Communist Anarchism Questions

[Lolumad273]

I saw a thread about vehicle production, and I was a bit confused as to how an Anarchist/Communist economy could scale up. I've always looked at it from a community point of view, small communities. They could democratically decide what trends to set in production. But I always kinda thought that if a group of workers wanted to begin producing something they felt had demand, lets say a new kind of car, they could just do that.

I guess I'm concerned as to the plausibility of true Communist Anarchism on a large scale. Or either of those two ideologies separated. I've always feared a powerful state, like the Soviet Union, because then I feel the workers don't have control.

Also, is the free market bad?

Thanks in advance,

[Blake's Baby]

'Yes' in answer to your question.

Not sure what other things you're getting at. You think anarchism wouldn't work, but you fear a big state? Can workers develop things on their own?

What do you actually want answers to?

[JustMovement]

Its pretty straight forward question. The feasibility of anarchism seems to depend on extreme localisation for direct democracy. The modern industrial economy requires economies of scales, is complex, interconnected. How do you coordinate all this without a state? Even a democratically elected and structured, managment team of free associated producers one would imagine would be centralised, and rely on representation.

I mean I always thought the whole government doesnt equal the state thing bullshit anyways. A modern economy is going to take a lot of governance.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Also, is the free market bad?
Only if exploitation of the working class is bad, and it is.

[Lolumad273]

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with workers unions voting on national economic goals or something like that. But as far as free markets go, isn't that just a way to measure demand? It's not like free markets are inherently bad, are they? Under a command economy, a powerful few, the government, decide what gets made. That seems wrong to me.

[#FF0000]

Under a command economy, a powerful few, the government, decide what gets made. That seems wrong to me.

Communism isn't a command economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm sure there will be a limited amount of marketeering in socialism, especially in the early stages, simply because Arizona cannot dictate to Ohio what its labor (expressed in the growing of corn) is worth. There will be some minimum amount of labor power Ohio is willing to trade for... whatever it is they make in AZ :lol:

But it is the problem of capital accumulation that the free market brings. Marx praised the market. But only under a situation of perfect equality. Only when both parties come to the table with the same bargaining power is the market just and fair.

[#FF0000]

I guess I'm concerned as to the plausibility of true Communist Anarchism on a large scale. Or either of those two ideologies separated. I've always feared a powerful state, like the Soviet Union, because then I feel the workers don't have control.

Well first off, the USSR didn't have a particularly strong state. It was always kind of a shambles the whole way through. But that's another thread I guess.

Either way, for large scale production and management is just a matter of scaling up. Those local community worker's councils send delegates to a regional worker's council which sends delegates upwards and upwards, you know what I mean?

[Lolumad273]

Well first off, the USSR didn't have a particularly strong state. It was always kind of a shambles the whole way through. But that's another thread I guess.

Either way, for large scale production and management is just a matter of scaling up. Those local community worker's councils send delegates to a regional worker's council which sends delegates upwards and upwards, you know what I mean?

Love the way that sounds. Sounds more representative, rather than direct democracy. But it's not quite for political power, just for resource distribution and the likes. So that sounds good.


I realize communism isn't command, because the state should be weakened, or not really in existence... hope I have that right. But if it's not market, and not command, then what do you call it? A hybrid between the two, I'm sure, but is there a specific term for it?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Love the way that sounds. Sounds more representative, rather than direct democracy. But it's not quite for political power, just for resource distribution and the likes. So that sounds good.


I realize communism isn't command, because the state should be weakened, or not really in existence... hope I have that right. But if it's not market, and not command, then what do you call it? A hybrid between the two, I'm sure, but is there a specific term for it?
Parecon, workers' self-management, mutual aid, etc.

[Rooster]

Its pretty straight forward question. The feasibility of anarchism seems to depend on extreme localisation for direct democracy. The modern industrial economy requires economies of scales, is complex, interconnected. How do you coordinate all this without a state?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. How do you think the economy works right now? Through complete state regulation?

[#FF0000]

Love the way that sounds. Sounds more representative, rather than direct democracy. But it's not quite for political power, just for resource distribution and the likes. So that sounds good

Nah it's pretty direct imo. Delegates would be immediately recallable.

Either way, the Worker's Party in America has this (http://www.workers-party.com/images/ppoimages/content/20090601b-full.gif)baller little graphic that outlines this in a simple, clear way (though I'm not member of the party)

[Tim Cornelis]

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with workers unions voting on national economic goals or something like that. But as far as free markets go, isn't that just a way to measure demand? It's not like free markets are inherently bad, are they? Under a command economy, a powerful few, the government, decide what gets made. That seems wrong to me.

