Anarcho-socialism/communism?

[Vincent]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

[Vincent]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

[Vincent]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

[Rasta Sapian]

they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

[Rasta Sapian]

they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

[Rasta Sapian]

they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

[Vincent]

sociological ideas?! really?! shock! horror!

i highly doubt they have been implmented, unless you mean they have been implemented in theory ie. someone has come up with a properly thought out piece of writing that brings the two together. if so, who and where can i read on it?

do not direct me to anything to do with utopian socialism... please.

[Vincent]

sociological ideas?! really?! shock! horror!

i highly doubt they have been implmented, unless you mean they have been implemented in theory ie. someone has come up with a properly thought out piece of writing that brings the two together. if so, who and where can i read on it?

do not direct me to anything to do with utopian socialism... please.

[Vincent]

sociological ideas?! really?! shock! horror!

i highly doubt they have been implmented, unless you mean they have been implemented in theory ie. someone has come up with a properly thought out piece of writing that brings the two together. if so, who and where can i read on it?

do not direct me to anything to do with utopian socialism... please.

[socialistfuture]

anything is valid and possible,
anacho communism, libertarian socialism, anti state communism --

is what you are looking for - have a search on google.

[socialistfuture]

anything is valid and possible,
anacho communism, libertarian socialism, anti state communism --

is what you are looking for - have a search on google.

[socialistfuture]

anything is valid and possible,
anacho communism, libertarian socialism, anti state communism --

is what you are looking for - have a search on google.

[Guest1]

Yeah, Anarcho-Communism is an established theory and all forms of Anarchism are socialist in some way.

Look up Malatesta.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, while not exclusively Communist, is another Anarchist ideology that I find interesting, because of its strong union ties.

[Guest1]

Yeah, Anarcho-Communism is an established theory and all forms of Anarchism are socialist in some way.

Look up Malatesta.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, while not exclusively Communist, is another Anarchist ideology that I find interesting, because of its strong union ties.

[Guest1]

Yeah, Anarcho-Communism is an established theory and all forms of Anarchism are socialist in some way.

Look up Malatesta.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, while not exclusively Communist, is another Anarchist ideology that I find interesting, because of its strong union ties.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html)

Some other sites (http://s7.invisionfree.com/The_Ideal/index.php?showtopic=8)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html)

Some other sites (http://s7.invisionfree.com/The_Ideal/index.php?showtopic=8)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html)

Some other sites (http://s7.invisionfree.com/The_Ideal/index.php?showtopic=8)

[Essential Insignificance]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

In a narrower (modern) meaning anarchism is a political theory of society without state rule. In a broader ("ancient") meaning, it's a theory of society without coercive in any area -- government, business, industry, commerce, education and family.

Yet, the modern anarchist advocates (at most times) the necessity of industry, education and family.

Communism "endorses" the exact same; the error of meaning betwixt anarchism and communism, stems from the notion that because of the differing "name-tag", there must be a fundamental difference involving the two ideologies.

A communist's and anarchist's aims are one in the same -- the abolition of class society, with the "introduction" of a classless society.

However, the means to getting to a classless society differ -- slightly.


a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

Don't ever say that again!


they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

Their ends are one in the same, but thier means -- are dissimilar.

From what I understand, he's talking about a communist/anarchist society.

[Essential Insignificance]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

In a narrower (modern) meaning anarchism is a political theory of society without state rule. In a broader ("ancient") meaning, it's a theory of society without coercive in any area -- government, business, industry, commerce, education and family.

Yet, the modern anarchist advocates (at most times) the necessity of industry, education and family.

Communism "endorses" the exact same; the error of meaning betwixt anarchism and communism, stems from the notion that because of the differing "name-tag", there must be a fundamental difference involving the two ideologies.

A communist's and anarchist's aims are one in the same -- the abolition of class society, with the "introduction" of a classless society.

However, the means to getting to a classless society differ -- slightly.


a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

Don't ever say that again!


they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

Their ends are one in the same, but thier means -- are dissimilar.

From what I understand, he's talking about a communist/anarchist society.

