Non-Communist Anarchists, How do you identify?

[argeiphontes]

I'm curious about how the non-communist anarchists here identify.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm curious about how the non-communist anarchists here identify.

Define 'non-Communist.'

[argeiphontes]

Anything other than supporting full communism a la Kropotkin. Basically, I guess, if anyone falls on that poll.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Anything other than supporting full communism a la Kropotkin. Basically, I guess, if anyone falls on that poll.

I mean I could easily be called a Communist given that I do like and support the works of Kropotkin however my main influence is Bakunin and I could also be called a Collectivist. I could also be called an 'individualist' in the sense that I like Stirner to a degree and my advocacy of Illegalist and insurrectionary tactics or praxis which some might construe (inaccurately) that this is individualist in nature. I could be lumped in with primitivism (inaccurately) due to my endorsement of some aspects of anti-civ thought. Or conspiracist given my spreading and belief in alternative theories. I also could be called a Behaviorist in that one of my core influences is (and the method of analysis I primarily use) B F Skinner (like Bakunin) and is where I draw a lot of my ideas from. So, not sound pretentious but idk what you mean exactly. There's a lot overlap, you understand.

[Skyhilist]

Many of these aren't anarchist. All the right wing ancap/libertarian things on the list for example. Also, other things aren't non-communist necessarily like green anarchism and anarcho-collectivism. As a matter of fact, I think that there are only 2 or 3 of these options that could actually be considered anarchist without ever being considered communist (mutualism, possibly primitivists unless the primitivists in question want to go back to primitive communism, and possibly individualists unless such individualists are pro-capitalist).

[argeiphontes]

Nice, "Quote" isn't working. Anyway...



There's a lot overlap, you understand.


Well, I enabled the multiple-response thing. Just curious as to what people ID as, including those who are restricted to OI. I know that a left-rothbardian was here a while ago, and until then I'd never seen one in the wild. You could vote for anything/everything you like.



Many of these aren't anarchist.


I think all of them would consider themselves anarchist or left-libertarian though. I don't think agorists are left-libertarians, but IIRC they do so I put them up for kicks and giggles. Some people in OI might be agorists, who knows?

Were would you draw the line?

edit: I did miss at least two obvious ones, though: syndicalism and christian/religious anarchism.

[Skyhilist]

If they believe in hierarchical business then they aren't anarchists because anarchists are against all hierarchy, and therefore must be against hierarchy in the workplace. Anyone who doesn't meet that criteria isn't an anarchist even if they think they are.

[argeiphontes]

Well, personally I would draw the line at Tucker and Spooner, I suppose.

[NGNM85]

`Libertarian Socialist', or, simply; `Anarchist', please.

Chomsssssssky is right, however, so-called ; `Anarcho-primitivists', and; `Anarco-capitalists', etc., aren't really Anarchists.

[argeiphontes]

It's too late to edit the list now, I should have put in general options. Think of this as swatting a net through some bushes and seeing what insects you catch.

I get the ancaps, I don't think anybody to the right of Spooner or Tucker is an anarchist either, but why not primitivists? They don't support any hierarchy, do they?

edit: Actually, you're right, they're not really Anarchists since they don't really fit into the tradition at all. They just hate society and want to be "rewilded" or something.

[tuwix]

I'm curious about how the non-communist anarchists here identify.

Do you find minarchism as anarchism? As far as I heard about it's ideology that loves private property and only want a state to cost as low as possible.

[argeiphontes]

^Not me personally, I don't. They might, I don't really know what minarchism is, I just copied a list :)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

This entire thread is restriction-bait, like one of those interminable "do you support abortion rights?" things that appear from time to time. With the exception of anarcho-collectivism and possibly green anarchism, every one of the options is, as far as I know, considered an OI on RevLeft.

[BIXX]

edit: Actually, you're right, they're not really Anarchists since they don't really fit into the tradition at all. They just hate society and want to be "rewilded" or something.


I disagree. It isn't following the tradition that makes an anarchist, it is their opposition to oppression and hierarchy.

While I can't vote right now, I consider myself an individualist with what I have been referring to as "post-communist" ideas, which are more just a description of how I see communism as opposed to the way leftists see communism.

I have a hard time explaining what I mean by this in a summary, so if you ask specific questions that might be helpful (but also I didn't give you very much to base your questions off of so it's ok if you ask more general questions).

I might technically not be a communist, but I am not quite sure.

Edit to add: some consider me a primitivist, so I voted for that option as primitivists have influenced me. But I mean something else than they do when I say anti-civ.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I disagree. It isn't the tradition that makes an anarchist, it is their opposition to oppression and hierarchy.

While I can't vote right now, I consider myself an individualist with what I have been referring to as "post-communist" ideas, which are more just a description of how I see communism as opposed to the way leftists see communism.

