Communism and Individual Demands

[Ledur]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.

I identify myself as ancom, and I realize how beautiful communism is. I can refute most naive/elaborated arguments from right-wingers. But there are some issues for which I don't have a clean answer :ohmy:

Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others. Well, obvious answer is that if you produce a socially useful product, one can't claim property, since everyone producing will have access to what everyone else produces, and in a large scale this may be very efficient.

But what can we define as "socially useful product"?

If I like to collect seashells, I may use my free time to get them, try to find a group who would like to exchange seashells and have fun. That isn't socially useful labor; people aren't using community's resources, and can't claim they made something useful for the society.

But what about when someone wants something that not too many people would want, AND it's a bit futile (in views of majority), AND it'll use society's material factors? For example, a pet beauty service, or Whey Protein production. Should these be considered socially useful products/labor? Should these people (working on it) have the same access to the social product as the teacher/physician/agrarian?

Individualist anarchists say that in a communist commonwealth, since we depend on majority scale of values and there's no property/voluntary exchange, there would not be too much freedom, and a restricted pool of options.

I can't say too much, but I try to convince then that when primary needs are fullfilled (food/shelter/education/etc), at the same time there's abundance of people and resources (that is, society is rich), next step is to fulfill individual and more futile needs, if these products don't touch food/shelter/education production.

I'd like, if possible, answers from ancoms, since these issues are easily explained in a syndicalist/market socialist/mutualist approach.

[Remus Bleys]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.
Good luck.


I identify myself as ancom, and I realize how beautiful communism is. I can refute most naive/elaborated arguments from right-wingers. But there are some issues for which I don't have a clean answer :ohmy:Okay;


Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others. Well, obvious answer is that if you produce a socially useful product, one can't claim property, since everyone producing will have access to what everyone else produces, and in a large scale this may be very efficient.
Communism abolishes the very notion of ownership.

But what can we define as "socially useful product"?
its pretty self explanatory. But it doesn't matter, since their is no ownership in communism.

If I like to collect seashells, I may use my free time to get them, try to find a group who would like to exchange seashells and have fun. That isn't socially useful labor; people aren't using community's resources, and can't claim they made something useful for the society.
Well, you know, we'd probably have a lot more leisure under communism, so more power to you. But you don't own those sea shells.


But what about when someone wants something that not too many people would want, AND it's a bit futile (in views of majority), AND it'll use society's material factors? For example, a pet beauty service, or Whey Protein production. Should these be considered socially useful products/labor?
Sure, if we have the resources for it.

Should these people (working on it) have the same access to the social product as the teacher/physician/agrarian?

Why wouldn't they?

Individualist anarchists say that in a communist commonwealth, since we depend on majority scale of values and there's no property/voluntary exchange, there would not be too much freedom, and a restricted pool of options.

I think its more like, if something is actually needed. Like, if only one person still smokes under communism, and this person doesn't need cigarettes in order to live, then their want of tobacco can wait. If after all the other things necessary are produced, and other things that people want are produced and there is still resources to make these cigarettes, i see no reason that person's tobacco couldn't be made - in fact they would have an overabundance (as no one else smokes, and the creation of a cigarette pack is necessarily a part of mass production afaik) that society could make an overabundance so that person wouldn't request cigarettes for years!

I can't say too much, but I try to convince then that when primary needs are fullfilled (food/shelter/education/etc), at the same time there's abundance of people and resources (that is, society is rich), next step is to fulfill individual and more futile needs, if these products don't touch food/shelter/education production.
How will this "convince" them of communism?


I'd like, if possible, answers from ancoms, since these issues are easily explained in a syndicalist/market socialist/mutualist approach.
Sorry, I'm not an anarchist.

[motion denied]

The very notions of agrarian, physician, etc would disappear. Remember that famous quote from the German Ideology (which I couldn't find now), that you could be a fisher in the morning and a writer in the afternoon, or else.

We, the human kind, would not be strapped to one sphere of our multiplicity.

I'm also not an an-com, and the language was kind of an obstacle, but I hope I made myself clear enough.

[Ledur]

But you don't own those sea shells.

I know, I only possess them, hence I can't claim property on them. If I loved collecting seashells, and they aren't used on many of society's projects, after my death I would donate them... but if a new technology uses seashells and there's a high demand for them, I'd gladly give them back to society.


I think its more like, if something is actually needed. Like, if only one person still smokes under communism, and this person doesn't need cigarettes in order to live, then their want of tobacco can wait. If after all the other things necessary are produced, and other things that people want are produced and there is still resources to make these cigarettes, i see no reason that person's tobacco couldn't be made - in fact they would have an overabundance (as no one else smokes, and the creation of a cigarette pack is necessarily a part of mass production afaik) that society could make an overabundance so that person wouldn't request cigarettes for years!

"What if I had worked all my 20 hours this week doing things for society, and in my free time I get along with 5 other smokers, we run a small scale tobacco refinery (using little of society's materials we have under our temporary possession) and we produce our cigarrettes for our own consumption?"

Do you get that? That's their argument, and I fail to say whether it should be permitted or not (at the same time there's more personal freedom, commodity production could arise from this)


How will this "convince" them of communism?

Actually convince them that individual preferences would be respected and produced under communism.


Sorry, I'm not an anarchist.

Thank you anyway.


The very notions of agrarian, physician, etc would disappear. Remember that famous quote from the German Ideology (which I couldn't find now), that you could be a fisher in the morning and a writer in the afternoon, or else.

We, the human kind, would not be strapped to one sphere of our multiplicity.

I'm also not an an-com, and the language was kind of an obstacle, but I hope I made myself clear enough.

But I was just asking, if I value a lot something that society doesn't give a F about, and I can't do it by myself, what's the solution, wait in line? When this question comes around, free market defenders pop out and say their system is the only answer. :glare:

[Remus Bleys]

The free market doesn't make everyone happy either.
Ever hear of imperialism?

[tuwix]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.


Then tell them that free market is imposible by its own definitions.



Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others.

They are wrong. Lack of private property doesn't mean lack of trade and market. In primitive commmunism societies there is trade in personal property. For example, somone exchanges duck for a chicken. As well, in advanced communism there is possible to trade. One can exchange video recorder for car.

[argeiphontes]

Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others. Well, obvious answer is that if you produce a socially useful product, one can't claim property, since everyone producing will have access to what everyone else produces, and in a large scale this may be very efficient.

But what can we define as "socially useful product"?

If I like to collect seashells, I may use my free time to get them, try to find a group who would like to exchange seashells and have fun. That isn't socially useful labor; people aren't using community's resources, and can't claim they made something useful for the society.



Communism (or any socialism) involves the abolition of private private property in the means of production, not personal property or "socially useful" property.

You can't go into your neighbor's house and take their toaster, even though toasters are "socially useful". You are free to exchange something for it, though, that's not within a capitalist relationship.

Capitalism uses the market for allocation, but capitalism is a social relation of production, like feudalism and slavery. It has 1) private ownership of the means of production by a capitalist class, 2) wage labor by a proletarian class, and 3) allocation of surplus by a class that's not the same as the producers.



But what about when someone wants something that not too many people would want, AND it's a bit futile (in views of majority), AND it'll use society's material factors? For example, a pet beauty service, or Whey Protein production. Should these be considered socially useful products/labor? Should these people (working on it) have the same access to the social product as the teacher/physician/agrarian?


That depends on how you're walking the tightrope between the libertarianism of anarchism and the planning of communism, i.e. what your specific vision of an economic system is. Personally, as a libsoc myself, I would pick an economic system that allows for the spontaneous formation of noncapitalist production collectives. I like the market (a la Schweikhart), but another poster on this board, ckaihatsu, has suggested a system where people earn production credits they can then allocate toward production of things they don't produce themselves, and "pay" people to produce in that way. There's also ParEcon, which has anarchist roots, but I find it to be bureaucratic and unrealistic, without enough spontaneity. On the even less realistic end, you have PeerConomy. Sorry, I'm too much of an anarchist tonight to paste the links in ;)



Individualist anarchists say that in a communist commonwealth, since we depend on majority scale of values and there's no property/voluntary exchange, there would not be too much freedom, and a restricted pool of options.