[Essential Insignificance]

is some form of anarchy mixed with communism possible, or even valid?

In a narrower (modern) meaning anarchism is a political theory of society without state rule. In a broader ("ancient") meaning, it's a theory of society without coercive in any area -- government, business, industry, commerce, education and family.

Yet, the modern anarchist advocates (at most times) the necessity of industry, education and family.

Communism "endorses" the exact same; the error of meaning betwixt anarchism and communism, stems from the notion that because of the differing "name-tag", there must be a fundamental difference involving the two ideologies.

A communist's and anarchist's aims are one in the same -- the abolition of class society, with the "introduction" of a classless society.

However, the means to getting to a classless society differ -- slightly.


a communist society void of authority, id be in heaven...

Don't ever say that again!


they are sociological ideas which can and have already been implemented. They can co-exist together in certain constains however they can never be the same thing because they are different ideas.

Their ends are one in the same, but thier means -- are dissimilar.

From what I understand, he's talking about a communist/anarchist society.

[Vincent]

yeah i'm talking about anarchy in the political sense and communism in the economic sense... i guess anarchy with a gift economy or whatever you like to call it.

[Vincent]

yeah i'm talking about anarchy in the political sense and communism in the economic sense... i guess anarchy with a gift economy or whatever you like to call it.

[Vincent]

yeah i'm talking about anarchy in the political sense and communism in the economic sense... i guess anarchy with a gift economy or whatever you like to call it.

[GoaRedStar]

anarchism and communism is the same thing

Both are stateless

[GoaRedStar]

anarchism and communism is the same thing

Both are stateless

[GoaRedStar]

anarchism and communism is the same thing

Both are stateless

[Essential Insignificance]

I don't know if you have checked this thread out, but it may be of some service to your enquires.

The Convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory, what do you think about this? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799)

[Essential Insignificance]

I don't know if you have checked this thread out, but it may be of some service to your enquires.

The Convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory, what do you think about this? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799)

[Essential Insignificance]

I don't know if you have checked this thread out, but it may be of some service to your enquires.

The Convergence of Marxist and Anarchist Theory, what do you think about this? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799)

[Poop]

anarchism and communism is (sic) the same thing
Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things. Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need. Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Also, anarchism signifies the absence of any coercion or hierarchy. Communism is merely an economic arrangement, while anarchism is a complete social arrangement. In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc.

[Poop]

anarchism and communism is (sic) the same thing
Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things. Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need. Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Also, anarchism signifies the absence of any coercion or hierarchy. Communism is merely an economic arrangement, while anarchism is a complete social arrangement. In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc.

[Poop]

anarchism and communism is (sic) the same thing
Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things. Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need. Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Also, anarchism signifies the absence of any coercion or hierarchy. Communism is merely an economic arrangement, while anarchism is a complete social arrangement. In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc.

[Essential Insignificance]

Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things.

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.

It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.


Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need.

And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.


Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Class society here we come!


In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A prior... what twaddle!

Are you serious!

[Essential Insignificance]

Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things.

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.

It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.


Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need.

And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.


Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Class society here we come!


In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A prior... what twaddle!

Are you serious!

[Essential Insignificance]

Not necessarily. Communism implies that production and disribution are based on the maxim: "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and all property is owned communally, while anarchism doesn't necessarily imply either of these things.

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.

It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.


Some anarchists, particularly mutualists a la Proudhon, basically advocate a market economy where people produce can dispose of the fruits of their labor however they wish, not necessarily on the basis of need.

And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.


Also, some anarchists don't believe that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole but by the workers who use them.

Class society here we come!


In a communist society, there could still be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc., as long as economic arrangements are noncoercive and based on the maxim "from each..." A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A prior... what twaddle!

Are you serious!

[Poop]

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.
Yes, generally, capitalism and the state are viewed as the main foes by anarchists, but there are more class hierarchies than economic ones. In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.


It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.
How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community, or that people should pool their labor and then distribute it on the basis of need?


And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.
What exactly does "petit bourgeoisie"? It's French for "little capitalist," right? The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), this could mean one of two things. Either someone who owns means of production and employs workers, whose labor makes him or her a profit, but not a lot of workers, and not a lot of profit. If this is what you're describing, then anarchists are opposed to it. Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.