I have a hard time explaining what I mean by this in a summary, so if you ask specific questions that might be helpful (but also I didn't give you very much to base your questions off of so it's ok if you ask more general questions).

I might technically not be a communist, but I am not quite sure.

Well, the questions that immediately come to mind are:

(1) do you support social ownership of the means of production?;
(2) do you support subordination of local entities to the broader society?;
(3) do you support market or barter mechanisms?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, I enabled the multiple-response thing. Just curious as to what people ID as, including those who are restricted to OI. I know that a left-rothbardian was here a while ago, and until then I'd never seen one in the wild. You could vote for anything/everything you like.


Still confused but I like to refer to myself as and identify as pyrate (being serious).

[BIXX]

Well, the questions that immediately come to mind are:

(1) do you support social ownership of the means of production?;

I support the destruction of capital, and furthermore, power as a concept and a reality. I will say that social ownership of capital is far better than capitalist ownership.


(2) do you support subordination of local entities to the broader society?;

I support individuals over anything else. This means that I believe that if a decision were made that would affect an individual negatively they should act against it (in their own interest, not for some moral reason). But at the same time they can expect to be struggled against. Again, more questions in this area may be required.


(3) do you support market or barter mechanisms?


No. I mean, people are likely to trade with one another which I don't have a problem with, but what you implied is that there would be systematic trade, which I am against.

[BIXX]

Still confused but I like to refer to myself as and identify as pyrate (being serious).

Would you mind fleshing this out a bit? I have never heard of this hahaha.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Would you mind fleshing this out a bit? I have never heard of this hahaha.

Piracy is commonly known as theft on the high seas however what is little known is the majority of pirate activities or raids took place on land. The extended definition is theft whether by land, sea or air. I'm big into Illegalism, or what I like to call 'land pirating.' I don't see myself as a "professional revolutionist," or some other camp title, more an 'Enlightened Pyrate' as personified by and in the tradition of Captain Bartholomew Roberts, what him that set down The Code.

[AnaRchic]

As others have mentioned some of these options do not reflect Anarchism at all. Anything advocating the private ownership of productive capital is not anarchist.

However, mutualism and individualist anarchism, though they advocate markets, are anarchist and are anti-capitalist. They are market variants of libertarian socialism. Likewise, primitivism is pretty absurd in so far as they advocate actually abolishing civilization. Nevertheless, they do oppose the state, capitalism, and hierarchy, so they are anarchists, misguided as they may be.

Now the Stirnerite individualist anarchists is a unique case. If any of these radical egoists thinks its cool to oppress or exploit another, he or she is not an anarchist. Anarchists not only refuse to be ruled, we refuse to rule over others. If such an individualist, however, truly does not desire to rule over others, then they are both consistent anarchists and egoists.

I am simultaneously an individualist and a collectivist, seeing in Anarchism the dissolution of the antagonisms between the two. Unlike 'pure' anarcho-communists, I highly doubt we will be able to abolish money right away. Some kind of credit system, or digital money system, will probably have to exist for a while until we reorient the productive forces to the creation of a post-scarcity economy, allowing for free and self-determined consumption.

In this sense I can best be described as a collectivist in the tradition of Bakunin, but I ultimately desire to see the realization of anarcho-communism. The sooner the better.

[argeiphontes]

This entire thread is restriction-bait, like one of those interminable "do you support abortion rights?" things that appear from time to time. With the exception of anarcho-collectivism and possibly green anarchism, every one of the options is, as far as I know, considered an OI on RevLeft.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. This is in OI. So that restricted members can participate. Otherwise I would have put it in Politics or Theory. It would be "bait" in there but not here.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am more kind of a M:blackA:d M:blackA:x post :blackA:pocalyptic type :blackA:nrchist

I don't know which one that is. So I chose other.

[Comrade Jacob]

I put green-anarchism because environmentalism is something I identify with.

[NGNM85]

I disagree. It isn't following the tradition that makes an anarchist, it is their opposition to oppression and hierarchy.

Those are characteristics of Anarchism, but there's a bit more to it. The reasons why; `Anarcho- primitivists' are not Anarchists are, A; Their rejection of technology, and civilization. This is completely at odds with the Anarchist canon. Anarchists have always conceived of a post-revolutionary society as both technologically advanced, and highly organized., and B; The pathological misanthropy that pervades primitivist literature, which is fundamentally antithetical to the spirit of Anarchism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. This is in OI. So that restricted members can participate. Otherwise I would have put it in Politics or Theory. It would be "bait" in there but not here.

No, I mean it's still bait because unrestricted members can say stupid things and get restricted, which is how these things generally go, but why should I care? It's all good fun.

