Anarcho-Syndicalism

[JazzRemington]

I posted this on bolt.com a few days ago and did not get any responses, so I'm posting it here.

As an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I have to clear up some misconceptions about this particular school of anarchist thought. This was hastilly put together, so excuse me if it seems so rather badly.

Individuals such as Murray Bookchin claim that anarcho-syndicalists believe in some large, factory/industrially dominated society. This is nothing but far from the truth, as anarcho-syndicalists believe in worker controlled workshops in ALL workshops, not just factories but in places such as hotels, hospitals, various retail shops, etc.

This argument comes from the fact that anarcho-syndicalism comes from a time in history where factories were very common place in the world, such as Spain before and during the Spanish Civil War. We have just branched out into other areas of work in today's world, as only caring about factories will be no one anywhere.

ALL workplaces must be put under worker control in a direct, bottom-up autonomous fashion and not just a select few.

It is also claimed that anarcho-syndicalists only care about workers that are within anarcho-syndicalist unions. This is not true also. We are about ALL workers and attempt daily to persuade other workers to the anarcho-syndicalist belief and unions because it is only these types of unions that may make change in the world.

Modern day unions are claimed to be reactionary and simply pawns for the capitalists. This is true for the most part because all of these unions only care about reforms and making TODAY better and the expense of tomorrow. It is these unions that are the reason why the working class and unions are frowned upon. We anarcho-syndicalists do not care nor support these unions because they are incapable of making change.

It is true that union workers hurt non-union workers in such that benefits given to union workers are generally taken from non-union workers, et al. Therefore, it should be the goal of anarcho-syndicalists to spread their ideas to all members of the working class so that ALL workers can feel the benefits of properly organized labor and partake in the creation of a better world.

Anarcho-syndicalists are accused of a narrow thought pattern in only caring about one class over the other and only caring about the work place. For some and for those of the classical variety of anarcho-syndicalism, this may be true. But for those of us today, this is not for we believe that work-place emancipation is part of the greater struggle against global oppression at the hands of the State and capitalism. Anarcho-syndicalists should cooperate with anarchists of other schools in order to finally overthrow those who would see us suffer under the burden of authority.

We anarcho-syndicalists merely believe in that the overthrow of the "base" of the State will eventually lead to the overthrow of the State itself. Through the overthrow of the capitalists, the State will collapse in on itself because of the destruction of its support legs, as a building goes down once the foundation is crumbled beneath.

[The Red Scare]

The way I see it, Anarchism and Communism have the same goal--a classless, stateless society free from all form of oppression.

However the difference between the two regards the means by which we should achieve this goal. Anarchists see the state as the primarcy obstacle towards this future society, while communists (correctly, IMO) assert that the private control of capital is the real issue and that the state is merely the purveyor of class power. Anarchists want to destroy the state immediately, while Communists recognize the need for the proletariat to seize control over the state. The proletariat must use the state both to repress the domestic bourgeoisie and to fight against the foreign capitalist invasion that is sure to follow. Anarchist revolutions will never succeed because they fail to to understand that revolutions are a process, not a single act. The working class cannot end capitalism tomorrow...they must seize control of the state and use this power to wrestle control inch by inch from the old ruling class.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 14 2005, 04:37 PM




The way I see it, Anarchism and Communism have the same goal--a classless, stateless society free from all form of oppression.
Wrong. Communist and Anarchist goals may sound a lot alike, but our goals differ vastly from communists. We're unconcerned with the fantasy that history progresses along a deterministic path of clearly defined 'stages' of social and economic development that can be predicted and eventually 'ends' in communism. Anarchists are concerned with the struggle against oppression now through direct action, without any predetermined 'roadmaps' to 'inevitable future societies'.


However the difference between the two regards the means by which we should achieve this goal.
There are many more differences.


Anarchists see the state as the primarcy obstacle towards this future society, while communists (correctly, IMO) assert that the private control of capital is the real issue and that the state is merely the purveyor of class power.
Anarchists see the state and private control of capital as two heads of the same beast. The state is not just a purveyor of bourgeois class power, but an autonomous bureaucracy eager and capable of assuming the role of ruling class.


