against the class foe.

This is an unfounded and unprovable assertion.

You think that one form of democratic lawmaking is better then the other because one is based on one Ideology over the other?
If this where true then again Social Democracy would be all that is necessary to create full communism. All that it would require to bring about full communism is class-conscious based voting.
If we all voted to eliminate the problem then the problem would go away.

That would work to... If the problem was just capitalism.

But the problem is not simply capitalism. Its the system that created capitalism. The system of voting that gives one group rule over all others and the belief in the legitimacy of this rule.
Your belief that the state can be just or is legitimate is the problem. Not one person profiting off another. that's just a symptom of the problem.

Because of the "Legitimacy of Rule" capitalism is maintained and the working class imprisoned by the state. Not free to act in our own interests and forced to work in the interest of those who create the laws.
The change or rulers is the Joy of Fools.

3:

The point of revolution is to *break* with this bourgeois tradition that you're referring to.

Yes to break with the bourgeois tradition of government, Law, Party's, Ownership, Statehood, Citizenship, Family, Sex, Gender, Race, Religion, Economics, Politics.

Maintaining the system of property (State) and rule (government) is what you would call the continuation of Capitalism. The states ownership over its population is what the revolution is about.
Its not about ending Capitalism or getting fair treatment for workers. Is for ending the system that allows one person to extort another (Capitalism) and for it to be considered legitimate.
That system is not confined to the rich and the poor or the worker and the employer but the very systems by which people are governed.

If you are for government then you are for being governed.
If you are for the state then you are for the slavery of the Citizen.
If you are for the law you are for the endless violence against the working class.

Its Anarchy or nothing. Their is no kind capitalism, no soft submission to the rule of kings and Crooks.
The ONLY revolution is the revolution to free the oppressed from their oppressors; the subjects under law from the law.

ckaihatsu

7th November 2016, 13:25

I had a whole thing written out that took me about an hour but it was lost so I am going to do three points.

1:

Understandable, but tactics like the use of physical force would have to be collectively decided within the context of actual revolutionary conditions. Politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalist ideologues could potentially *give up*, in which case they wouldn't be counter-revolutionaries any longer, by definition.

So only violence approved first by the bureaucracy would be considered Legitimate and all others criminal. I am sure the Ruling class would love this to be law.

You're not even bothering to address the literal, whole meaning of my words -- re-read the above.

O wait that is the law already. That violence is only legal if it is approved first by the state; the only people who have the right to use or justify violence.

You're conflating bourgeois rule with a proletarian self-organization -- these are two *different* things.

Where do you get the idea that a collective is any more legitimate than an individual? Some form of Magic perhaps where a collection of individuals can alter the fabric of reality?

Just because a collection of people tell you that the earth is flat does not make it so. The idea that a group of individuals can dictate laws and that you must obey them or you are
in the wrong is simply ludicrous. The idea that their use of violence is somehow more just then yours is Ideology and not reality.
The Divinity of the Monarchs, The Law of the nations Democracy, the act of a lone gunman; they are all the same.

You're only looking at numbers and organization, and not at political *content* -- again, conflating bourgeois aims with proletarian aims is a non-starter.

---

2:

No, the *composition* of each is different -- a bourgeois-based 'liberal democracy' is *populism* at best, meaning that the entire cross-class population weighs-in to some degree on the personnel of the government.

A proletarian-controlled workers state would be exactly that -- controlled by the working class, on a class-conscious basis, against the class foe.

This is an unfounded and unprovable assertion.

You think that one form of democratic lawmaking is better then the other because one is based on one Ideology over the other?

No, what counts is *aims* and *ends* -- different ideological positions correspond to different material ends.

[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

If this where true then again Social Democracy would be all that is necessary to create full communism. All that it would require to bring about full communism is class-conscious based voting.
If we all voted to eliminate the problem then the problem would go away.

This is just a hypothetical idealist contention on your part.

In reality the means of voting for bourgeois candidates and parties does *not* correlate to a desired result of working class self-organization over the means of production.

That would work to... If the problem was just capitalism.

But the problem is not simply capitalism. Its the system that created capitalism. The system of voting that gives one group rule over all others and the belief in the legitimacy of this rule.
Your belief that the state can be just or is legitimate is the problem.

Not a *bourgeois* state.

Not one person profiting off another. that's just a symptom of the problem.

Because of the "Legitimacy of Rule" capitalism is maintained and the working class imprisoned by the state. Not free to act in our own interests and forced to work in the interest of those who create the laws.
The change or rulers is the Joy of Fools.

You continue to misconstrue my politics with your mistrust.

3:

The point of revolution is to *break* with this bourgeois tradition that you're referring to.

A workers state would be bottom-up *collective* 'rule' of itself, or self-determination, through to the defeat of bourgeois rule.

Yes to break with the bourgeois tradition of government, Law, Party's, Ownership, Statehood, Citizenship, Family, Sex, Gender, Race, Religion, Economics, Politics.

Maintaining the system of property (State) and rule (government) is what you would call the continuation of Capitalism.

Well that's not what I'm upholding.

The states ownership over its population is what the revolution is about.

You're inventing a different kind of revolution here -- one that's *not* proletarian.

Its not about ending Capitalism or getting fair treatment for workers. Is for ending the system that allows one person to extort another (Capitalism) and for it to be considered legitimate.
That system is not confined to the rich and the poor or the worker and the employer but the very systems by which people are governed.

If you are for government then you are for being governed.
If you are for the state then you are for the slavery of the Citizen.
If you are for the law you are for the endless violence against the working class.

Its Anarchy or nothing. Their is no kind capitalism, no soft submission to the rule of kings and Crooks.
The ONLY revolution is the revolution to free the oppressed from their oppressors; the subjects under law from the law.

Once again it's unclear who you're addressing, because it certainly isn't me and my statements. You're off on a tangent.