[argeiphontes]

No, I mean it's still bait because unrestricted members can say stupid things and get restricted, which is how these things generally go, but why should I care? It's all good fun.

I don't think people should get a pass just because they're hiding it well. If somebody deserves to be restricted then so be it. The poll itself is anonymous. So if I went and posted about my true love for Agorism, I'd be a real dumbass who deserved it.

[BIXX]

Those are characteristics of Anarchism, but there's a bit more to it. The reasons why; `Anarcho- primitivists' are not Anarchists are, A; Their rejection of technology, and civilization. This is completely at odds with the Anarchist canon. Anarchists have always conceived of a post-revolutionary society as both technologically advanced, and highly organized., and B; The pathological misanthropy that pervades primitivist literature, which is fundamentally antithetical to the spirit of Anarchism.


To the bold: just because anarchists have always wanted this or believed that doesn't mean it was right. Of course, I disagree with primitivists (in a way) about the technology thing, I do agree about the organization.

The difference between me and a primitivist: I think we should take the good from both primitive societies and civilized societies, to make a post-civilized society that is a synthesis of the two. Technology I see as supporting civilization, so I support it's abolition. However, primitivists see a lot more as technology than I do- in fact, I believe, many see everything that we developed due to the rise of civilization as technology, which I disagree with.

To the italics: two things- anarchism doesn't prescribe a position on humanity, but a position on the conditions of humans. So it would be ok IMO if primitivists were really misanthropic (which my next point will address).

I also don't buy the idea that they are misanthropic. They may believe that people must die for their ideal world to come into existence, but they don't believe they should die, and would not want people to all be killed. Furthermore, most of them seem to believe it's a thing that just will happen, whether they nudge it along or not. Of course they believe the better world that will happen afterward, but again, that doesn't mean they want everyone to die.

[BIXX]

As others have mentioned some of these options do not reflect Anarchism at all. Anything advocating the private ownership of productive capital is not anarchist.

However, mutualism and individualist anarchism, though they advocate markets, are anarchist and are anti-capitalist. They are market variants of libertarian socialism. Likewise, primitivism is pretty absurd in so far as they advocate actually abolishing civilization. Nevertheless, they do oppose the state, capitalism, and hierarchy, so they are anarchists, misguided as they may be.

Now the Stirnerite individualist anarchists is a unique case. If any of these radical egoists thinks its cool to oppress or exploit another, he or she is not an anarchist. Anarchists not only refuse to be ruled, we refuse to rule over others. If such an individualist, however, truly does not desire to rule over others, then they are both consistent anarchists and egoists.

I am simultaneously an individualist and a collectivist, seeing in Anarchism the dissolution of the antagonisms between the two. Unlike 'pure' anarcho-communists, I highly doubt we will be able to abolish money right away. Some kind of credit system, or digital money system, will probably have to exist for a while until we reorient the productive forces to the creation of a post-scarcity economy, allowing for free and self-determined consumption.

In this sense I can best be described as a collectivist in the tradition of Bakunin, but I ultimately desire to see the realization of anarcho-communism. The sooner the better.

I just wanted to say that you don't have to support markets as an individualist anarchist.

Also, Individualists who have been influenced by stirner (like myself) don't want to rule anyone else either. Egoism, if properly understood in my opinion, advocates the abolition of all rule, no matter from whence it comes.

[AnaRchic]

The reasons why; `Anarcho- primitivists' are not Anarchists are, A; Their rejection of technology, and civilization. This is completely at odds with the Anarchist canon.

This is true but in no way supports your premise. Anarchism is not a dogma, it is a dynamic and diverse philosophy that has many expressions. Primitivism is in my mind quite an insane idea, but nevertheless some of them are Anarchists, assuming they oppose authoritarian relations. As has been stated most of them believe in a coming "crash" of civilization and don't advocate depopulation or whatever. They basically hope for what's going to happen if social revolution doesn't take off soon.


Also, Individualists who have been influenced by stirner (like myself) don't want to rule anyone else either. Egoism, if properly understood in my opinion, advocates the abolition of all rule, no matter from whence it comes.

I am also influenced by Stirner and I agree with you. Though it should be noted that Stirner does not at all seem to reflect this sentiment, seeming to uphold the "freedom" of the individual to do literally whatever he or she wants, regardless of the effect on anybody else. I would say that if somebody is an egoist in this sense, they are not an anarchist.

[NGNM85]

This is true but in no way supports your premise. Anarchism is not a dogma, it is a dynamic and diverse philosophy that has many expressions. Primitivism is in my mind quite an insane idea, but nevertheless some of them are Anarchists, assuming they oppose authoritarian relations. As has been stated most of them believe in a coming "crash" of civilization and don't advocate depopulation or whatever. They basically hope for what's going to happen if social revolution doesn't take off soon.