Anarchists want to destroy the state immediately, while Communists recognize the need for the proletariat to seize control over the state.
In other words; anarchists would like to abolish state authority while communists would like to assume it.


The proletariat must use the state both to repress the domestic bourgeoisie and to fight against the foreign capitalist invasion that is sure to follow.
We've all seen how this turns out...


Anarchist revolutions will never succeed because they fail to to understand that revolutions are a process, not a single act.
Really? Because it seems to me that the communists/state-socialists seem to be the ones saying that the revolution is the act of obtaining state-power and letting the bureaucrats(or "vanguard") take care of things from there. Anarchists don't understand revolution as some kind of process, you're correct, it's an ongoing struggle.


The working class cannot end capitalism tomorrow...they must seize control of the state and use this power to wrestle control inch by inch from the old ruling class.
Where in the hell did you see, in the above article, the proposition that capitalism could be ended tomorrow?

[Lamanov]

There goes again wetblanket with his "conceptions" and "arguments" of communism="communism".

:lol:

Ridiculous.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 14 2005, 11:04 PM
There goes again wetblanket with his "conceptions" and "arguments" of communism="communism".

:lol:

Ridiculous.
Here goes DJ-TC again acting like a fucking dipshit without anything of substance to say.


Like it or not, outside of a few small groups trying to salvage Marxist ideology, it always has.

[Lamanov]

"Marxist ideology". That about sums it up. :lol:

:angry:

It would be all nice and argumentative if you knew what the fuck you're talking about. Since you don't -- "anything of substance to say" comes with "footnotes" to it... Debating someone with such empty and biased theoretical "knowledge" is usually time consuming and unproductive.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 15 2005, 04:48 PM
"Marxist ideology". That about sums it up. :lol:

:angry:

It would be all nice and argumentative if you knew what the fuck you're talking about. Since you don't -- "anything of substance to say" comes with "footnotes" to it... Debating someone with such empty and biased theoretical "knowledge" is usually time consuming and unproductive.
You could have summed all this up with the sentence "I have nothing to say about this topic, I'm just posting here to be an asshole and attack you personally."

Because you'd pretty much be saying the same thing. :) Everyone has a bias, especially on subjects such as this. If there were no bias at all, debate wouldn't even have any practical function and all discussion would be reduced to fact-checking. Seeing as how revolution and social organization is not a science, we have nothing but our own biased take on the subject to discuss.

But you would just love it if everyone accepted your deterministic theology, wouldn't you? I can tell because you find criticism so unacceptable that you resort to acting like a child on a schoolyard.

I'm sorry that you don't like my "theoretical knowledge", and to be honest I don't much care for yours either. Luckily, neither does the vast majority of working people.

[Lamanov]

Don't you see that you're all alone in your "theoretical knowledge"? Almost no one shares your opinion and persistance in atributing communists all together as you do.

It's getting old and alot of people think so.

Excuse that "everyone has a bias" so "I can be an asshole too" card is not the one to play. Not here.

[Social Greenman]

Well, I am in favor of the industrial union as the administration of things by and for the workers.

Here is the IWW Premable:


The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

I agree with the last sentence however; I must ask what can be done politically considering that the capitalist form of government has the military at it's disposal to keep things as they are and protect their interest ie, means of production?

Also, what takes the place when wages are abolished? I have no idea how a gift economy can operate after a revolution since consumption would out pace production. Should not Time Labor Vouchers be implemented until the time when automation would require very few people?

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/images/cartoons/bosses_may68.gif

[wet blanket]

Don't you see that you're all alone in your "theoretical knowledge"? Almost no one shares your opinion and persistance in atributing communists all together as you do.
Really? Because my criticism of Marxism isn't anything original. I criticize it in the same fashion as many have done long before me: Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, Vaneigem, Debord, the SI, and countless bourgeois economists. You'll find similar views in various anarchist publications(Anarchy, Perspectives, The New Formulation, Fifth Estate, etc.) I can also assure you from my experiences talking with many others at work, on campus, and over coffee that I'm not alone in my criticism.