Yes, in some of these, you end up having to engage in politics to start a new production unit, so I have criticisms along those lines but some politicizing of production is to be expected, and desirable in the case of capital goods, for example. Individualist anarchists are going to argue that it's not free enough, and I don't really have an answer for you, except that, based on libertarian principles, it's better to be subject to democratic decisions than totalitarian ones. Anarcho-capitalism would result in complete private tyrrany over society and everything in it. Google is already reading your email and sharing it with the state and other corporations, imagine corporations were providing your fire department and roads, too. It would be absolute dystopia, you can try to imagine it--constant class warfare and agitation for a state to protect you from huge monopoly corporations. (There would be no way to break them up in a laissez faire capitalism.)

Wouldn't you be free, in any anarchist society, to exchange goods (personal property) for one another, as tuwix said above? Otherwise, there would have to be an element of coercion that would require a police state of some sort, to keep people from spontaneously doing it.

[Remus Bleys]

Communism (or any socialism) involves the abolition of private private property in the means of production, not personal property or "socially useful" property.

I object.

[Ledur]

They are wrong. Lack of private property doesn't mean lack of trade and market. In primitive commmunism societies there is trade in personal property. For example, somone exchanges duck for a chicken. As well, in advanced communism there is possible to trade. One can exchange video recorder for car.

Yes, let's suppose that barter is permitted, I totally agree.

But it wouldn't take too much time until a medium of exchange (money) would be used to facilitate exchange, then here comes again the subjective theory of value, etc. Like in a black market.

The only solutions I could think of, is to:
- create "abundance of everything" (which is impossible)
- extensive list of "wants", creating demand, then let spontaneous projects take care of them
- full customization of products/services


That depends on how you're walking the tightrope between the libertarianism of anarchism and the planning of communism, i.e. what your specific vision of an economic system is. Personally, as a libsoc myself, I would pick an economic system that allows for the spontaneous formation of noncapitalist production collectives. I like the market (a la Schweikhart), but another poster on this board, ckaihatsu, has suggested a system where people earn production credits they can then allocate toward production of things they don't produce themselves, and "pay" people to produce in that way. There's also ParEcon, which has anarchist roots, but I find it to be bureaucratic and unrealistic, without enough spontaneity. On the even less realistic end, you have PeerConomy. Sorry, I'm too much of an anarchist tonight to paste the links in ;)

Yes, here "Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon?" (sorry can't post url) we listed some possible solutions.

About the "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" slogan, that's my main worry, when can we replace "need" for "want" in a healthy economic system...


Yes, in some of these, you end up having to engage in politics to start a new production unit, so I have criticisms along those lines but some politicizing of production is to be expected, and desirable in the case of capital goods, for example. Individualist anarchists are going to argue that it's not free enough, and I don't really have an answer for you, except that, based on libertarian principles, it's better to be subject to democratic decisions than totalitarian ones. Anarcho-capitalism would result in complete private tyrrany over society and everything in it. Google is already reading your email and sharing it with the state and other corporations, imagine corporations were providing your fire department and roads, too. It would be absolute dystopia, you can try to imagine it--constant class warfare and agitation for a state to protect you from huge monopoly corporations. (There would be no way to break them up in a laissez faire capitalism.)

ANCAP is absolutely the worst thing that could ever happen to us. All we want is control of our lives, and ANCAP is the extreme opposite of this.

[Rugged Collectivist]

But I was just asking, if I value a lot something that society doesn't give a F about, and I can't do it by myself, what's the solution, wait in line? When this question comes around, free market defenders pop out and say their system is the only answer. :glare:

Find other people that want it and will help you make it.

Of course you can't have every single thing you could ever possibly want under communism, but then tons of things I want are produced under capitalism but my lack of money prevents me from getting them. What's their solution to that?

[Post-Something]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.

I identify myself as ancom, and I realize how beautiful communism is. I can refute most naive/elaborated arguments from right-wingers. But there are some issues for which I don't have a clean answer :ohmy:

Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others. Well, obvious answer is that if you produce a socially useful product, one can't claim property, since everyone producing will have access to what everyone else produces, and in a large scale this may be very efficient.

But what can we define as "socially useful product"?

If I like to collect seashells, I may use my free time to get them, try to find a group who would like to exchange seashells and have fun. That isn't socially useful labor; people aren't using community's resources, and can't claim they made something useful for the society.

But what about when someone wants something that not too many people would want, AND it's a bit futile (in views of majority), AND it'll use society's material factors? For example, a pet beauty service, or Whey Protein production. Should these be considered socially useful products/labor? Should these people (working on it) have the same access to the social product as the teacher/physician/agrarian?

Individualist anarchists say that in a communist commonwealth, since we depend on majority scale of values and there's no property/voluntary exchange, there would not be too much freedom, and a restricted pool of options.

I can't say too much, but I try to convince then that when primary needs are fullfilled (food/shelter/education/etc), at the same time there's abundance of people and resources (that is, society is rich), next step is to fulfill individual and more futile needs, if these products don't touch food/shelter/education production.

I'd like, if possible, answers from ancoms, since these issues are easily explained in a syndicalist/market socialist/mutualist approach.

I'm sorry, I'd really like to add something of worth, and have just spent the last hour or so reading through various An-Comm materials just to try and help you, but I just can't imagine how this system is supposed to work. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. It's like everything is defined in the negative, "anarchist-communism doesn't have hierarchy here, anarchist communism doesn't have ownership there", I don't get it. Where is the explanation of how co-ops are supposed to function and sit in the community? What about co-ordination? And law? It's just a massive direct democracy free for all, there is no definition.

Even though the syndicalists are boring at least they makes sense. I mean, the commune? Really?? We have a hard enough time de-centralizing down to provinces, let alone communes. Distribution is totally ignored in the global context, you think people will be sending things from the UK to India without making damn sure they're getting something worthwhile back? I don't think so. As far as I can see the only anarchist visions which have made sense to me are syndicalism, mutualism, and individualist anarchism, and that's coming from me as an anarchist! And to be honest, I don't understand how anarchist communism is supposed to protect itself from turning into communism, the way I see it is that you're either an anarchist, or you're a communist.

I know you will probably deride this comment, or complain that I'm not keeping to topic, or see me as trying to flame, but really I don't get understand how you can see AC as superior to AS or Mutualism. And if you want to ignore the rest of this post, that's fine, but just answer this one question: have you read any Benjamin Tucker?

[tuwix]

Yes, let's suppose that barter is permitted, I totally agree.

But it wouldn't take too much time until a medium of exchange (money) would be used to facilitate exchange, then here comes again the subjective theory of value, etc. Like in a black market.

The only solutions I could think of, is to:
- create "abundance of everything" (which is impossible)
- extensive list of "wants", creating demand, then let spontaneous projects take care of them
- full customization of products/services


There are forms of rationing too. Besides not all things must be for personal property, but for usage only. For example, there are airplanes and noboady even dreams about producing enough planes to give them for those who want them. But you can book a flight and you fly. And money isn't indispensable for that.

Besides money don't appear instantly. In the continent where you live in there was no money until European came although there was a private property invented in some places.



ANCAP is absolutely the worst thing that could ever happen to us.


ANCAP is just imposible as free market on which is based on. Pricate property must have a state to maintain it.

[argeiphontes]

Where is the explanation of how co-ops are supposed to function and sit in the community? What about co-ordination? And law? It's just a massive direct democracy free for all, there is no definition.

Even though the syndicalists are boring at least they makes sense. I mean, the commune? Really?? We have a hard enough time de-centralizing down to provinces, let alone communes. Distribution is totally ignored in the global context, you think people will be sending things from the UK to India without making damn sure they're getting something worthwhile back? I don't think so. As far as I can see the only anarchist visions which have made sense to me are syndicalism, mutualism, and individualist anarchism, and that's coming from me as an anarchist! And to be honest, I don't understand how anarchist communism is supposed to protect itself from turning into communism, the way I see it is that you're either an anarchist, or you're a communist.

I know you will probably deride this comment, or complain that I'm not keeping to topic, or see me as trying to flame, but really I don't get understand how you can see AC as superior to AS or Mutualism. And if you want to ignore the rest of this post, that's fine, but just answer this one question: have you read any Benjamin Tucker?