It depends how you're using the word; `dogma.' Anarchism absolutely is a belief system, an ideology, with tenets. Being opposed to authoritarianism is, absolutely, a defining characteristic of Anarchism, but it is not the only characteristic.

Actually, plenty of primitivist do celebrate `depopulation', as you say, even a casual perusal will turn up examples,

[BIXX]

This is true but in no way supports your premise. Anarchism is not a dogma, it is a dynamic and diverse philosophy that has many expressions. Primitivism is in my mind quite an insane idea, but nevertheless some of them are Anarchists, assuming they oppose authoritarian relations. As has been stated most of them believe in a coming "crash" of civilization and don't advocate depopulation or whatever. They basically hope for what's going to happen if social revolution doesn't take off soon.



I am also influenced by Stirner and I agree with you. Though it should be noted that Stirner does not at all seem to reflect this sentiment, seeming to uphold the "freedom" of the individual to do literally whatever he or she wants, regardless of the effect on anybody else. I would say that if somebody is an egoist in this sense, they are not an anarchist.


Well, he actually did reflect that- I can't remember the quote, but I think what you are referring to is where he said that all people where there to give him pleasure, and he regarded people as his property or some shit like that. Two things: I believe that is a bad translation, but as I do not know German that is speculation, and secondly, I think it was symbolic of how he interacted with people. I thoroughly believe he took the post-structuralist position (except probably not with that vocabulary) which in turn would make it so he was against oppressing anyone, even if he was using them for his own pleasure, as any oppression would be bad for him.

I believe in total freedom for the individual- however, that doesn't mean I don't believe there will be consequences if you're oppressive or a piece of shit. I would also expect Stirner took this position. (I'll provide quote evidence for my opinions on Stirner if asked but it may take me a while so pretty please don't ask hahaha)

[BIXX]

It depends how you're using the word; `dogma.' Anarchism absolutely is a belief system, an ideology, with tenets. Being opposed to authoritarianism is, absolutely, a defining characteristic of Anarchism, but it is not the only characteristic.



Actually, plenty of primitivist do celebrate `depopulation', as you say, even a casual perusal will turn up examples,


There can be non-ideological anarchism, and the tenet which makes one an anarchist is opposing the rule of one over another. This isn't the only characteristic, but this is the one which all others must be based on.

Some do celebrate depopulation, but they also accept they may be the ones to be depopulated. They believe it is for the greater good of all. Again, I believe they are incorrect (on some things) but I can respect them,

[NGNM85]

To the bold: just because anarchists have always wanted this or believed that doesn't mean it was right.

`What is Anarchism?' is not an ethical question. It is a historical question, that can be definitively answered. Whether the tenets of Anarchism are right, (as I would argue) or not, is immaterial. All thar matters is what Anarchists have thought, which we know, because they, helpfully, wrote it down for us.


To the italics: two things- anarchism doesn't prescribe a position on humanity, but a position on the conditions of humans. So it would be ok IMO if primitivists were really misanthropic (which my next point will address).

Nonsense. The fundamental goal of Anarchism is human liberation. As such, Anarchism, like Marxism (at least, as far as Marx is concerned) is fundamentally humanist. Primitivism is antithetical to humanism, and, therefore, Anarchism.


I also don't buy the idea that they are misanthropic. They may believe that people must die for their ideal world to come into existence, but they don't believe they should die, and would not want people to all be killed. Furthermore, most of them seem to believe it's a thing that just will happen, whether they nudge it along or not. Of course they believe the better world that will happen afterward, but again, that doesn't mean they want everyone to die.

As I was saying, many of them do.

For a more thorough criticism of primitivism from an Anarchist perspective, I highly recommend the following article, from LibCom;

https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think a good (and neutral) definition of Anarchism (which synchs nicely with its etymology) is just simply a leaderless, non-hierarchal form of social organization. Can we just use this and move on from there? Kthnx.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nonsense. The fundamental goal of Anarchism is human liberation. As such, Anarchism, like Marxism (at least, as far as Marx is concerned) is fundamentally humanist. Primitivism is antithetical to humanism, and, therefore, Anarchism.

I take issue with this as I believe Anarchism is about the liberation of all livings beings from human stupidity and social psychopathy. While yes, the liberation of the species is obvious in the same respect, I feel equally so, is the liberation of all non-human animals. The implications of your post, idk, I don't dig it.

[Ele'ill]

I'm influenced by individualist, insurrectionist, post-left, post-civ, nihilism, I don't think I can say 'i'm not a communist'. I would say I am generally pretty upset with or exhausted-with-disappointment at 'the broader socialist tradition'.