It's getting old and alot of people think so.
So far you're the only one with the problem. If anyone else has one, they're free to tell me themselves. Hopefully they'll have the maturity to do so in PM or email instead of derailing a topic about anarchism, like you're doing.


Excuse that "everyone has a bias" so "I can be an asshole too" card is not the one to play. Not here.
You see there is a difference in our behavior here. You're calling me an asshole because you don't like my opinions and observations. I've been calling you an asshole because that's exactly what you came in this topic to be, you've contributed nothing to this discussion.
That card will play, and there's not really anything you can do except whine about it as long as what I'm saying is relevant to the topic being discussed and doesn't break any forum rules.

[wet blanket]

I agree with the last sentence however; I must ask what can be done politically considering that the capitalist form of government has the military at it's disposal to keep things as they are and protect their interest ie, means of production?
Politically? The IWW is completely a-political on paper, you won't find anything in writing that will suggest any kind of political action. However it goes without saying that an organized massive general strike is very political. The wobblies also have a history of violently resisting state authorities that try to repress them.


Also, what takes the place when wages are abolished?
It'll vary between industry and community.


I have no idea how a gift economy can operate after a revolution since consumption would out pace production.
Well, for starters people will have to consume less. Anyone who thinks that our current lifestyles are feasibly sustainable is lying to themselves. This is where I think syndicalism falls short, but the slack is picked up by the likes of Bookchin who shift the revolutionary focus from industrial organization to community structure. Granted it obviously won't be uniform for every community, there would need to be some radical restructuring of communities along with industry for a sustainable gift economy to work.


Should not Time Labor Vouchers be implemented until the time when automation would require very few people?
It all depends on the firm or industry. The workers themselves are going to have to come to a consensus on how they deal with the goods and services they produce. Frankly, I don't think that Time-Labor Vouchers would be the best solution for a society trying to achieve material equality. Some form of salary would probably be more beneficial to everyone involved. But like I said, it won't be uniform throughout every community and industry to begin with, and until it does people are going to have to come up with something that works and is fair.

[Comrade-Z]

I hate to think of anarcho-syndicalism as a distinct "movement." It's really just applying anarchist principles to the workplace, just as anarcho-punk applies anarchist principles to culture and teenage life, just as green anarchy applies anarchist principles to the environment, just as libertarian communist platformism applies anarchist principles in organizing rent strikes, mutual-aid networks, etc. Any healthy anarchist movement will have a strong anarcho-syndicalist element in it, along with good doses of the other sectors as well.

That said, I think anarcho-syndicalism is an area that deserves more attention and efforts on the part of anarchists these days. Anarcho-syndicalism, IMO, is the key to exposing the myth of "capitalist democracy" in all of its sham glory for all to see. Anarcho-syndicalism can finally expose the obvious fact that capitalism is authoritarian and undemocratic, and there are more democratic, egalitarian, productive, and truly fulfilling ways of working--without masters. Promoting on-the-job, self-organized direct action that aims to win reforms in the here-and-now and work towards eventual liberation of the working class from wage-slavery--that's what the stale unions of the world need--a dose of union militancy and demands for self-management within the organs of the working class, such as the unions. I must admit, every time I hear someone mention a "union manager" or "union-employer synergy" I want to vomit.

I also think we need to seriously revisit the concept of the General Strike. Why is it such an awesome tactic?
1. It is direct action--it is not abstract activity, such as an ordinary protest. Thus, there is immediate economic incentive for it, aside from whatever politico/revolutionary worth it has.
2. It has a tangible effect as far as making the working class economically stronger, weakening capitalism, and radicalizing the workforce.
3. It provides embryonic working class organizations which are (ideally) self-managed, democratic, and true organs of the rule of the working class (rather than the rule over the working class by some vanguard party).
4. It builds confidence, comradeship, and solidarity among the participants.
5. It is non-violent. The State will be in a quandry as to how to handle it. How will they drum up public support for State-repression of the strikers? Do they try to force people back to work? But how? And how will they deal with 60 million people resisting their rule? (If all democrats in the U.S. took part in a General Strike, there would be 60 MILLION PARTICIPANTS! Whoa! That's your revolution right there).
6. It has incredible revolutionary potential.