On a political level, communes work just fine. There's no reason why every subunit has to be homogenous when there is voluntary association and free movement. (I'm thinking of Bakunin's collectivism now.) Currently, there are structures down to the city precinct level in most areas. (Not sure what city 'precincts' are called in Edinburgh but it's like a district with one or maybe a couple of neighborhoods in it.) These run just fine. Heh, the political party "machines" in the US are coordinated down to the level of these precincts.

Your points about the economic aspect are well taken, though. I also don't see anything workable except a market, with investment decisions being politicized to the level of the region or larger area, where an investment "bank" (itself a collective under the democratic control of its regional stakeholders) could operate, like decentralized market socialism.

The basic unit of production would be the collective, equivalent to the capitalist firm today. Political and economic units would exist in parallel.

If someone comes up with something better than a market, I'm willing to listen. Most of these, though, like ParEcon, are just inefficient political market-substitutes that require a lot of human participation and are prone to bureaucracy and centralization, anti-anarchist, and thus not a suitable substitute. I would imagine that they would recreate many of the same problems, perhaps to an even greater extent since there would be political action involved.

[Remus Bleys]

On a political level, communes work just fine. There's no reason why every subunit has to be homogenous when there is voluntary association and free movement. (I'm thinking of Bakunin's collectivism now.) Currently, there are structures down to the city precinct level in most areas. (Not sure what city 'precincts' are called in Edinburgh but it's like a district with one or maybe a couple of neighborhoods in it.) These run just fine. Heh, the political party "machines" in the US are coordinated down to the level of these precincts.
Your points about the economic aspect are well taken, though. I also don't see anything workable except a market, with investment decisions being politicized to the level of the region or larger area, where an investment "bank" (itself a collective under the democratic control of its regional stakeholders) could operate, like decentralized market socialism.

The basic unit of production would be the collective, equivalent to the capitalist firm today. Political and economic units would exist in parallel.

If someone comes up with something better than a market, I'm willing to listen. Most of these, though, like ParEcon, are just inefficient political market-substitutes that require a lot of human participation and are prone to bureaucracy and centralization, anti-anarchist, and thus not a suitable substitute. I would imagine that they would recreate many of the same problems, perhaps to an even greater extent since there would be political action involved. Leaving aside the fact that none of this (literally none of this, and no, don't try to explain this - all of this is a result of your basic misunderstanding of something) makes any sense whatsoever, it is clearly not communist. So I'm not sure why you posted it.

[argeiphontes]

it is clearly not communist. So I'm not sure why you posted it.

Oh, I'm not a communist. I'm a libertarian socialist. Maybe I should have inserted the word 'would' between 'communes' and 'work' since there are no communes that I'm aware of right now, but there were in the past.

[Remus Bleys]

Oh, I'm not a communist.
Why are you even here?

[argeiphontes]

Libertarian socialists are revolutionary leftists.

[Remus Bleys]

Libertarian socialists are revolutionary leftists.
Libertarian socialists are communists.
And I was talking about this thread.

[Ledur]

I know you will probably deride this comment, or complain that I'm not keeping to topic, or see me as trying to flame, but really I don't get understand how you can see AC as superior to AS or Mutualism. And if you want to ignore the rest of this post, that's fine, but just answer this one question: have you read any Benjamin Tucker?

Yes, a little. Individualism is an important part of anarchism, but I prefer collectivism/communism at the moment.


There are forms of rationing too. Besides not all things must be for personal property, but for usage only. For example, there are airplanes and noboady even dreams about producing enough planes to give them for those who want them. But you can book a flight and you fly. And money isn't indispensable for that.

Indeed some things would be rationed. But airplanes and flights are kind of a "social product", and I doubt people would get rid of them. There will be a high demand for flights like nowadays.

But I was talking about a very specific kind of product or service, with very low demand. If only a few people want it, this product/service will be at the very bottom of society's priorities. The egoist/individualist anarchism give a solution, I should gather with other interested and we should do it by ourselves. My only question is: would this be a bad thing to do under communism, or it doesn't matter?

[argeiphontes]

Libertarian socialists are communists.
And I was talking about this thread.

Some are, but not all of them. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Santillan, Guerin, and a lot of other people were in the libertarian socialist tradition. It's basically an umbrella term for the non-individualist anarchists. I just posted in another thread a quote from Santillan that shows that he was more interested in the Spanish revolution than in what particular form collectives of the post-revolutionary society would take right away. So I wanted to give my perspective to the OP. He can take it or leave it.

If you want to call me out about defending the market, that's fine too. But it's not my fault that nobody's invented a better system of allocating things. They're working on it, more power to 'em, I think it's great. It doesn't have to be perfect, or a copy of the market system right now. When I criticize those systems, though, it's "peer review" and not any love for the market itself. But some of its characteristics have to be replicated to make people happy. People have to understand that a post-revolutionary society is possible somehow.

That being said, and this goes to the issue the OP is experiencing with the irrational An-Caps (who aren't anarchists at all even if they think they are), is that I wouldn't want people to stop trying to eliminate wage slavery and private ownership of the MoP, or advocate for its elimination, even if a good planning system can't be found right away, or ever. It's better to take Santillan's position. I'd like to live to see the new society, I don't like being a wage slave. For anarchists the system has to conform to their libertarian principles too so there's an added complication.

I sincerely hope that answers your question. If not, ask away.

[argeiphontes]

My only question is: would this be a bad thing to do under communism, or it doesn't matter?

I don't think it would be a bad thing to do under anarcho-communism. ("Regular" communists will have to answer for themselves, but I don't think they'd think it's bad either.)

If you're not using wage labor or any social means of production (capital), you have no problem. Like, if you want to make a wooden carving as a Christmas gift, it's not a problem at all.

If you need some capital to do what you want to do, then you might have a problem. It seems to me that there are two ways to answer this question: by deciding what is and what isn't capital, or on the scale that capital is socialized.

On the one hand, you could decide that small-scale capital, like a sewing machine or alcohol still or other sub-industrial "capital" is allowed even under anarcho-communism. Or, you could decide that communism means that the entire society, individual collective, or even world owns every piece of capital equally. In some of these cases, you'd have to engage in political activity to be able to produce your item.

Or, you could allow for variable scale. It could be as simple as deciding that capital is controlled on the level at which it's employed. So, an airport belongs to the whole region, because that's the level at which it's used. A school belongs to a municipal council, a sewing machine to the factory it's used in, a greenhouse to your neighborhood, and a computer to you and your friends (if they're using it for collective use and it's not a personal item).

Hey, that's not such a bad idea... why does everything have to be controlled at the same scale? That allows for worker control at the level it's used, which makes perfect sense, I would think, for anarchists... You only have to include as many stakeholders as the capital itself can "address". If you and your friends want to get a sewing machine to manufacture some jeans or something, you are free to do so. If you want to get 10 sewing machines and manufacture jeans you can't use yourselves, then you have to engage in some political activity to form a new commune on that scale. Problem solved. :)

[Remus Bleys]

Some are, but not all of them. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Santillan, Guerin, and a lot of other people were in the libertarian socialist tradition. It's basically an umbrella term for the non-individualist anarchists. I just posted in another thread a quote from Santillan that shows that he was more interested in the Spanish revolution than in what particular form collectives of the post-revolutionary society would take right away. So I wanted to give my perspective to the OP. He can take it or leave it.

If you want to call me out about defending the market, that's fine too. But it's not my fault that nobody's invented a better system of allocating things. They're working on it, more power to 'em, I think it's great. It doesn't have to be perfect, or a copy of the market system right now. When I criticize those systems, though, it's "peer review" and not any love for the market itself. But some of its characteristics have to be replicated to make people happy. People have to understand that a post-revolutionary society is possible somehow.

That being said, and this goes to the issue the OP is experiencing with the irrational An-Caps (who aren't anarchists at all even if they think they are), is that I wouldn't want people to stop trying to eliminate wage slavery and private ownership of the MoP, or advocate for its elimination, even if a good planning system can't be found right away, or ever. It's better to take Santillan's position. I'd like to live to see the new society, I don't like being a wage slave. For anarchists the system has to conform to their libertarian principles too so there's an added complication.