Class society here we come!
How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?


A prior(i)... what twaddle!
I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary (http://ww.m-w.com), "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

[Poop]

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.
Yes, generally, capitalism and the state are viewed as the main foes by anarchists, but there are more class hierarchies than economic ones. In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.


It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.
How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community, or that people should pool their labor and then distribute it on the basis of need?


And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.
What exactly does "petit bourgeoisie"? It's French for "little capitalist," right? The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), this could mean one of two things. Either someone who owns means of production and employs workers, whose labor makes him or her a profit, but not a lot of workers, and not a lot of profit. If this is what you're describing, then anarchists are opposed to it. Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.


Class society here we come!
How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?


A prior(i)... what twaddle!
I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary (http://ww.m-w.com), "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

[Poop]

This line of reasoning could be attributed to a equivocal anarchist "set of principles".... following with tradition of course. But generally, we can say, that an anarchist's chief "endeavors" are -- the class struggle; overthrowing the "dominance of capital"; and the "setting up" of a classless society.
Yes, generally, capitalism and the state are viewed as the main foes by anarchists, but there are more class hierarchies than economic ones. In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.


It almost seems that you're implying that an anarchist society is not classless.
How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community, or that people should pool their labor and then distribute it on the basis of need?


And that's exactly why Marx and Engel's referred to Proudhon as an "petite-bourgeoisie". Who still wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind.
What exactly does "petit bourgeoisie"? It's French for "little capitalist," right? The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), this could mean one of two things. Either someone who owns means of production and employs workers, whose labor makes him or her a profit, but not a lot of workers, and not a lot of profit. If this is what you're describing, then anarchists are opposed to it. Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.


Class society here we come!
How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?


A prior(i)... what twaddle!
I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary (http://ww.m-w.com), "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

[Essential Insignificance]

In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.

Point acknowledged, and I agree -- for the most part . The similarities between anarchism and communism are stronger and decipherable then the dissimilarity between to two.


How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community,

Who should "own" what then?


Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.


Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.

Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.


How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?

A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.

It would most unquestionably seem so, wouldn't it.


I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary, "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.

How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori? You are evidently a believer -- that moral values are objective and that they exist in some spirit like realm beyond subjective human conventions.

Morals aren't absolute entities subsisting free of human convention; there relative; human conventions; and differ from each cultural perspective.

[Essential Insignificance]

In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.

Point acknowledged, and I agree -- for the most part . The similarities between anarchism and communism are stronger and decipherable then the dissimilarity between to two.


How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community,

Who should "own" what then?


Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.


Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.

Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.


How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?

A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.

It would most unquestionably seem so, wouldn't it.


I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary, "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.

How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori? You are evidently a believer -- that moral values are objective and that they exist in some spirit like realm beyond subjective human conventions.

Morals aren't absolute entities subsisting free of human convention; there relative; human conventions; and differ from each cultural perspective.

[Essential Insignificance]

In my post, I wasn't arguing for or against anything, I was just saying that the terms "anarchism" and "communism" cannot be used interchangeably. There is a lot of overlap between anarchists and communists, but not all communists are anarchists, and not all anarchists are communists. That's the point I was trying to make.

Point acknowledged, and I agree -- for the most part . The similarities between anarchism and communism are stronger and decipherable then the dissimilarity between to two.


How is that? By saying that not all anarchists think that propertry should by owned by the whole community,

Who should "own" what then?


Or maybe petit bourgeoisie refers to someone who owns her/his own means of production, and neither employs others nor is employed by others. If that's the case, then this is compatible with anarchism.

I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.


Secondly, why does it matter if Proudhon wanted an "alien power" to rule over mankind? That seems like more of an argument against him than against anarchism, or against my claim that "communism" and "anarchism" are interchangeable, which was the only opinion I had in my post.

Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.


How does the ownership of the means of production by workers, rather than society as whole, imply a class society?

A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.

It would most unquestionably seem so, wouldn't it.