Example:

Right now (Dec. 15) the 34,000 New York City Transport Workers are about to go on strike against the metropolitan transportation authority (MTA). In this case a mere 34,000 workers, by going on strike, will bring a city of 7 million to a standstill and cost the city $400 million PER DAY. Now, just imagine 1 MILLION transport workers going on strike in 100 cities across the U.S.! That right there would probably bring about a revolutionary situation. Then imagine those transport workers being joined by 59 MILLION other strikers from other trades. The U.S. would grind to a halt. The economy would collapse. The focus of the General Strike will quickly move beyond winning mere concessions and reforms, especially if there are militant anti-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists within the ranks of the unions. The Workers, when offered the idea and the opportunity, will begin to spontaneously take situations into their own hands, just as they began to do during the May 1968 revolution in France.

http://www.marxist.com/1968/may68.html

The General Strike has extraordinary potential.

For more info on the impending NYC transport strike, see the following link or just google the keywords.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...wn_to_the_wire/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/12/15/talks_to_avert_ny_transit_strike_down_to_the_wire/)

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/61835.html

[wet blanket]

Thank you for elaborating on the the general strike Comrade Z, to this day, it remains the most powerful weapon of the working class. There is simply no political action through participation or coup that has anywhere near the potential to destroy capitalism and shake up the existing social order than the simple refusal to work on the part of the working people. May 68' is a stunning example of how, even in a modern country, the economy and government can be brought to its knees by a general strike. Direct Action gets the goods.

[Lamanov]

I'm not calling you an asshole. It's other way around. I don't like you observations because they are extremely biased and far from being self-critical. I don't like your opinions because most of them tend to insult me in an indirect way. How?

See, when a Maoist claims something like "Mao this...party that...Lenin says" I don't like I contest him/her and bring out my arguments and eventually make them look stupid.

But when an "anarchist", from whom I expect at least a little bit of decency and self-criticism, and a potentiality in working together for a common aim, comes here and claims that all Communists are authoritarian, that Marxism is a dead ideology, and starts to write lines of people connecting Marx to Mao... now that's something that pisses me off because that's something i didn't expect to see.


Originally posted by wet blanket+--> (wet blanket)I can also assure you from my experiences talking with many others at work, on campus, and over coffee that I'm not alone in my criticism.[/b]

I've also met allot of people, 'over coffee', who think that all communists should be put to jail and all anarchists shot.

However, I'm talking about this community, and most of people here are "libertarian communists" (Anarcho-Communists, Left and Council Communists, non-Leninist Communists), but our slight differences in theory don't drive us to make idiotic claims in order to contest our cases. On the contrary.


...Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, Vaneigem, Debord, the SI, and countless bourgeois economists. ...

Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Pannekoek, Mattick, Rühle, Gorter, Pankhurst, Kollontai, From, Lanti, Bordiga, etc. are the contradicting truth to the one-sidedness of that list from which, supposedly, you draw your critique. Allot of things in there just don't add up.

What do you mean by SI?

"Countless bourgeois economics"? Yeah, great source. Did it occur to you that this source might use the same standpoint to attack both Marxists AND anarchist theory?


Seeing as how revolution and social organization is not a science, we have nothing but our own biased take on the subject to discuss.

True. We have our own assumptions and axioms which reality confirms or disclaims. Thus we are driven to the use of scientific methods and observations.

So, bias and 100 year old misplaced antagonism won't get us anywhere.

This, unfortunately, is your characteristic.


That card will play, and there's not really anything you can do except whine about it as long as what I'm saying is relevant to the topic being discussed and doesn't break any forum rules.

Fine.

________________________


We're unconcerned with the fantasy that history progresses along a deterministic path of clearly defined 'stages' of social and economic development that can be predicted and eventually 'ends' in communism.