[Ele'ill]

Nonsense. The fundamental goal of Anarchism is human liberation.

If the reasons why matter at all which they will have to, unless it's a scene that will shortly crumble to ashes after a revolution or get completely crushed far before one, liberation will extend to all sentient creatures. Human liberation also depends greatly on the biosphere which is being heavily destroyed possibly forever by current industry.

[BIXX]

I think a good (and neutral) definition of Anarchism (which synchs nicely with its etymology) is just simply a leaderless, non-hierarchal form of social organization. Can we just use this and move on from there? Kthnx.

Hahaha apparently we can't.


`What is Anarchism?' is not an ethical question. It is a historical question, that can be definitively answered. Whether the tenets of Anarchism are right, (as I would argue) or not, is immaterial. All thar matters is what Anarchists have thought, which we know, because they, helpfully, wrote it down for us.

I never said it was an ethical question. And again, just because an anarchist in the past has thought it doesn't mean it's the only interpretation of anarchism, or that it is a correct interpretation of anarchism.

This means that breaking with traction (as long as it is consistent with wanting to end the rule of one over another) doesn't make you not an anarchist.


Nonsense. The fundamental goal of Anarchism is human liberation. As such, Anarchism, like Marxism (at least, as far as Marx is concerned) is fundamentally humanist. Primitivism is antithetical to humanism, and, therefore, Anarchism.

See, I am not a humanist. I am an individualist. I support liberation for myself. Wanting human liberation doesn't necessarily mean it's humanist.

Plus, as others have said, I want more than human liberation. I think liberation for all is important.


As I was saying, many of them do.

Some do, but the vast majority don't. Of course, the ones that do want that want it simply for the abolition of oppression and hierarchy. Of course I think they are misguided.


For a more thorough criticism of primitivism from an Anarchist perspective, I highly recommend the following article, from LibCom;

https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism

I will check that out.

[PhoenixAsh]

Anarchism the the abolition of all social hierarchical structures and advocates free association. As such...most of the tendencies named are not anarchist. They either believe in markets or in capitalist structures. Neither of which are non hierarchical or free association no matter how you try to twist the square into the round hole.

Anarcho-primitivism is about structured genocide as admitted by many of its advocates. In order for a sustainable population to be reached millions must die. This is an enforced concept. Which can only be reached through force and authority...it takes a lot of force to have people starve to death that have alternatives. And therefore it is not anarchist.

[BIXX]

Anarcho-primitivism is about structured genocide as admitted by many of its advocates. In order for a sustainable population to be reached millions must die. This is an enforced concept. Which can only be reached through force and authority...it takes a lot of force to have people starve to death that have alternatives. And therefore it is not anarchist.


I don't believe any say they will enforce the starvation, rather, they say that civilization will collapse and people will die because of that. It doesn't mean they will oversee or enforce that. They may help that process along (by attacking civilization), but the would not actively starve folks.

They never say it is a structured genocide. In fact it would be an un-structured near-extinction event, overseen by no one. Primitivists tend to believe this is inevitable. Whether they embrace it or not is up to the individual.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't believe any say they will enforce the starvation, rather, they say that civilization will collapse and people will die because of that. It doesn't mean they will oversee or enforce that. They may help that process along (by attacking civilization), but the would not actively starve folks.

They never say it is a structured genocide. In fact it would be an un-structured near-extinction event, overseen by no one. Primitivists tend to believe this is inevitable. Whether they embrace it or not is up to the individual.

No they never say...although some of them admit it. Unfortunately that is the direct implication and many advocate it if you read their publications. Not directly mind you. But indirectly through their methods.

Don't forget...primitivism is a revolutionary ideology. They do not believe in reforming but in a revolution. Which means in the doctrine of primitivism a revolution to abolish civilization...and that is the near-extinction event for about 80% of the world population.

[BIXX]

Don't forget...primitivism is a revolutionary ideology. They do not believe in reforming but in a revolution. Which means in the doctrine of primitivism a revolution to abolish civilization...and that is the near-extinction event for about 80% of the world population.


I'm think you haven't met many primitivists or read much of their material. They don't wish for an "active revolution" as you are implying, where they would actively try to starve folks.

[argeiphontes]

Couldn't they just preach abstinence? People are going to just die naturally anyway.

[BIXX]

Couldn't they just preach abstinence? People are going to just die naturally anyway.


I think they wanna have sex just as much as the rest of us hahah (unless of course you don't wanna have sex).

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm think you haven't met many primitivists or read much of their material. They don't wish for an "active revolution" as you are implying, where they would actively try to starve folks.

I unfortunately met a lot of them. The fun fact of the it is that this is the direct implication of returning to hunting gatherer communities.

You can't reduce the population to a size which is sustainable without force and structural repression.