I sincerely hope that answers your question. If not, ask away.
You cretin you uphold prodhoun? Not a better way of managing things? Get the fuck out of here.

[argeiphontes]

You cretin you uphold prodhoun?

I'm not sure. I've never read any Proudhon. I was just saying who falls under the libsoc umbrella. Rumor has it he was a socialist, and the first person to use the term 'anarchist'. I prefer Bakunin myself, and like Santillan's practical approach, so far.

[tuwix]

Indeed some things would be rationed. But airplanes and flights are kind of a "social product", and I doubt people would get rid of them. There will be a high demand for flights like nowadays.


And the systema of bookings/reservation is solution for the problem.




But I was talking about a very specific kind of product or service, with very low demand. If only a few people want it, this product/service will be at the very bottom of society's priorities. The egoist/individualist anarchism give a solution, I should gather with other interested and we should do it by ourselves. My only question is: would this be a bad thing to do under communism, or it doesn't matter?

Communism can give a solution too. You could create a product using a 3D printer and you can ask anybody for service.

[BIXX]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.

I identify myself as ancom, and I realize how beautiful communism is. I can refute most naive/elaborated arguments from right-wingers. But there are some issues for which I don't have a clean answer :ohmy:

Some individualist/voluntaryists argue that in a communist society, you don't have property of anything you/a group produce, then you can't exchange freely with others. Well, obvious answer is that if you produce a socially useful product, one can't claim property, since everyone producing will have access to what everyone else produces, and in a large scale this may be very efficient.

But what can we define as "socially useful product"?

If I like to collect seashells, I may use my free time to get them, try to find a group who would like to exchange seashells and have fun. That isn't socially useful labor; people aren't using community's resources, and can't claim they made something useful for the society.

But what about when someone wants something that not too many people would want, AND it's a bit futile (in views of majority), AND it'll use society's material factors? For example, a pet beauty service, or Whey Protein production. Should these be considered socially useful products/labor? Should these people (working on it) have the same access to the social product as the teacher/physician/agrarian?

Individualist anarchists say that in a communist commonwealth, since we depend on majority scale of values and there's no property/voluntary exchange, there would not be too much freedom, and a restricted pool of options.

I can't say too much, but I try to convince then that when primary needs are fullfilled (food/shelter/education/etc), at the same time there's abundance of people and resources (that is, society is rich), next step is to fulfill individual and more futile needs, if these products don't touch food/shelter/education production.

I'd like, if possible, answers from ancoms, since these issues are easily explained in a syndicalist/market socialist/mutualist approach.

I'd like to note quickly that being an individualist anarchist does not mean you are an ancap. In fact, if you are a consistent individualist, you must be an anarchist communist (not like what Kropotkin described exactly, though).

In response, I would say that you can take whatever you want, provided you do not oppress someone (don't form hierarchy/limit that individual or community in any way). Of course then they'll try to debate what oppression is, etc... But whatever. There's only so much you can do with very little time.

Why are you talking to these people? Doesn't it ever get boring, having them link you to shit written by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard?

I decided it's better for me to avoid that shit, but to each their own.

[Ledur]

I'd like to note quickly that being an individualist anarchist does not mean you are an ancap. In fact, if you are a consistent individualist, you must be an anarchist communist (not like what Kropotkin described exactly, though).

In response, I would say that you can take whatever you want, provided you do not oppress someone (don't form hierarchy/limit that individual or community in any way). Of course then they'll try to debate what oppression is, etc... But whatever. There's only so much you can do with very little time.

That was very helpful. Sometimes I think that it's impossible to be 100% ancom or 100% individualist. Or at least people should accept that both can coexist on the same planet. Or even together in the same communities. These are my views:

Tout d'abord, all natural resources and lands should be held in common. Basic needs (food, water, home, clothing) also should be commonly produced. Highly demanded services (health, education, transportation, upkeep and maintenance) should be common as well, and have a high production priority. That's the group 1.

You go up in the Maslow pyramid of needs... this is when individuality becomes more important. Thousands of "Peer Projects" could be freely created, using common resources. That's group 2.

Production from group 2 could be free, with one condition, it can't affect production from group 1.

People could choose where to work: in individual peer projects, or in society's basic needs (or even both), provided that the above condition is respected. The same occurs with material needs.

I think it kinda answers my question, because you don't have to put your individual preferences under the "dictatorship of basic needs", that would happen only in a situation of disturb or shortage.



Why are you talking to these people? Doesn't it ever get boring, having them link you to shit written by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard?

I decided it's better for me to avoid that shit, but to each their own.

It's a nice excercise to debunk them. I'm not addicted to win over internet arguments, but a small amount of them can get closer to our side.

[BIXX]

That was very helpful. Sometimes I think that it's impossible to be 100% ancom or 100% individualist. Or at least people should accept that both can coexist on the same planet. Or even together in the same communities.

I'm 100% both. They are not incompatible, but many people like to present them as such.

There are multiple kinds of anarchist communism. Some are more individualist than others. Mine is entirely individualist yet still communist.


These are my views:

Tout d'abord, all natural resources and lands should be held in common. Basic needs (food, water, home, clothing) also should be commonly produced. Highly demanded services (health, education, transportation, upkeep and maintenance) should be common as well, and have a high production priority. That's the group 1.

You go up in the Maslow pyramid of needs... this is when individuality becomes more important. Thousands of "Peer Projects" could be freely created, using common resources. That's group 2.

Production from group 2 could be free, with one condition, it can't affect production from group 1.

People could choose where to work: in individual peer projects, or in society's basic needs (or even both), provided that the above condition is respected. The same occurs with material needs.

I think it kinda answers my question, because you don't have to put your individual preferences under the "dictatorship of basic needs", that would happen only in a situation of disturb or shortage.

I am averse to that stance to an extent, but I think that discussion is one for another time.


It's a nice excercise to debunk them. I'm not addicted to win over internet arguments, but a small amount of them can get closer to our side.

Yeah, honestly I just give up with them. They bore me, because once they link me to something I can almost tell you what it is without even looking due to the amount of times it's happened to me.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]f I value a lot something that society doesn't give a F about, and I can't do it by myself, what's the solution, wait in line? When this question comes around, free market defenders pop out and say their system is the only answer. :glare:


Just note to the free market defenders that a post-capitalist society -- *any* post-capitalist society -- would be far easier to navigate because everything useful, beyond the personal scale, would be in the public domain. So from the categories of assets, resources, goods, and services, all assets, resources, and goods would be open-access, leaving just services as a variable.

You would need to find someone who could do the appropriate service to provide what you need, and you would have to do some kind of service in return that *you* could provide.

Over an entire society, though, this practice of 1-to-1 service-exchange would be just as clunky as any 1-to-1 bartering of goods today -- it could be difficult to find match-ups that are immediately satisfying to both parties. I have a 'labor credits' system that provides flexibility here -- see my blog entry.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/mgmjarrot/8_communist_economy_diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/mgmjarrot/)





If someone comes up with something better than a market, I'm willing to listen.


I thought you were in my "camp" by now.... (grin)





Or, you could allow for variable scale. It could be as simple as deciding that capital is controlled on the level at which it's employed. So, an airport belongs to the whole region, because that's the level at which it's used. A school belongs to a municipal council, a sewing machine to the factory it's used in, a greenhouse to your neighborhood, and a computer to you and your friends (if they're using it for collective use and it's not a personal item).

Hey, that's not such a bad idea... why does everything have to be controlled at the same scale? That allows for worker control at the level it's used, which makes perfect sense, I would think, for anarchists... You only have to include as many stakeholders as the capital itself can "address". If you and your friends want to get a sewing machine to manufacture some jeans or something, you are free to do so. If you want to get 10 sewing machines and manufacture jeans you can't use yourselves, then you have to engage in some political activity to form a new commune on that scale. Problem solved. :)


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

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Post-Something]

On a political level, communes work just fine. There's no reason why every subunit has to be homogenous when there is voluntary association and free movement. (I'm thinking of Bakunin's collectivism now.) Currently, there are structures down to the city precinct level in most areas. (Not sure what city 'precincts' are called in Edinburgh but it's like a district with one or maybe a couple of neighborhoods in it.) These run just fine. Heh, the political party "machines" in the US are coordinated down to the level of these precincts.