Markets is about competition over profits, not measuring demand. Free markets and regulated markets bot elevate profits over people and their needs(that is, if you do not have enough money you'll go without healthcare, food, housing, clothes, whatever). In communism you can measure demand by two means: first, consumers communicate demand to the producers (like you may order a book online today), or the producers measure demand by accounting for fluctuations in consumption patterns (e.g. an increased rate of consumption implies a rise in demand).


Love the way that sounds. Sounds more representative, rather than direct democracy. But it's not quite for political power, just for resource distribution and the likes. So that sounds good.

A system of federated workers' councils does not presuppose representative democracy at all. The lowest councils possess the actual decision-making power, while delegates (who are mandated and recallable) merely execute these decisions in accordance with their mandate. Therefore we have a system that is vertical, but organised from below.


I realize communism isn't command, because the state should be weakened, or not really in existence... hope I have that right. But if it's not market, and not command, then what do you call it? A hybrid between the two, I'm sure, but is there a specific term for it?

It's a decentralised planned economy, a word that has been used more recently by anarchists for example.

Section I of An Anarchist FAQ explains the basis for federations, workers' councils, self-management, etc: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html

[pluckedflowers]

Marx praised the market. But only under a situation of perfect equality. Only when both parties come to the table with the same bargaining power is the market just and fair.

What are you referring to here? In Capital Marx assumes a free market as a given on which to base his analysis of the basic functioning of capitalism, so it's not as though adding a "really free" market to the equation would mitigate the consequences of capitalist dynamics outlined there.

[Lanky Wanker]

I saw a thread about vehicle production, and I was a bit confused as to how an Anarchist/Communist economy could scale up.

...

I guess I'm concerned as to the plausibility of true Communist Anarchism on a large scale. Or either of those two ideologies separated.

When you say anarchist communism, do you mean a sort of immediate short-term transitionary/post-revolution society or the actual final product? Sounds as though you're mixing the two. If we're talking about the latter, adding 'anarchism' to the question will probably confuse things.

[CommunityBeliever]

I guess I'm concerned as to the plausibility of true Communist Anarchism on a large scale.

The adjective anarchist is redundant when applied to communism. Communism is necessarily anarchist because it doesn't include a state or any coercive relations.

The federation in Star Trek is a decent example of how communism can operate at a large scale if you forgo all psuedoscientific elements of the story such as transporters, warp drives, and time travel.

pzqW0YaN2ho
Notice that they don't need any money because they have personal replicators to create any personal products and all larger goods such as spacecraft are publicly owned. Communist society could operate in a way like this.


Also, is the free market bad?Yes markets are bad. We should strive for a world with replicators to create all personal products and where larger goods are publicly owned, just like in Star Trek. The advanced molecular assemblers will convert our digital designs to physical goods, and all digital information will be free, just as there are many free digital goods available on the Internet today. Unfortunately, there are capitalist organisations that are actively trying to market digital goods with things like the Android Market or the iPhone's appstore market.

[Lolumad273]

When you say anarchist communism, do you mean a sort of immediate short-term transitionary/post-revolution society or the actual final product? Sounds as though you're mixing the two. If we're talking about the latter, adding 'anarchism' to the question will probably confuse things.
Frankly I didn't differentiate much between the two. I feel like Anarchy and Communism coexist. I was aiming for a finished, long term society.

[Lanky Wanker]

Frankly I didn't differentiate much between the two. I feel like Anarchy and Communism coexist. I was aiming for a finished, long term society.

Well a true communist society is an anarchist society (like CommunityBeliever said), just not necessarily the other way around. As Kropotkin wrote, anarchy (anarcho-communism) leads to communism, and communism leads to anarchy. When speaking of the finished society, we just refer to it as communism.

[daft punk]

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with workers unions voting on national economic goals or something like that. But as far as free markets go, isn't that just a way to measure demand? It's not like free markets are inherently bad, are they? Under a command economy, a powerful few, the government, decide what gets made. That seems wrong to me.

communism is where there is no government, not a powerful few at all. everyone is part of governing.

yes capitalism is inherently bad now (it was progressive when it started). For example, suppose there is a food shortage in a part of Africa. The locals havent managed to grow much because of drought. They have less money because they have nothing to take to market. What happens is that food prices go up locally just when people are hungry and have no money.

Millions die every year from hunger. The market works on supply and demand, but demand means you have money. Hungry poor people dont even come into the equation.

And now we have a global recession caused by capitalism itself, caused by growing inequality.

War, hunger, inequality, ecological destruction, we could do thing differently.

[Revolution starts with U]

What are you referring to here? In Capital Marx assumes a free market as a given on which to base his analysis of the basic functioning of capitalism, so it's not as though adding a "really free" market to the equation would mitigate the consequences of capitalist dynamics outlined there.