I'm sorry. Did I misuse the word? Here's how I used it: "A priori, in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." Accoring to the dictionary, "a priori" means "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions." What I meant to say, roughly, was that "in an anarchist society, by virtue of it being an anarchist society, racism et al. could not exist." Anyway, I hope what I said is clearer now.

A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.

How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori? You are evidently a believer -- that moral values are objective and that they exist in some spirit like realm beyond subjective human conventions.

Morals aren't absolute entities subsisting free of human convention; there relative; human conventions; and differ from each cultural perspective.

[Poop]

Who should "own" what then?
Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine. If I don't use a house, it's someone else's. If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."


I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.
Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism. Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital. In other words, no capitalist exploitation. If that is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then some anarchists are indeed petit bourgeoisies.


Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.
I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.


A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.
What do you mean by division of labor? If you mean people specializing and then sharing/trading/whatever their work with others, then there may or may not be division of labor, depending on whether or not people choose it. Personally, there are certain things I would rather not do, and that others would, and there are things I would rather do that others would not. I think it would be better if I did the things I liked and others did things they liked, and maybe we divide the things that everybody likes, or that nobody likes. If this is what division of labor, is there something wrong with this?


A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.
Point taken.


How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori?
You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori. I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

[Poop]

Who should "own" what then?
Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine. If I don't use a house, it's someone else's. If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."


I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.
Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism. Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital. In other words, no capitalist exploitation. If that is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then some anarchists are indeed petit bourgeoisies.


Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.
I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.


A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.
What do you mean by division of labor? If you mean people specializing and then sharing/trading/whatever their work with others, then there may or may not be division of labor, depending on whether or not people choose it. Personally, there are certain things I would rather not do, and that others would, and there are things I would rather do that others would not. I think it would be better if I did the things I liked and others did things they liked, and maybe we divide the things that everybody likes, or that nobody likes. If this is what division of labor, is there something wrong with this?


A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.
Point taken.


How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori?
You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori. I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

[Poop]

Who should "own" what then?
Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine. If I don't use a house, it's someone else's. If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."


I'm not too sure by what you mean by that statement.
Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism. Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital. In other words, no capitalist exploitation. If that is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then some anarchists are indeed petit bourgeoisies.


Well that depends. It's an argument against anarchists if they support Proudhon's theories.
I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.


A little clarification required here; are you suggesting that there is going to be a division of labor in a communist/anarchist society.
What do you mean by division of labor? If you mean people specializing and then sharing/trading/whatever their work with others, then there may or may not be division of labor, depending on whether or not people choose it. Personally, there are certain things I would rather not do, and that others would, and there are things I would rather do that others would not. I think it would be better if I did the things I liked and others did things they liked, and maybe we divide the things that everybody likes, or that nobody likes. If this is what division of labor, is there something wrong with this?


A priori, philosophically, is a proposition or truth knowable prior experience; which does not depend on it's power upon the empirical experience. Mathematical knowledge and deductive logic is, of course, indubitably acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience.
Point taken.


How can "racism, sexism, homophobia, rape" be a priori?
You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori. I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

[STI]

Give this (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799) a read.

[STI]

Give this (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799) a read.

[STI]

Give this (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28799) a read.

[Essential Insignificance]

Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine.

Sure, but only one of the above items mentioned is deemed "personal property" both in capitalist society and I image so, in a communist society.

Who's going to want to share a toothbrush?

The shovel, however, is of a different concern. The shovel is a material item, capable of producing products, indirectly. All the factors of the means of production -- machines, tools and raw materials -- should be collectively owned by society.


If I don't use a house, it's someone else's.

For an unspecified amount of time. When an individual, family, etc, no longer require it, it would then sever as an dwelling to someone else.

Using doesn't imply ownership. Well not in a communist society, anyway.


If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

Precisely!


I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?


Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism.

It was more of a criticism of Proudhon ideas, not anarchism -- in this case, anyway.

Proudhon was a petite-bourgeois theoretician, not an petite-bourgeois himself.


Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital.

No, not really, the petite-bourgeois class, generally, include, small business people, the professional middle-class and "better-off" farmers.