Your points about the economic aspect are well taken, though. I also don't see anything workable except a market, with investment decisions being politicized to the level of the region or larger area, where an investment "bank" (itself a collective under the democratic control of its regional stakeholders) could operate, like decentralized market socialism.

The basic unit of production would be the collective, equivalent to the capitalist firm today. Political and economic units would exist in parallel.

If someone comes up with something better than a market, I'm willing to listen. Most of these, though, like ParEcon, are just inefficient political market-substitutes that require a lot of human participation and are prone to bureaucracy and centralization, anti-anarchist, and thus not a suitable substitute. I would imagine that they would recreate many of the same problems, perhaps to an even greater extent since there would be political action involved.

Yes, but the amount of effort it takes just to turn federalist is enormous in itself. Maybe its different as I am in the UK and so thing are centralized, but when I imagine Anarchism, I do not picture small communities who are self sufficient at all (ie having the political power of states). Of course political power would be vested much more locally, but really I have no idea what a system of total self determination would mean. I just doubt it will mean communes everywhere.

You see, where we differ is that I don't even think an economic system has been come up with that is able to deal with the 21st century from an anarchist perspective. I think you think that if you look hard enough you'll find the blueprint, the answer you've been looking for, but it's just not there. I know there are a lot of good theorists out there, like Kevin Carson etc, but I think its still early stages for anarchism. When Hilferding and Lenin decided that the shift to finance capitalism would result in new tactics for the communists, I never came across a similar anarchist update. For me Anarchist Communism is the most outdated of all of the anarchisms, and so I struggle to see it as little more than a dream.

[argeiphontes]

Yes, but the amount of effort it takes just to turn federalist is enormous in itself. Maybe its different as I am in the UK and so thing are centralized, but when I imagine Anarchism, I do not picture small communities who are self sufficient at all (ie having the political power of states). Of course political power would be vested much more locally, but really I have no idea what a system of total self determination would mean. I just doubt it will mean communes everywhere.

You see, where we differ is that I don't even think an economic system has been come up with that is able to deal with the 21st century from an anarchist perspective. I think you think that if you look hard enough you'll find the blueprint, the answer you've been looking for, but it's just not there. I know there are a lot of good theorists out there, like Kevin Carson etc, but I think its still early stages for anarchism. When Hilferding and Lenin decided that the shift to finance capitalism would result in new tactics for the communists, I never came across a similar anarchist update. For me Anarchist Communism is the most outdated of all of the anarchisms, and so I struggle to see it as little more than a dream.

I think of my libertarianism in methodological terms, the principles I have in my "political statement", namely:

1) There should only be that authority which can be justified, and
2) People should have say over decisions in proportion to how much that decision affects them.

I don't think of building self-sufficient communes at all, in fact that sounds primitivist to me, in the society we're living in. (Not that I would mind living in one today, maybe, depending on its character. I don't necessarily want to live and eat with my coworkers ;) ) Though I don't know what kind of structures would develop in the future.

I probably think along the lines of a modern anarcho-syndicalism if anything. I go to work at a worker-controlled collective that functions in a market system, but obtains capital from a stakeholder-controlled bank. If there are more stakeholders than just the workers, they have some say in what goes on there as well, in proportion to how it affects them. Maybe I'm a member of more than one collective, say the neighborhood housing collective that's taken over my apartment building, or the local services collective that changes burnt out bulbs in the street lamps and takes the trash to the recycling facility.

I'd say that I don't think there has to be a "blueprint" at all, we can work with what we have. Unless one wants to create a communism, in which case you need an empirically proven and workable alternative economic system or you're screwed. In that sense I agree that anarcho-communism is the "worst" of the anarchies. I support these efforts to think up such systems, though, because I can't say that they are impossible or not valuable. Part of the problem seems to be the "immediatism" of revolutionary thinking, where people aren't willing to wait until the social relations are in place for these systems to even be tested. At least that seems to be the feedback I've gotten.

That's not my personal goal though--its much more important to replace the capitalist relations of production, which don't have the same force of objectivity. So I support a type of "mutualism" I suppose. The way forward seems to me to be creating alternative firms (worker cooperatives/collectives), which would also alter the political base, and eventually take over existing firms and institutions if necessary. It's not going to be possible in one fell-swoop because the consciousness required for this can't be imposed by just proselytizing for it. IMO, you have to have what I would call an "actually available alternative" that people can choose, that's not too far away from current consciousness and can be empirically proven to work. (Or wait until things deteriorate and people become more radicalized, but that's not a good idea for various reasons--it's endorsement of suffering and strife, basically).

I haven't read any Carson, but I've heard of him. I'm still working on it all, there's a lot of material out there.... I think we agree more than disagree, though, so far... :)

This is an interesting read about what I would consider communisation or collectivization, i.e. including more stakeholders in the decision making of worker-controlled firms: http://www.zcommunications.org/mondrag-n-and-the-system-problem-by-gar-alperovitz.html

[blake 3:17]

Absolutely there should be space for imaginative, interesting, and odd projects. It would be a horrible mistake for a socialist society to require every effort of every individual or every collective to be justified on a utilitarian basis.

[tuwix]

Sometimes I think that it's impossible to be 100% ancom or 100% individualist.

I think the problem is that you find communism as very collective thing. But it doesn't have to be do. It may be en explosions of individual passions asn interests. If nobody hast to do things for money, then everyoine can be srtist, invbentor or whatever. It may be great opprtunity for individualists.

[Ledur]

I think the problem is that you find communism as very collective thing. But it doesn't have to be do. It may be en explosions of individual passions asn interests. If nobody hast to do things for money, then everyoine can be srtist, invbentor or whatever. It may be great opprtunity for individualists.

Sorry, I meant "anarcho-communism" or "anarcho-individualism".

Most of anarcho-individualism accepts private property, but in this thread I realize that a small portion of anarcho-individualism thinking can fit under communism.

[tuwix]

Sorry, I meant "anarcho-communism" or "anarcho-individualism".

Most of anarcho-individualism accepts private property, but in this thread I realize that a small portion of anarcho-individualism thinking can fit under communism.

Well, no. Father or anarchism and anarcho-induvidualism who was P.-J. Proudhon was against private property. In his book "What is property?" he critisize it ruthlessly. And IMHO this book was inspiration for Marx's works. Later Proudhon refused to build world front against capitalism and Marx reveived it as offence and started to express his very negative opinions about Proudhon. Nonetheless, he didn't change his negative attitude for private property.

Later anarcho-individualists created a concept of natural property that pretty much the same as personal property. And natural property can exist according to them but private property must be abolished. And communism as a lack of private property isn't against a anarcho-individualism.

But maybe you confuse ancap with anarcho-inidividualism. But ancap isn't anarchism because of their attitude to private property. Lack of private property is indispensable part of anarchism.

[Ledur]

Well, no. Father or anarchism and anarcho-induvidualism who was P.-J. Proudhon was against private property. In his book "What is property?" he critisize it ruthlessly. And IMHO this book was inspiration for Marx's works. Later Proudhon refused to build world front against capitalism and Marx reveived it as offence and started to express his very negative opinions about Proudhon. Nonetheless, he didn't change his negative attitude for private property.

Proudhon's critique is against appropriation of worker's labour (among other things). Marx later defined it as surplus value.

Also, Proudhon is against de jure property, but he says that de facto property is legitimate. Hence, it's an anarchist view... he's against accumulation and exploitation.


Later anarcho-individualists created a concept of natural property that pretty much the same as personal property. And natural property can exist according to them but private property must be abolished. And communism as a lack of private property isn't against a anarcho-individualism.

Do you have any reference about "natural property"?


But maybe you confuse ancap with anarcho-inidividualism. But ancap isn't anarchism because of their attitude to private property. Lack of private property is indispensable part of anarchism.

No, I know the history of both. Anarcho-individualism has its roots totally against capitalism. Ancap is a recent oxymoron that doesn't know what anarchism is, and they keep saying that they're an extreme of anarcho-individualism, which is false bullsht.

[Ledur]

have you read any Benjamin Tucker?