I believe it is in chapter 3 of Capital. He gives a short synopsis of the market and its grandiosity. Then he proceeds to destroy the idea that markets are anything fair and free; that the one with no power, the laborer, must prostrate himself for the property holder.

My point was that ultimately we must rid ourselves of markets. But for some time in some places they may be necessary, tho highly regulated, and even beneficial.

If nobody can tell Cleveland workers what their laborious is worth except Cleveland workers, they're going to have to trade with Tempe.

[Rafiq]

Communism isn't a command economy.

It is indeed, perhaps, though a command economy doesn't equate to "GOV'MENT FEW INDAVIDALS DECIDIN ERRYTHAN". That's high-school insanity.

To OP: The goal of the communists is not to develop stratagies for running a future society. We oppose Utopianism. Our goal is to abolish bourgrois society and instill a proletarian class dictatorship. Things like deciding how to organize car production would have to be made when such a descision is necessary.

[Rafiq]

And your fooling yourself if you think worker's councils are going to mobilize mass movements, none the less petty bourgeois concepts like "self management" organizing and running massive scale economies.

Strong management is going to be necessary, as is brutal planning. You're living with a head in your ass if you think 7 billion people can be organized decentrally.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is what Marx had to say about the free market: "Is that to say we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat."

And communism wont have any markets because markets, by definition, always have prices and owners. Communism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Everything will be circulated to people without prices and no one person on this planet will own anything.

People might get Communism confused with Socialism. Socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Socialism is the mode of production (or part of mode of production, because Marx and Lenin said it was a lower phase of communism) that really should have a strong state to protect the proletariat, transfer private property to public property, and develop production forces (believing in this depends on if you are a Marxist-Leninist or not). Communism should have no state.

[Lolumad273]

And your fooling yourself if you think worker's councils are going to mobilize mass movements, none the less petty bourgeois concepts like "self management" organizing and running massive scale economies.

Strong management is going to be necessary, as is brutal planning. You're living with a head in your ass if you think 7 billion people can be organized decentrally.

I don't like this. Whoever "Centrally plans" an economy, has the power to decide what standard of living people have. That makes them not equal. That allows them to exercise power over others. That's not good in my opinion.

To Comrade Commistar, That means that free trade is good, but markets are bad? So workers should be able to trade goods and services, not in a market, but directly to one another?

[#FF0000]

Strong management is going to be necessary, as is brutal planning. You're living with a head in your ass if you think 7 billion people can be organized decentrally.

Nah I disagree. If small groups can be organized in such a way, then so can large groups.

That being said i do favor centralization a little bit, so long as that doesn't mean some fat bureaucrats running the show.

[Rafiq]

Nah I disagree. If small groups can be organized in such a way, then so can large groups.

That isn't true at all.


That being said i do favor centralization a little bit, so long as that doesn't mean some fat bureaucrats running the show.


As far as we know, Socialism is a proletarian dictatorship, meaning those organizing things centrally, (Even if it's the most brutal and authoritarian of centralization) would have to be doing it in the interest of the proletariat. This wasn't the case in communist countries, evidently because of the fact they themselves had to take the role of the bourgeoisie in eliminating the peasantry, etc.

[#FF0000]

That isn't true at all.

Sure is.


As far as we know, Socialism is a proletarian dictatorship, meaning those organizing things centrally, (Even if it's the most brutal and authoritarian of centralization) would have to be doing it in the interest of the proletariat. This wasn't the case in communist countries, evidently because of the fact they themselves had to take the role of the bourgeoisie in eliminating the peasantry, etc.

I don't think having a bunch of bureaucrats acting exactly like the bosses I already have is my idea of socialism.

[Lolumad273]

Having powerful Bureaucrats making decisions for people isn't egalitarian. They have more power than the working class.

Dictatorships are anti communist, I believe.

[ClassWarMutualist]

what do you define as the free market? if you mean this hierarchical exploitative class system then yes, its very very bad. If you mean NON-hierarchical free trade and interaction between individuals, producers and consumers than no, I don't see why it should be. Look into Mutualism.

[Comrade Jandar]

what do you define as the free market? if you mean this hierarchical exploitative class system then yes, its very very bad. If you mean NON-hierarchical free trade and interaction between individuals, producers and consumers than no, I don't see why it should be. Look into Mutualism.

Mutualism or market socialism is reformism in disguise. Proudhon held the utopian notion that the proletariat could better its plight by simply acting collectively to seize capital to start co-ops and then somehow be able to compete with the capitalists in their own system. Why anarchists continue to even mention Proudhon or call him the the "father of anarchism" is beyond me.