The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees; although they generally own their own businesses, they do not, however own or control any share of the large-scale means of production.

And if Marx was right more and more of the petite-bourgeois class, will descend down to the labour-force of proletarians.


I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.

But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.

He believed that small producers and farmers should work together; and bound together by "free contracts" -- were the best safeguards societies, liberty, justice and equality.

This is why he was a petite-bourgeois theoretician. He wanted to protect the small producers from sinking to beggary and starvation.

Indeed admirable but it was just not good enough -- then and now.

You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist


Point taken.

Glad to have been of service.


You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori.

A priori is intuitive knowledge -- self-standing from experiential understanding.

You have undeniably changed your "tune".


I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

Correct and I'm again pleased to have been of service


Give this a read.

Beat you to it. See above. :P

[Essential Insignificance]

Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine.

Sure, but only one of the above items mentioned is deemed "personal property" both in capitalist society and I image so, in a communist society.

Who's going to want to share a toothbrush?

The shovel, however, is of a different concern. The shovel is a material item, capable of producing products, indirectly. All the factors of the means of production -- machines, tools and raw materials -- should be collectively owned by society.


If I don't use a house, it's someone else's.

For an unspecified amount of time. When an individual, family, etc, no longer require it, it would then sever as an dwelling to someone else.

Using doesn't imply ownership. Well not in a communist society, anyway.


If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

Precisely!


I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?


Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism.

It was more of a criticism of Proudhon ideas, not anarchism -- in this case, anyway.

Proudhon was a petite-bourgeois theoretician, not an petite-bourgeois himself.


Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital.

No, not really, the petite-bourgeois class, generally, include, small business people, the professional middle-class and "better-off" farmers.

The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees; although they generally own their own businesses, they do not, however own or control any share of the large-scale means of production.

And if Marx was right more and more of the petite-bourgeois class, will descend down to the labour-force of proletarians.


I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.

But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.

He believed that small producers and farmers should work together; and bound together by "free contracts" -- were the best safeguards societies, liberty, justice and equality.

This is why he was a petite-bourgeois theoretician. He wanted to protect the small producers from sinking to beggary and starvation.

Indeed admirable but it was just not good enough -- then and now.

You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist


Point taken.

Glad to have been of service.


You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori.

A priori is intuitive knowledge -- self-standing from experiential understanding.

You have undeniably changed your "tune".


I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

Correct and I'm again pleased to have been of service


Give this a read.

Beat you to it. See above. :P

[Essential Insignificance]

Well, I'm on the fence myself, but according to some, ownership should be based on use. If I use a toothbrush, it's mine. If I use a shovel, it's mine.

Sure, but only one of the above items mentioned is deemed "personal property" both in capitalist society and I image so, in a communist society.

Who's going to want to share a toothbrush?

The shovel, however, is of a different concern. The shovel is a material item, capable of producing products, indirectly. All the factors of the means of production -- machines, tools and raw materials -- should be collectively owned by society.


If I don't use a house, it's someone else's.

For an unspecified amount of time. When an individual, family, etc, no longer require it, it would then sever as an dwelling to someone else.

Using doesn't imply ownership. Well not in a communist society, anyway.


If I "own" an appartment complex in a capitalist society, this ownership is unjust and the tenants have a right to stop paying rent, etc. Basically, mutualists support a market economy, without usury, and without government interference. A few downsides of this are that such an economy would be susceptible to many of the same problems as a market under capitalism, unemployment, unaccountability, pressure on the environment, inefficient use of resources like advertisements, etc.

Precisely!


I haven't mentioned anarcho-collectivism yet, but they are another alternative to anarcho-communism. As far as I understand, anarcho collectivism is much like communism, i.e. colllective ownership of the means of production, but every hour of work is rewarded with one "labor note" or whatever, and then trade labor notes for whatever they want, instead of "from each..."

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?


Marx said Proudhon was "petit bourgeoisie." I've seen that term used in two different ways. One, as a small capitalist. Small capitalists are equally incompatible with anarchism as big capitalists, therefore, if this is what is meant by "petit bourgeoisie," then it is not a valid criticism of anarchism.