Wages is not slavery. Wages is a form of voluntary exchange, and voluntary exchange is a form of Liberty.

:unsure:

[Post-Something]

I think of my libertarianism in methodological terms, the principles I have in my "political statement", namely:

1) There should only be that authority which can be justified, and
2) People should have say over decisions in proportion to how much that decision affects them.

I don't think of building self-sufficient communes at all, in fact that sounds primitivist to me, in the society we're living in. (Not that I would mind living in one today, maybe, depending on its character. I don't necessarily want to live and eat with my coworkers ;) ) Though I don't know what kind of structures would develop in the future.

I probably think along the lines of a modern anarcho-syndicalism if anything. I go to work at a worker-controlled collective that functions in a market system, but obtains capital from a stakeholder-controlled bank. If there are more stakeholders than just the workers, they have some say in what goes on there as well, in proportion to how it affects them. Maybe I'm a member of more than one collective, say the neighborhood housing collective that's taken over my apartment building, or the local services collective that changes burnt out bulbs in the street lamps and takes the trash to the recycling facility.

I'd say that I don't think there has to be a "blueprint" at all, we can work with what we have. Unless one wants to create a communism, in which case you need an empirically proven and workable alternative economic system or you're screwed. In that sense I agree that anarcho-communism is the "worst" of the anarchies. I support these efforts to think up such systems, though, because I can't say that they are impossible or not valuable. Part of the problem seems to be the "immediatism" of revolutionary thinking, where people aren't willing to wait until the social relations are in place for these systems to even be tested. At least that seems to be the feedback I've gotten.

That's not my personal goal though--its much more important to replace the capitalist relations of production, which don't have the same force of objectivity. So I support a type of "mutualism" I suppose. The way forward seems to me to be creating alternative firms (worker cooperatives/collectives), which would also alter the political base, and eventually take over existing firms and institutions if necessary. It's not going to be possible in one fell-swoop because the consciousness required for this can't be imposed by just proselytizing for it. IMO, you have to have what I would call an "actually available alternative" that people can choose, that's not too far away from current consciousness and can be empirically proven to work. (Or wait until things deteriorate and people become more radicalized, but that's not a good idea for various reasons--it's endorsement of suffering and strife, basically).

I haven't read any Carson, but I've heard of him. I'm still working on it all, there's a lot of material out there.... I think we agree more than disagree, though, so far... :)

This is an interesting read about what I would consider communisation or collectivization, i.e. including more stakeholders in the decision making of worker-controlled firms: http://www.zcommunications.org/mondrag-n-and-the-system-problem-by-gar-alperovitz.html

Yes I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. I've read about Mondragon and their system before, and obviously hold co-ops in high esteem. There were even parties who based their whole political ideology on helping co-operatives serve as a model for society, such as the Canadian Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. But again, it's all been talked about to death, I'm more interested in new futures, we've been living off the same modernity for a long time now. One thinker who I hold in very high regard in this respect is Ivan Illich, and if you haven't taken the time to look at his work I'd encourage you to do so, he's been a massive influence on me and how I see anarchism.

[Post-Something]

:unsure:

Sorry, what do you propose instead? A gift economy?

[Ledur]

Sorry, what do you propose instead? A gift economy?

If wage is voluntary (thus negotiable), you'll end up with a labour market.

Please tell me that Mr. Tucker said something better to clarify that odd sentence.

[Post-Something]

If wage is voluntary (thus negotiable), you'll end up with a labour market.

Please tell me that Mr. Tucker said something better to clarify that odd sentence.

Because the way Tucker saw it was that by removing a number of monopolies granted by the state, that allow capital to remain in the strong hold of capitalists, you will unleash a competition that will equalize society. If these monopolies go then labour is finally able to reclaim the full value of his labour. What is wrong with contracts for work? And also what is a better system of remuneration if not the market? A gift economy??

[Ledur]

Because the way Tucker saw it was that by removing a number of monopolies granted by the state, that allow capital to remain in the strong hold of capitalists, you will unleash a competition that will equalize society. If these monopolies go then labour is finally able to reclaim the full value of his labour. What is wrong with contracts for work? And also what is a better system of remuneration if not the market? A gift economy??

No, it won't. The very notion about why capitalism is oppressive and hierarchical is that capital remains in the hands of capitalists, when instead it should be accessible to everyone.

Labour credits under LTV, mutualism, etc, these are better than the market (despite their imperfections). And a gift economy is OK when things become more and more abundant.

If that's what Tucker said, sorry, it lacks a lot to be revolutionary.

What do you propose? market socialism?

[Post-Something]

No, it won't. The very notion about why capitalism is oppressive and hierarchical is that capital remains in the hands of capitalists, when instead it should be accessible to everyone.

Labour credits under LTV, mutualism, etc, these are better than the market (although their imperfections). And a gift economy is OK when things become more and more abundant.

If that's what Tucker said, sorry, it lacks a lot to be revolutionary.

What do you propose? market socialism?

Labour credits, wages, whatever, there is some form of remuneration involved. You have to remember that if there's going to be anarchism there isn't going to be a monopoly of one type of remuneration, multiple currencies will exist as there won't be a state to dictate these kinds of things. What Im against personally is the Anarcho-communist conception of people seeming to be able to take whatever they please without it correlating to their work; there is a principle involved here, and that's that labour should be paid its full worth, not extra because that would be at somebody else's expense. That would be as bad as the capitalists living off others labour in our system.

I recommended that you look at Tucker because he has a very good analysis of communism rather than for his individualism. But you should also look at his overall understanding of Anarchism, it's very interesting. Benjamin tucker also wants to question why Capital remains in the hands of the capitalists, and his answer is that the state helps them. By giving them special cordoned off land, by offering great banking deals, by guaranteeing them good patents, by controlling the use of money etc. For Tucker, if everyone could compete equally, then we would have a much more equal society and access to the means of production. Now, you might disagree with that, and that's fine, but he is almost definitely worth a look because I think he is principled, and has an incredible bullshit detector.
For Tucker, either you go his way, or you go the communist route, which it seems is the one you've chosen. Now you have to ask yourself seriously whether communal planning can be done without a state, and all I'm saying is that Tucker is one of the guys who puts up the best fight in that debate.

No, I don't propose anything because I don't profess to have the answers. I know I like co-operatives, I know I like various other anarchist ideas, but I still think anarchism is in its early days.

[argeiphontes]

Benjamin tucker also wants to question why Capital remains in the hands of the capitalists, and his answer is that the state helps them. By giving them special cordoned off land, by offering great banking deals, by guaranteeing them good patents, by controlling the use of money etc.

Also, private property in the means of production is just a legal fiction. There is no such thing without government protection and arbitration of it. And private property in the MoP is the source of wage labor, since by definition you can't work it yourself.

Personally, from what I know about these guys so far (Spooner, Tucker), it's like they are grasping for a non-Marxist critique of capitalism. They are prestructuralist, and hence aren't able to formulate a full critique or framework. Hence, they make mistakes like attributing all the evils of capitalism to government intervention, which opens the door to right-libertarianism. But that's just a preliminary assessment based on Wikipedia ;)

In any case, I'll check out Tucker too.

[Post-Something]

Also, private property in the means of production is just a legal fiction. There is no such thing without government protection and arbitration of it. And private property in the MoP is the source of wage labor, since by definition you can't work it yourself.

Personally, from what I know about these guys so far (Spooner, Tucker), it's like they are grasping for a non-Marxist critique of capitalism. They are prestructuralist, and hence aren't able to formulate a full critique or framework. Hence, they make mistakes like attributing all the evils of capitalism to government intervention, which opens the door to right-libertarianism. But that's just a preliminary assessment based on Wikipedia ;)

In any case, I'll check out Tucker too.

Yeah, exactly, which is why nobody would work for a guy who operated in a way which offered them a bad working deal.
But also, to be fair, if you look at it seriously, the marxists don't have a full critique of the framework either. The one that worked in the 20th century is class relations being exacerbated, but polarization never really occurred, so all the historical inevitability bullshit was thrown out the window. The argument for the falling rate of profit can't be taken too seriously either because capitalists aren't going to stop making profit just because they're not making it at the same rate. The only other one I can think of was proposed by Rosa Luxembourg in The Accumulation of Capital where she tried to pinpoint the exact date of collapse being when there were no longer any non-capitalist markets to exploit, but that was obviously proved wrong as well.

