Anarcho-Collectivism

[Redhead]

I am very fond of the anarcho-collectvist theory of recieving according to contribution, but i am not much of an anarchist. Are there any similar ideologies which implements this theory?

And if so, can anyone link to some good texts about it (or anarcho-collectivism if they feel like it)

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxism (first phase of communism).
'Participism'.

Anarcho-collectivism, by the way, is just an outdated term for anarcho-communism used around the time of the First International. Anarcho-collectivists of that time also advocated distribution according to needs if or when supply outstripped demand.

[BIXX]

Marxism (first phase of communism).
'Participism'.

Anarcho-collectivism, by the way, is just an outdated term for anarcho-communism used around the time of the First International. Anarcho-collectivists of that time also advocated distribution according to needs if or when supply outstripped demand.
Idk Kropotkin considered the two groups to be different.

[Rafiq]

There's nothing necessarily unique about it (like revolutionary social democracy) if it is separated from its historic context. It refers specificially to bakunins camp.

[tuwix]

Idk Kropotkin considered the two groups to be different.

Indeed. Kropotkin has created anarcho-communism that is very different from anarcho-colectivism. In Bakunin's anarcho-ceollevtivism there are money but in Korpotkin's anarcho-communism there is no money.

[Tim Cornelis]

Idk Kropotkin considered the two groups to be different.

Some believe there is a difference between these supposed ideologies in that anarcho-collectivists advocate labour vouchers while anarcho-communists do not, but this isn't true. Anarcho-communists, like the writers of 'the Platform', argued "The main focus in the construction of the anarchist society does not consist of guaranteeing every individual, right from day one of the revolution, boundless freedom to seek satisfaction of their needs, but in the conquest of the social basis for that society and in establishing the principles of relations between people. The question of the greater or lesser abundance of resources is not a matter of principle but a technical issue."

And similarly, 'anarcho-collectivists' like James Guillaume (whom expanded on Bakunin's ideas) wrote "The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor ... The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers."

'Anarcho-collectivists' thus believed that distribution according to needs will at some point (in the near future, shortly after the revolution) exist in their envisioned society while anarcho-communists argue that in the very first phases of the revolution distribution according to needs will likely not exist, and that whether distribution according to needs exists is dependent on technical production capacity. So there is no actual difference between these supposed ideologies. It would be very weird to argue they are two different ideologies purely on the basis of emphasis in remuneration, a little more emphasis on distribution according to contribution or a little more emphasis on distribution according to needs and you immediately have two distinct camps or branches -- seems unnecessary. Saying collectivist anarchism is not anarcho-communism also suggests that the less advanced or first phase of communism is not communism.

[BIXX]

Some believe there is a difference between these supposed ideologies in that anarcho-collectivists advocate labour vouchers while anarcho-communists do not, but this isn't true. Anarcho-communists, like the writers of 'the Platform', argued "The main focus in the construction of the anarchist society does not consist of guaranteeing every individual, right from day one of the revolution, boundless freedom to seek satisfaction of their needs, but in the conquest of the social basis for that society and in establishing the principles of relations between people. The question of the greater or lesser abundance of resources is not a matter of principle but a technical issue."

And similarly, 'anarcho-collectivists' like James Guillaume (whom expanded on Bakunin's ideas) wrote "The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor ... The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers."

'Anarcho-collectivists' thus believed that distribution according to needs will at some point (in the near future, shortly after the revolution) exist in their envisioned society while anarcho-communists argue that in the very first phases of the revolution distribution according to needs will likely not exist, and that whether distribution according to needs exists is dependent on technical production capacity. So there is no actual difference between these supposed ideologies. It would be very weird to argue they are two different ideologies purely on the basis of emphasis in remuneration, a little more emphasis on distribution according to contribution or a little more emphasis on distribution according to needs and you immediately have two distinct camps or branches -- seems unnecessary. Saying collectivist anarchism is not anarcho-communism also suggests that the less advanced or first phase of communism is not communism.
I mean it honestly isn't really a debate I'm interested in but I just thought maybe a response to kropotkin's thoughts on them might be interesting

[tuwix]

Saying collectivist anarchism is not anarcho-communism also suggests that the less advanced or first phase of communism is not communism.

Because it is not for many anarchists and many other radical left-wingers. To be honest only orthodox Marxists insist that socialism and communism are the same. While even Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. tend recognize that socialism and communism are slightly different systems. Maybe Marx has made some errors too? There is no unequivocable person, never was and never will...

[ckaihatsu]

'[A]narcho-collectivists' thus believed that distribution according to needs will at some point (in the near future, shortly after the revolution) exist in their envisioned society while anarcho-communists argue that in the very first phases of the revolution distribution according to needs will likely not exist, and that whether distribution according to needs exists is dependent on technical production capacity. So there is no actual difference between these supposed ideologies.




It would be very weird to argue they are two different ideologies purely on the basis of emphasis in remuneration, a little more emphasis on distribution according to contribution or a little more emphasis on distribution according to needs and you immediately have two distinct camps or branches -- seems unnecessary.


I appreciate the attempt to bridge-over any apparent sectarianism -- 'contribution' vs. 'needs' -- but I think this is more a matter of revolutionary *theory* in general, rather than a matter of 'camps'.

My own position is that a post-capitalist distribution 'according to contribution' is just too similar to the commodification of labor, and thus commodity-production, to be viable.

'According to needs' allows us to keep the sphere of liberated-production *separate* from that of consumption (and also from ratios of productivity), so that liberated labor is in no way being measured, as for purposes of rewards-by-labor.

I'll remind that communism is *supposed* to be 'free access' and 'direct distribution' -- anything 'according to contribution' would directly contradict those axioms, *and* require a state-like layer of regulation over material quantities.

[ckaihatsu]

[S]o that liberated labor is in no way being measured


Quick clarification:

Hypothetically, liberated labor would *never* have to be measured, because in the best-case scenario everything would be produced as a 'gift economy', with all work effort being voluntarily and freely given, for production for the common good, *and* it would be sufficient for everyone's needs.

But if *any* of these factors, for *any* given good or service could *not* be guaranteed, then it would *not* be a gift economy (for those particular items). Society would have a common interest, of some extent, in providing some kind of social incentive for those who would do the distasteful but socially-necessary labor that others would not readily do.

Since all liberated-production would be for the sake of eliminating scarcity, the only component remaining that *could* be conceivably scarce in such a society would be (liberated) labor itself.

I developed a model that enables communism's 'free access' and 'direct distribution' while providing social incentives for any work efforts at distasteful tasks -- the reward would be the empowerment to select and activate available and willing liberated labor, in proportion to one's own actual performed labor:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

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