Tell me...how would you reduce the worlds population from 7 billion to 500 million....because that is about the size of the world population sustainable without agriculture.

[liberlict]

I'm kind of a 'center-libertarian'. Something close to anarcho-syndicalism, with firms/companies/factories/whatever being non-hierarchical. In other words, I think the people who work in a factory should own it. The only reason these type of arrangements couldn't work now is because they typically can't compete on the market with hierarchical arrangements. I don't see this as an insoluble problem though. I'm not particularly optimistic about this ever eventuating, but if I could design my utopia, this would be it.

[BIXX]

I unfortunately met a lot of them. The fun fact of the it is that this is the direct implication of returning to hunting gatherer communities.



You can't reduce the population to a size which is sustainable without force and structural repression.



Tell me...how would you reduce the worlds population from 7 billion to 500 million....because that is about the size of the world population sustainable without agriculture.


It appears you haven't read my posts, and I still doubt you've met any.

It isn't an active revolution, rather, they conceive of it as an inevitable event.

[argeiphontes]

I'm kind of a 'center-libertarian'. Something close to anarcho-syndicalism, with firms/companies/factories/whatever being non-hierarchical. In other words, I think the people who work in a factory should own it. The only reason these type of arrangements couldn't work now is because they typically can't compete on the market with hierarchical arrangements. I don't see this as an insoluble problem though. I'm not particularly optimistic about this ever eventuating, but if I could design my utopia, this would be it.

This is my utopia as well: mutualism or market socialism. If you have time, Schweickart's After Capitalism is a good read, and you can skip parts of the critique of capitalism if you're already familiar with it. The system he envisions is more centralized than mutualism but I think the two are economically similar and could be natural allies.

These businesses can be more competitive than capitalist counterparts. From Schweickart's book:

Empirical support for increased worker participation:

* HEW Study, 1973. "In no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in long-term decline in productivity." (U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Work in America." MIT Press, 1973.)

* Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar, 1982. "There is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a wide variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods." (Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar, eds. "Participatory and Self-Managed Firms: Evaluating Economic Performance." Lexington Books, 1982.)

* Alan Blinder, 1990. Participation most conducive to productivity when combined with profit sharing, guaranteed long-range employment, relatively narrow wage differentials, and guaranteed worker rights. Precisely the conditions of ED. (Alan Blinder, ed. "Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence." Brookings, 1990.)

Superiority of cooperative enterprises:

* Katrina Berman, "A Cooperative Model for Worker Management" in "The Performance of Labour-Managed Firms." Frank Stephens, ed. St. Martin's Press, 1982. She states: "The major basis for co-operative success, and the survival of capitalistically unprofitable plants, has been superior labor productivity. ...higher physical volume of output per hour... higher quality of product and also economy of material use." (About the plywood cooperatives in the PacNW.)

* Hendrick Thomas, "The Performance of the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain" in "Participatory and Self-Managed Firms." Jones and Svejnar, ed. 1982. Concludes: "Productivity and profitability are higher for cooperatives than for capitalist firms. It makes little difference whether the Mondragon group is compared with the largest 500 companies, or with small- or medium-scale industries; in both comparisons the Mondragon group is more productive and profitable."

I'm not an economist so that's all the empirical info I have, but I don't think it's fair to say that they are outcompeted. With the proper support or effort, I think in time they could replace capitalist firms. No blood'n'guts revolution needed.

You might want to check out Richard D. Wolff (http://www.rdwolff.com/) and Gar Alperovitz (http://www.garalperovitz.com/).

[liberlict]

This is my utopia as well: mutualism or market socialism. If you have time, Schweickart's After Capitalism is a good read, and you can skip parts of the critique of capitalism if you're already familiar with it. The system he envisions is more centralized than mutualism but I think the two are economically similar and could be natural allies.

These businesses can be more competitive than capitalist counterparts. From Schweickart's book:

Empirical support for increased worker participation:

* HEW Study, 1973. "In no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in long-term decline in productivity." (U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Work in America." MIT Press, 1973.)

* Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar, 1982. "There is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a wide variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods." (Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar, eds. "Participatory and Self-Managed Firms: Evaluating Economic Performance." Lexington Books, 1982.)

* Alan Blinder, 1990. Participation most conducive to productivity when combined with profit sharing, guaranteed long-range employment, relatively narrow wage differentials, and guaranteed worker rights. Precisely the conditions of ED. (Alan Blinder, ed. "Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence." Brookings, 1990.)

Superiority of cooperative enterprises:

* Katrina Berman, "A Cooperative Model for Worker Management" in "The Performance of Labour-Managed Firms." Frank Stephens, ed. St. Martin's Press, 1982. She states: "The major basis for co-operative success, and the survival of capitalistically unprofitable plants, has been superior labor productivity. ...higher physical volume of output per hour... higher quality of product and also economy of material use." (About the plywood cooperatives in the PacNW.)