I don't know, what are we left with? The crises of overproduction? It always seems to be solved by the state. So I don't think their criticisms should be taken less seriously than marxism at all. I think both of these ideologies need to be rethought, and I know you don't like right-libertarianism, but that is probably where the new interesting work will emerge from, through dialogue with them. In fact, left-libertarianism is precisely where all the interesting work is coming from as far as I'm concerned.

[argeiphontes]

Just a note on the falling rate of profit, Marxist economist Andrew Kliman (with the help of a study by Deloitte and Touche), has shown a declining rate of profit since the mid-1950s IIRC. It's the reason corporations are sitting on piles of cash right now. The reason that capitalism won't just collapse completely is that the crises cause a devaluation of capital that restores the rate of profit. That's why it's only been falling since the post-WWII boom.

I don't think anybody would seriously believe that capitalism could collapse completely in its current state. However, Istvan Meszaros book Beyond Capital is worth a look in that regard when you consider what's going to happen in the "Star-Trek future" when, for example, all areas of cheap labor will have already been exploited, and all aspects of human life have been colonized. Regardless of whether or not that's true, I don't want to wait that long, I don't think the Singularity is coming ;)

By framework I just meant class analysis, Marxian economics, and historical materialism. I disbelieve dialectical materialism though, and don't think that any one causal "stream" is responsible for all social phenomena or anything like that. The dogmatic nature of some of these beliefs leaves much to be desired, but maybe that's not the fault of the man himself as much as his followers. I find a lot of the offshoots of Marxism, and the activism surrounding them, to be like a religion, actually. But I've been able to criticize a lot of it on Marxist terms.

But yeah, I look forward to learning more about left-libertarianism.

[Remus Bleys]

Sorry, what do you propose instead? A gift economy?
free access communism of course

[Post-Something]

free access communism of course

Thanks for your in depth exposition, I can already see it now, those three buzzwords are sure to win over even the most cynical of critics.

[Remus Bleys]

Thanks for your in depth exposition, I can already see it now, those three buzzwords are sure to win over even the most cynical of critics.
"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years." Lenin
We are on revleft. You may of course not understand theory, but I don't think that baseless things such as "thats utopia, that'll never work - wages are a part of human nature" really shouldn't have to be debated.
Have you read the communist manifesto? The argument is pretty simply laid out there. If profit is the guiding force of all things, then how can bourgeois society function?

[Post-Something]

"If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years." Lenin
We are on revleft. You may of course not understand theory, but I don't think that baseless things such as "thats utopia, that'll never work - wages are a part of human nature" really shouldn't have to be debated.
Have you read the communist manifesto? The argument is pretty simply laid out there. If profit is the guiding force of all things, then how can bourgeois society function?

Yeah, buddy, I've read the manifesto.
I think you'll most likely always have some form of remuneration. Don't twist that and turn it into money, don't twist it and turn it into something specific to capitalism, because I'm just not claiming anything like that. There's always gonna be little points that we like to count and shovel around, whether it's based on labour or whatever. I for one don't want a government who's gonna make sure I work that extra hour so that your mom can just come over and take it.
Also, listen, if you're just a standard communist who thinks quoting Lenin is a cool thing to do, just forget it, I don't need you to intellectually develop me. Either lay out what you mean, or drop it. Because the standard marxist route of simply nationalizing everything and then driving the country into the ground has been done before.

[Sea]

I've been here for a while, learning a lot, and trying to persuade and convert free-market/ancap advocates out there.Ancaps don't become ancaps by a process of truth-seeking, and we may therefore assume that they are not particularly interested in the truth, and therefor you're not going to have a lot of luck using the truth against them.

Social-democrats you might have more luck with. They're usually at least interested in "making things better" despite how naive they are.
Because the way Tucker saw it was that by removing a number of monopolies granted by the state, that allow capital to remain in the strong hold of capitalists, you will unleash a competition that will equalize society. If these monopolies go then labour is finally able to reclaim the full value of his labour. What is wrong with contracts for work? And also what is a better system of remuneration if not the market? A gift economy??Unfortunately, monopolies arise out of, and are a normal aspect of the development of, capitalism. You claim to be a 'revolutionary Marxist', so I expect that you would understand the process by which this occurs.
Thanks for your in depth exposition, I can already see it now, those three buzzwords are sure to win over even the most cynical of critics.I propose hypercentralized centralist central planning. At least that way we get a new set of buzzwords every five years.

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah, buddy, I've read the manifesto.
I think you'll most likely always have some form of remuneration. Don't twist that and turn it into money, don't twist it and turn it into something specific to capitalism, because I'm just not claiming anything like that. There's always gonna be little points that we like to count and shovel around, whether it's based on labour or whatever. I for one don't want a government who's gonna make sure I work that extra hour so that your mom can just come over and take it.
Also, listen, if you're just a standard communist who thinks quoting Lenin is a cool thing to do, just forget it, I don't need you to intellectually develop me. Either lay out what you mean, or drop it. Because the standard marxist route of simply nationalizing everything and then driving the country into the ground has been done before.
Please don't call me "buddy" the word bothers me for some reason.
You seem to be confused. Have you read critique of the gotha program? The formula to each their needs is not achieved by having everyone be deprived of something, but by being a society of overabundance.
Also all the tendencies agree that the higher phase, where this formula of according to needs is stateless.
I am confused on what I did not layout. Also, I don't quote lenin to be 2edgy4you but because I think that's important theory and id like to acknowledge him.
I am sorry if I seemed like I was talking down to you.
What do you mean by nationalization? I don't support nationalization - I support the proletarian dictatorship centralizing the economy under its control.

[Post-Something]

Unfortunately, monopolies arise out of, and are a normal aspect of the development of, capitalism. You claim to be a 'revolutionary Marxist', so I expect that you would understand the process by which this occurs.

Yeah, no I understand that, but Tucker's talking about a stateless society, so private property wouldn't exist.
Also, that's just a stupid tendency label that I pegged on years ago round the time when I joined this site. If I were to call myself something it'd be Anarchist, I'm not really a Marxist in any meaningful way.


I propose hypercentralized centralist central planning. At least that way we get a new set of buzzwords every five years.

Hah! That made me laugh :grin:


What do you mean by nationalization? I don't support nationalization - I support the proletarian dictatorship centralizing the economy under its control.

.........:rolleyes:
So you support a group of previously working class people taking up positions in the state to make a massive grab of as much private industry as possible, where they will then sit and make a plan, devising how to use it all and in general which direction the country shall go? Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like nationalization.

[Ledur]

What Im against personally is the Anarcho-communist conception of people seeming to be able to take whatever they please without it correlating to their work; there is a principle involved here, and that's that labour should be paid its full worth, not extra because that would be at somebody else's expense. That would be as bad as the capitalists living off others labour in our system.

Sorry, but that's not ancom... I was reading Kropotkin, and he stressed that under communism, individiality and people's "wants" are actually above the "common good", and THEY determine society's blueprint, once everyone has shelter and food.


I recommended that you look at Tucker because he has a very good analysis of communism rather than for his individualism. But you should also look at his overall understanding of Anarchism, it's very interesting. Benjamin tucker also wants to question why Capital remains in the hands of the capitalists, and his answer is that the state helps them. By giving them special cordoned off land, by offering great banking deals, by guaranteeing them good patents, by controlling the use of money etc. For Tucker, if everyone could compete equally, then we would have a much more equal society and access to the means of production. Now, you might disagree with that, and that's fine, but he is almost definitely worth a look because I think he is principled, and has an incredible bullshit detector.

For Tucker, either you go his way, or you go the communist route, which it seems is the one you've chosen. Now you have to ask yourself seriously whether communal planning can be done without a state, and all I'm saying is that Tucker is one of the guys who puts up the best fight in that debate.

Most individualist anarchists are opposed to commodification of labour, and they're against a market for labour like you said. They oppose the wage system. Tucker, however, is a point outside the curve. He thought that wages are "voluntary exchange".

Also Tucker misunderstood anarcho-communism, which should be free and voluntary.