It was more of a criticism of Proudhon ideas, not anarchism -- in this case, anyway.

Proudhon was a petite-bourgeois theoretician, not an petite-bourgeois himself.


Another way I've seen the term "petit bourgeoisie" used as someone who owns his/her own means of production, so she/he doesn't exploit others with ownership of capital, and isn't exploited by others because of their ownership of capital.

No, not really, the petite-bourgeois class, generally, include, small business people, the professional middle-class and "better-off" farmers.

The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees; although they generally own their own businesses, they do not, however own or control any share of the large-scale means of production.

And if Marx was right more and more of the petite-bourgeois class, will descend down to the labour-force of proletarians.


I think most anarchists would just ignore the less desirable aspects of his philosophy, especially those which are incompatible with anarchism, including what you brought up, his anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc.

But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.

He believed that small producers and farmers should work together; and bound together by "free contracts" -- were the best safeguards societies, liberty, justice and equality.

This is why he was a petite-bourgeois theoretician. He wanted to protect the small producers from sinking to beggary and starvation.

Indeed admirable but it was just not good enough -- then and now.

You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist


Point taken.

Glad to have been of service.


You lost me. I don't think I said racism, etc. were a priori, but that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism, etc. is a priori.

A priori is intuitive knowledge -- self-standing from experiential understanding.

You have undeniably changed your "tune".


I guess what I should have said that is that the idea that there's no room in anarchism for racism etc. is, well what should I have said? Or should I have just said "in an anarchist society, there could not be racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, etc." without any modifiers? Yeah, I think that would have been best. Oh well, at least I've learned because of it.

Correct and I'm again pleased to have been of service


Give this a read.

Beat you to it. See above. :P

[STI]

Beat you to it. See above.

Oh fuck :(

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems. :(

Emo :(

[STI]

Beat you to it. See above.

Oh fuck :(

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems. :(

Emo :(

[STI]

Beat you to it. See above.

Oh fuck :(

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems. :(

Emo :(

[Poop]

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?
I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.


But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.
Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century. What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not. I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.


The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees.
Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees. I'm not too familiar with Proudhon (I've only read "What is Property"), but I believe the employer/employee workplace would contradict the idea of use-based ownership. In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust. And even if Proudhon didn't think so, I think most any anarchist would.


You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist.
You have obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that you said that Proudhon was anti-Semitic, racist, or sexist. I said that anarchists generally ignore Proudhon's undesirable ideas, including what you brought up, and, in addition, his anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, etc. If I had meant to say that you brought up these characteristics of him, I would have said "what you brought up-..." or "what you brought up (...)" Instead I added a comma after "what you brought up," indicating that anarchists would throw out the less desirable aspects of Proudhonism, such as what you brought up, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc.

[Poop]

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?
I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.


But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.
Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century. What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not. I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.


The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees.
Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees. I'm not too familiar with Proudhon (I've only read "What is Property"), but I believe the employer/employee workplace would contradict the idea of use-based ownership. In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust. And even if Proudhon didn't think so, I think most any anarchist would.


You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist.
You have obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that you said that Proudhon was anti-Semitic, racist, or sexist. I said that anarchists generally ignore Proudhon's undesirable ideas, including what you brought up, and, in addition, his anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, etc. If I had meant to say that you brought up these characteristics of him, I would have said "what you brought up-..." or "what you brought up (...)" Instead I added a comma after "what you brought up," indicating that anarchists would throw out the less desirable aspects of Proudhonism, such as what you brought up, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc.

[Poop]

"Labor note", is in other words dispensable wealth. Dispensable wealth can be accumulated uncontrollably.

How are you going to even try and manage this, inevitability?
I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.


But to same, "his philosophy" even deemed by same as the "father of anarchism" is an doctrine of anarchism. Proudhon believed that all men are born social beings who seek justice and equality in there relations; his problem with his current and now our current time (little has changed) was that large estates generate rent for the owner of the private property, which make this impossible.
Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century. What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not. I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.