* Hendrick Thomas, "The Performance of the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain" in "Participatory and Self-Managed Firms." Jones and Svejnar, ed. 1982. Concludes: "Productivity and profitability are higher for cooperatives than for capitalist firms. It makes little difference whether the Mondragon group is compared with the largest 500 companies, or with small- or medium-scale industries; in both comparisons the Mondragon group is more productive and profitable."

I'm not an economist so that's all the empirical info I have, but I don't think it's fair to say that they are outcompeted. With the proper support or effort, I think in time they could replace capitalist firms. No blood'n'guts revolution needed.

You might want to check out Richard D. Wolff (http://www.rdwolff.com/) and Gar Alperovitz (http://www.garalperovitz.com/).

It's not so important to me that workers are always involved in every decision. I view management as just another role in a project. Person x might be better at overseeing project management than person y, who drives forklifts. That's fine. What important to me is that they earn the same wage and have an equal stake in profit.

As for whether worker syndicates could be as productive or even 'superior' to hierarchical ones I kind of doubt this (though I'll check out those links), simply because capitalist are so dedicated to squeezing every last bit of juice out of their investments. But if it is true, then unions and socialists should pool some resources and inject communes in the market. Image that, socialists acting like socialists! (I'm a fan of Mondragon).

The thing is, we can afford to sacrifice some productivity if it means that things are more equally distributed. Say we only produce 70% of what we do right now, but that 70% goes to more places. It would be a much better world.

I don't like Wolff .. I've listened to some of his podcasts and he gives me the shits for some reason. I don't like his voice. He also hugs Marx's nuts too much.

[argeiphontes]

But if it is true, then unions and socialists should pool some resources and inject communes in the market. Image that, socialists acting like socialists! (I'm a fan of Mondragon).


No way, best thing to do is leaflet to build class consciousness for the upcoming world-wide revolution. You don't want to be tainted by the miasma of practical action. ;)

The only thing I've really heard along those lines is an initiative by United Steelworkers to work with Mondragon in the U.S. to build "Union Coops", which sounds like a contradiction in terms, since then the union represents owners. Anyway, the USW site has some kind of error on it, but there's an article about it here: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/how-cooperatives-are-driving-the-new-economy/union-co-ops



The thing is, we can afford to sacrifice some productivity if it means that things are more equally distributed. Say we only produce 70% of what we do right now, but that 70% goes to more places. It would be a much better world.
Yeah, definitely.

I also tend to agree that management is just another function; there is nothing wrong with somebody specializing in that role. Somebody has to coordinate things or be a project facilitator. I just think it should be up to democratic control as to how flat the org is. It would be against my principles to legislate things like that--the people who are affected by a decision should make it, not outsiders or "the community."



I don't like Wolff .. I've listened to some of his podcasts and he gives me the shits for some reason. I don't like his voice. He also hugs Marx's nuts too much.LOL fair enough.

[NGNM85]

I think a good (and neutral) definition of Anarchism (which synchs nicely with its etymology) is just simply a leaderless, non-hierarchal form of social organization. Can we just use this and move on from there? Kthnx.

No, because that's insufficient. In the simplest possible terms, Anarchism boils down to an opposition to oppression, which is rooted in a secular humanist ethic, and socialism; workers ownership, and control of the means of production. This is why `anarcho-primitivism' cannot legitimately be called; `Anarchism', because it lacks this humanist foundation, in fact, it is anti- humanist, and it isn't really socialist, either, as it is not opposed to the capitalist mode of production, but, rather, production, of any kind.


I take issue with this as I believe Anarchism is about the liberation of all livings beings from human stupidity and social psychopathy. While yes, the liberation of the species is obvious in the same respect, I feel equally so, is the liberation of all non-human animals. The implications of your post, idk, I don't dig it.

That's absolutely preposterous, for a number of reasons, however, more importantly, it's completely beside the point. The question of what Anarchism is, is not a philosophical question, but a matter of empirical fact. The fact is that this neo-luddite nonsense is fundamentally at odds with the corpus of Anarchist thought, and, therefore antithetical to Anarchism.

[BIXX]

No, because that's insufficient. In the simplest possible terms, Anarchism boils down to an opposition to oppression, which is rooted in a secular humanist ethic, and socialism; workers ownership, and control of the means of production. This is why `anarcho-primitivism' cannot legitimately be called; `Anarchism', because it lacks this humanist foundation, in fact, it is anti- humanist, and it isn't really socialist, either, as it is not opposed to the capitalist mode of production, but, rather, production, of any kind.