In example, the fantasy which states that history has a course of development determined by the lives of every individual, which living practice - the production of real life - is the soul of all social dynamics and process.

It is a bit more complicated than what both of you are asserting.


Anarchists don't understand revolution as some kind of process, you're correct, it's an ongoing struggle.

Well, stripping one off another whould be very naive.

If The Red Scare really conceives of social struggle as a one-sided "process" - well, then your 'antitheses' is not much better.

Ongoing struggle IS a process, in which we actively take participation. Our social status determines our position, standpoint and practice within the struggle. But just because we take active direct action - it does not mean that the result itself will be the "theoretically" expected one -- since the result and the struggle itself is determined by every interconnected element within it.



The Red Scare
Anarchists want to destroy the state immediately, while Communists recognize the need for the proletariat to seize control over the state.

In other words; anarchists would like to abolish state authority while communists would like to assume it.

Well, since The Red Scare said that "proletariat [is] to seize control over the state" it would be very unfair and out of place to say that communists themselves want to "assume" state power as your answer to it.

It's true that Leninism in its both theoretical and practical expression emphasizes the role of the vanguard over the masses and the role of the political struggle over the economic struggle.

This, however, is a major brake-up with Marxism; an irreconcilable contradiction tearing all seemingly unbreakable links between them and confronting one with the other.

Thus, if instead of "communists" we could read "Leninists", it would be a correct notion.



The proletariat must use the state both to repress the domestic bourgeoisie and to fight against the foreign capitalist invasion that is sure to follow.

We've all seen how this turns out...

Nope. We haven't. And - judging by Red Scare's simplistic formula (taken out of the illusion that October revolution was supposedly a proletarian revolution) - I hope we will not.


Really? Because it seems to me that the communists/state-socialists seem to be the ones saying that the revolution is the act of obtaining state-power and letting the bureaucrats(or "vanguard") take care of things from there.

Authoritarian "communists": yes, they are saying that.
Marxists: no.

[coda]

Good points, Jazz Remington. Now we need to distribute that document to the working class.

I agree wet Blanket, the refusal to work under the capitalist regime is the means to revolution everywhere.

[Social Greenman]

My quote:
I agree with the last sentence however; I must ask what can be done politically considering that the capitalist form of government has the military at it's disposal to keep things as they are and protect their interest ie, means of production?

Wet Blanket response:
Politically? The IWW is completely a-political on paper, you won't find anything in writing that will suggest any kind of political action. However it goes without saying that an organized massive general strike is very political. The wobblies also have a history of violently resisting state authorities that try to repress them.

My reply:
Yes, I am aware that the IWW is very a-political when compared to pro-capitalist trade unions; however, the IWW members can be political if they chose to be. My question is who is going to politically stop the military from shooting those who participates in the "General Strike" when the commander-in-chief orders it to protect the interest of the capitalist class?

My quote:
Also, what takes the place when wages are abolished?

Wet Blanket response:
It'll vary between industry and community.

My reply:
I was looking for a better response. I mean, what form of compensation would workers get in place of wages when the exploitive aspect is removed?

My quote:
I have no idea how a gift economy can operate after a revolution since consumption would out pace production.

Wet Blanket:
Well, for starters people will have to consume less. Anyone who thinks that our current lifestyles are feasibly sustainable is lying to themselves. This is where I think syndicalism falls short, but the slack is picked up by the likes of Bookchin who shift the revolutionary focus from industrial organization to community structure. Granted it obviously won't be uniform for every community, there would need to be some radical restructuring of communities along with industry for a sustainable gift economy to work.

My reply:
I don't think people would comsume less to begin with considering our (U.S.) behavior is geared toward consumption. There will definately be shortages throughout the U.S. unless there is a form of compensation for work done in the "new society" so that production can keep pace with consumption.

My quote:
Should not Time Labor Vouchers be implemented until the time when automation would require very few people?