The petite-bourgeois do procure the labor power of others, although they classically work in conjunction with their own employees.
Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees. I'm not too familiar with Proudhon (I've only read "What is Property"), but I believe the employer/employee workplace would contradict the idea of use-based ownership. In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust. And even if Proudhon didn't think so, I think most any anarchist would.


You have, obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that Proudhon was anti-Semitist, racist, or sexist.
You have obviously misinterpreted me. I never said that you said that Proudhon was anti-Semitic, racist, or sexist. I said that anarchists generally ignore Proudhon's undesirable ideas, including what you brought up, and, in addition, his anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, etc. If I had meant to say that you brought up these characteristics of him, I would have said "what you brought up-..." or "what you brought up (...)" Instead I added a comma after "what you brought up," indicating that anarchists would throw out the less desirable aspects of Proudhonism, such as what you brought up, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc.

[Essential Insignificance]

Oh fuck

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems.

Emo

Nothing personal... :lol:


I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.

I didn't mean for you specifically to answer, instead, society as an whole... a rhetorical question if you will.


Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century.

Many claim that he is -- well... at least the "modern father".


What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not.

Correct... just like I already said. I said that his "philosophy" is a "doctrine" of anarchism, not the absolute, undisputable, irrefutable doctrine -- as you seem to be implying.


I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.

And nor do I.


Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees.

Sure they "exercise" personal pseudo-authority over their employees -- for some, nay many there is no better feeling, then exerting one's "importance" and supremacy over others; but they do not "exercise" economic authority of society.

The former is (in the big picture) irrelevant, the latter is the "big issue".


In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust.

If a workplace, truly belonged "equally" to all concerned, hence society -- then the class distinction would be superfluous. In other words there wouldn't be employers and employees.

[Essential Insignificance]

Oh fuck

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems.

Emo

Nothing personal... :lol:


I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.

I didn't mean for you specifically to answer, instead, society as an whole... a rhetorical question if you will.


Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century.

Many claim that he is -- well... at least the "modern father".


What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not.

Correct... just like I already said. I said that his "philosophy" is a "doctrine" of anarchism, not the absolute, undisputable, irrefutable doctrine -- as you seem to be implying.


I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.

And nor do I.


Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees.

Sure they "exercise" personal pseudo-authority over their employees -- for some, nay many there is no better feeling, then exerting one's "importance" and supremacy over others; but they do not "exercise" economic authority of society.

The former is (in the big picture) irrelevant, the latter is the "big issue".


In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust.

If a workplace, truly belonged "equally" to all concerned, hence society -- then the class distinction would be superfluous. In other words there wouldn't be employers and employees.

[Essential Insignificance]

Oh fuck

If this is the kind of 'welcome-back' I get, then it seems about time for me to crawl back into a bottle, at the bottom of which I shall find the solutions to all my problems.

Emo

Nothing personal... :lol:


I'm not going to. Ask an anarcho-collectivist.

I didn't mean for you specifically to answer, instead, society as an whole... a rhetorical question if you will.


Proudhon isn't the father of anarchism. He's sort of the father of the current anarchist movement gaining its roots from the 19th century.

Many claim that he is -- well... at least the "modern father".


What do you mean "his philosophy" is a "doctrine of anarchism"? Some anarchists follow his philosophies, others do not.

Correct... just like I already said. I said that his "philosophy" is a "doctrine" of anarchism, not the absolute, undisputable, irrefutable doctrine -- as you seem to be implying.


I don't particularly care for Proudhon myself.

And nor do I.


Any workplace divided into employers and employees is an archic one, with employers exercising authority over employees.

Sure they "exercise" personal pseudo-authority over their employees -- for some, nay many there is no better feeling, then exerting one's "importance" and supremacy over others; but they do not "exercise" economic authority of society.

The former is (in the big picture) irrelevant, the latter is the "big issue".


In other words, the workplace would belong equally to the "employee" as to the "employer" and any authority exercised by the employer, no matter how "petit," is unjust.

If a workplace, truly belonged "equally" to all concerned, hence society -- then the class distinction would be superfluous. In other words there wouldn't be employers and employees.