Kropotkin also said that a communist-anarchist revolution would not expropriate the tools of self-employed workers who exploited no one.

One last thing, perfect competition under free market is a utopian theory, Sea already said something about monopolies above.

[Sea]

I'm not really a Marxist in any meaningful way.Ahh, gotcha.

[tuwix]

Proudhon's critique is against appropriation of worker's labour (among other things). Marx later defined it as surplus value.

Also, Proudhon is against de jure property, but he says that de facto property is legitimate. Hence, it's an anarchist view... he's against accumulation and exploitation.


I don't think so. It seems you haven't read "What is property?". Proudhon has stated that "property is theft". I don't think that is recognising a proprty as anything legitimate...



Do you have any reference about "natural property"?


Not in English. I've found this concept only in Polish language. :)

[Ledur]

I don't think so. It seems you haven't read "What is property?". Proudhon has stated that "property is theft". I don't think that is recognising a proprty as anything legitimate...

Yes, I've read that. He clearely says that property (appropriation, rent, etc) is theft.

Later he says that property is freedom. However here he's talking about possession - occupation-and-use, which are legitimate.

Two different concepts, but only one word.

[tuwix]

Yes, I've read that. He clearely says that property (appropriation, rent, etc) is theft.

Later he says that property is freedom. However here he's talking about possession - occupation-and-use, which are legitimate.

Two different concepts, but only one word.

It was his poor attempt to diffirentiate personal property from pivate property. Property, according to him is freedom, when it is achieved only by labour. Then Marx defined private property that is what critisized Proudhon and personal property that is freedom according to Proudhon.

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah, no I understand that, but Tucker's talking about a stateless society, so private property wouldn't exist.
Also, that's just a stupid tendency label that I pegged on years ago round the time when I joined this site. If I were to call myself something it'd be Anarchist, I'm not really a Marxist in any meaningful way.



Hah! That made me laugh :grin:



.........:rolleyes:
So you support a group of previously working class people taking up positions in the state to make a massive grab of as much private industry as possible, where they will then sit and make a plan, devising how to use it all and in general which direction the country shall go? Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like nationalization.

Yeah nationalizing is when a bourgeois state takes over industry and claims to plan it. What do you think should be done though, if not taking the means of production?

[Post-Something]

Sorry, but that's not ancom... I was reading Kropotkin, and he stressed that under communism, individiality and people's "wants" are actually above the "common good", and THEY determine society's blueprint, once everyone has shelter and food.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand, could you unpack that a bit? When I read The Conquest of Bread, the idea that I picked up was that the means of production would be under public ownership. Anyone who wanted to make something would go and either work quickly, or get somebody else to make it for them. Is that the system you're talking about?


Most individualist anarchists are opposed to commodification of labour, and they're against a market for labour like you said. They oppose the wage system. Tucker, however, is a point outside the curve. He thought that wages are "voluntary exchange".

What's wrong with a labour market if labour is paid according to its full worth? Isn't that the central dispute? Why wouldn't it be likely to arise? I want to get a job done, need to upgrade my car, need to get a new roof, I'm gonna look on the "market" to see who's offering their services and then I'll remunerate them in an agreed way, why is that crazy? Should the person who does car upgrades just do a bunch of them regardless of who he's dealing with?
Also, "against" - remember we're dealing with fucking ANARCHY here. There's not going to be a state, there will be places with private property, places without; places with gift economies, places with labour markets. Maybe I don't know exactly what you mean by wage system or commodification of labour??
But one things for sure, a gift economy, where people can take whatever they need, that's not fair.


Also Tucker misunderstood anarcho-communism, which should be free and voluntary.

Well, here's what I don't understand. Why are you asking a question (I mean the original question in this thread) that is essentially "would people be allowed to do this in anarcho-communism?"

This is another reason I'm skeptical of Anarchist Communism "oh yes of course, no state, it's all the commune now, everything is decided by the collective". How are you going to ensure that this collective isn't going to become the state? It sounds like it's making a lot of calls on what you can and can't do with property.


One last thing, perfect competition under free market is a utopian theory, Sea already said something about monopolies above.

Look, I've already cleared this up. I'm against the state, how can you possibly have a monopoly when there isn't state protection of private property??


Yeah nationalizing is when a bourgeois state takes over industry and claims to plan it. What do you think should be done though, if not taking the means of production?

Yeah, I don't make that distinction, and I don't think you should either. You end up with tonnes of arguments about what is a proletarian state and what isn't (which is impossible to quantify) according to an outdated class system dreamt up by marxists many years ago. And you still have a state, which is in a class of its own in a lot of ways. Your method has been tried a billion times before and always fails. Like I said, I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about the myriad of ways which command economies suck, as you can easily ask around to see why nobody sees this as a serious option anymore.

How about just not having a state in the first place, it takes away the legal protection afforded to certain classes, and it doesn't give a body any special right to centralize and administer property on behalf of people. People should decide whatever way they think is best to run their organisations on equal terms. Equal terms should give people the right starting point on which to voluntarily offer their labour up, and if you don't like any system, Anarchism always offers you the opportunity to pack up and set up somewhere else. If you're like me, then you think this will probably result in some kind of self-managed economy, which is a far cry from the various marxist attempts that have sprung up around the world.

[argeiphontes]

What's wrong with a labour market if labour is paid according to its full worth? Isn't that the central dispute? Why wouldn't it be likely to arise? I want to get a job done, need to upgrade my car, need to get a new roof, I'm gonna look on the "market" to see who's offering their services and then I'll remunerate them in an agreed way, why is that crazy? Should the person who does car upgrades just do a bunch of them regardless of who he's dealing with?

Nothing. Once the state-granted protection of private property is lifted, private property in the means of production (that which can't be worked by one person) ceases to exist, and so does class exploitation. There's a little cognitive dissonance involved in admitting that, but I don't see why it's not true.

Why be against the self-employed if they're not exploiting wage labor in the capitalistic sense of not paying it the full value produced? I don't see how capitalist exploitation can happen in a mutualist (or market socialist) society. Market =/= capitalism. Capitalism is a social relation enabled by private property in the MoP.

[Ledur]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand, could you unpack that a bit? When I read The Conquest of Bread, the idea that I picked up was that the means of production would be under public ownership. Anyone who wanted to make something would go and either work quickly, or get somebody else to make it for them. Is that the system you're talking about?

Yes, and this doesn't contradict what I've said. I was talking about individuality in a communist society. From my readings, I understood that no one needs to be "slave of the majority needs", thus individuality (freedom to produce or consume) will be sustained. BUT it's a voluntary association, and nothing precludes that a hierarchy of needs is decided by consensus.


What's wrong with a labour market if labour is paid according to its full worth? Isn't that the central dispute? Why wouldn't it be likely to arise? I want to get a job done, need to upgrade my car, need to get a new roof, I'm gonna look on the "market" to see who's offering their services and then I'll remunerate them in an agreed way, why is that crazy? Should the person who does car upgrades just do a bunch of them regardless of who he's dealing with?

I'm not against markets, but in my opinion, markets for labour could generate unequal access.


Also, "against" - remember we're dealing with fucking ANARCHY here. There's not going to be a state, there will be places with private property, places without; places with gift economies, places with labour markets. Maybe I don't know exactly what you mean by wage system or commodification of labour??

These concepts are very disputed here in revleft.... but wage system is a payment from employer to employee, and commodification of labour is transforming a service (labour) into a quantity. I assume, as a communist, that life and work should be one single sphere, thus in a communist society, there should have direct access to goods and services.


But one things for sure, a gift economy, where people can take whatever they need, that's not fair.

In a situation of abundance, yes, it's perfectly ok.


Well, here's what I don't understand. Why are you asking a question (I mean the original question in this thread) that is essentially "would people be allowed to do this in anarcho-communism?"

This is another reason I'm skeptical of Anarchist Communism "oh yes of course, no state, it's all the commune now, everything is decided by the collective". How are you going to ensure that this collective isn't going to become the state? It sounds like it's making a lot of calls on what you can and can't do with property.

Well, I realized, after opening this thread, that a community should be a voluntary association, and those participating should agree in a consensus on some basic aspects and rules, and it doesn't mean there's a state.