I think you're pulling that out of your ass. My anarchism isn't rooted in ethic, but in what I desire for myself. Not ethical, not humanist, but based in and around want for me. That is why I oppose oppression. Opposition of oppression can come from things other than humanism.


That's absolutely preposterous, for a number of reasons, however, more importantly, it's completely beside the point. The question of what Anarchism is, is not a philosophical question, but a matter of empirical fact. The fact is that this neo-luddite nonsense is fundamentally at odds with the corpus of Anarchist thought, and, therefore antithetical to Anarchism.


There is no question of what anarchism is- it is the opposition to oppression. Where you take that is not limited by what the "great" anarchist thinkers of the past have thought. As I have said before- the tradition isn't what makes one an anarchist. It is their opposition to oppression (theoretically and practically). What they do to achieve that or how they think it should be achieved can be correct or incorrect (example: imposing a hierarchy is incompatible with anarchism) but that doesn't make it so any anarchist who breaks from the tradition is not an actual anarchist.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you're pulling that out of your ass. My anarchism isn't rooted in ethic, but in what I desire for myself. Not ethical, not humanist, but based in and around want for me. That is why I oppose oppression. Opposition of oppression can come from things other than humanism.

Why be an anarchist then? You can fight oppression against yourself without being an anarchist?


There is no question of what anarchism is- it is the opposition to oppression.

Since when?


Where you take that is not limited by what the "great" anarchist thinkers of the past have thought. As I have said before- the tradition isn't what makes one an anarchist.

What utter nonsense. You're basically trying to lay claim to a set of ideas by rejecting the foundations of the idea because you don't like what the foundation is. Why do you think you have any justification to just take hold of a term and use it for your own individual beliefs? Do you just like the way the word sounds?

Your dismissive attitude towards people that theorised anarchism seems unusual, since without them you wouldn't be one, irrespective of how much you'd like to disassociate yourself from them.


It is their opposition to oppression (theoretically and practically). What they do to achieve that or how they think it should be achieved can be correct or incorrect (example: imposing a hierarchy is incompatible with anarchism) but that doesn't make it so any anarchist who breaks from the tradition is not an actual anarchist.

If you're so adamant that the tradition of anarchism is irrelevant to being an anarchist, how do you even know what anarchism is? How do you even know that you're an anarchist? How do you know that anarchism is "opposition to oppression"?

[BIXX]

Why be an anarchist then? You can fight oppression against yourself without being an anarchist?

I believe that being an anarchist is the best way to fight the oppression I feel as well as the limitations I feel due to the oppression of others. Anarchism makes sense, as an individualist, to liberate myself.


Since when?

Well color me surprised if anarchism is not the opposition to hierarchy and oppression. Of course other bits can be added on to it (as long as they don't contradict it), but that is what unites every strain of anarchist.


What utter nonsense. You're basically trying to lay claim to a set of ideas by rejecting the foundations of the idea because you don't like what the foundation is. Why do you think you have any justification to just take hold of a term and use it for your own individual beliefs? Do you just like the way the word sounds?

No, I am not trying to reject the foundations of the idea, as the foundation is an opposition to oppression. I developed it in my own way, that had been influenced by Kropotkin and Bakunin, among other thinkers, but I have made it my own thing.

Also, it's not that I dislike the humanism shit so I'm rejecting it, it's that humanism is not part of my anarchism, as it isn't the basis for my anarchism.


Your dismissive attitude towards people that theorised anarchism seems unusual, since without them you wouldn't be one, irrespective of how much you'd like to disassociate yourself from them.

I could be an anarchist without Kropotkin or Bakunin. Certainly they have influenced me, but I never needed them to be an anarchist. What made me an anarchist was experiences I had, not a book or piece of writing.

Also just cause I reject parts of what they said doesn't mean I reject them as a whole.


If you're so adamant that the tradition of anarchism is irrelevant to being an anarchist, how do you even know what anarchism is? How do you even know that you're an anarchist? How do you know that anarchism is "opposition to oppression"?


Well etymology doesn't hurt. But really it wouldn't matter if I was an anarchist or not- I oppose oppression, and that's that. If I'm not an anarchist, so be it. If I'm not, then (from my perspective) I'm something better, but I am an anarchist (as I oppose rulers). I fail to see where the problem arises.

[WilliamGreen]

Lol when I heard the term anarcho-capitalism at first I laughed for a good 5 minutes straight at the pub with the mates.:laugh:

[hatzel]

Lol when I heard the term anarcho-capitalism at first I laughed for a good 5 minutes straight at the pub with the mates.:laugh:

Easily amused...

[WilliamGreen]

haha yep easy ideologies do that to me,

i like them cheap and worthless lol