Wet Blanket response:
It all depends on the firm or industry. The workers themselves are going to have to come to a consensus on how they deal with the goods and services they produce. Frankly, I don't think that Time-Labor Vouchers would be the best solution for a society trying to achieve material equality. Some form of salary would probably be more beneficial to everyone involved. But like I said, it won't be uniform throughout every community and industry to begin with, and until it does people are going to have to come up with something that works and is fair.

My reply:
Labor Time Vouchers (TLVs) would be fair, workable and uniform accross the U.S, etc, as an alternative to the exploitive wage system. It's a system that gives the workers their full labor value when at work. Its a credit system that is exchanged for goods and services. Once the transaction is done the credits use just disapears but does leave a paper trail so that inventory of products can be maintained. It also serves as a measure in the production process: What items are produced more and what items are produced less. Those who work in production create TLVs for those in the service sector. What I am saying is that for every hour worked in production about twenty minutes of TLVs go to pay for those who work in technical research in automation, healthcare and research, education and social services. After society is well under way in socialism then the prospect of a gift economy can be considered.

Here are two links that may help explain TLVs


http://www.deleonism.org/v1.htm
http://www.deleonism.org/v2.htm

[RevolverNo9]

The Marxism / Leninism conflation is a folly that one would assume to be 'below' those on the Left.

Apparently not.

Very few Marxists would agree with Blanqui, unlike dear Vlad.


Really? Because my criticism of Marxism isn't anything original. I criticize it in the same fashion as many have done long before me: Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, Vaneigem, Debord, the SI, and countless bourgeois economists.

The anarchist appropriation of Debord, one of the most ingenious political theorists of that century, is terribly confusing. Not for a moment do I suggest that anarchists should refrain from drawing from Debord. But to turn a deep Hegelian-Marxist thinker against his own school of thought is, well... plain cheeky.

Please, actually read The Society of the Spectacle rather than just gleaning the superficial froth - very exciting superficial froth I'm the first to admit - of the Situationists' canny depiction of themselves at the heart of the May revolt in France. This is a work dependent on Marxism and Marxism - and no not due to a rejection of it.

To illustrate: intrinsic use of Historical Materialism; 'detournement' of Capital ('accumulation of Spectacles' etc... wonderful stuff); Feuerbach; Marxist alienation ('seperation' among other elements to Debord); Luckas' writings on consumerism and the proletariat; cross-fertilisation with post-Trotskyist coucil commuist group 'Socialisme ou Barbarie'; the lengthiest chapter (by far) is a historical discussion of Marxist politics etc...

That you can possibly claim that such a brilliant and original thinker undermines Marxism ( :lol: ) is rather demonstrative, I think, of your whole understanding of the matter.

As to your remark about Marxism as a dead ideology falling upon deaf workers' ears... well, I'll have to remember to join those lively discussions about anarchism they have at the plant down in Tadley Industrial Estate :lol: .

I've got news for you: leftism today is in a state of relative ideological impotence. Anarchists or Marxists may take credit for any minor liberal protest they like - doesn't mean either are making a deep impact.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:51 AM
That you can possibly claim that such a brilliant and original thinker undermines Marxism ( :lol: ) is rather demonstrative, I think, of your whole understanding of the matter.
Touché.

Avoiding self-criticism and accepting subjectivity and bias as a constant which cannot be altered is the reason for one's intellectual impotence.

[wet blanket]

I'm not calling you an asshole. It's other way around. I don't like you observations because they are extremely biased and far from being self-critical. I don't like your opinions because most of them tend to insult me in an indirect way. How?
Don't take it so personally.


But when an "anarchist", from whom I expect at least a little bit of decency and self-criticism, and a potentiality in working together for a common aim, comes here and claims that all Communists are authoritarian, that Marxism is a dead ideology, and starts to write lines of people connecting Marx to Mao... now that's something that pisses me off because that's something i didn't expect to see.
Firstly, I don't think that Marxism is a dead ideology, it's very alive and well. Secondly, even I would never connect marx to mao, that's a bit of a stretch.


I've also met allot of people, 'over coffee', who think that all communists should be put to jail and all anarchists shot.
:lol: You're hanging out with the wrong crowd.


However, I'm talking about this community, and most of people here are "libertarian communists" (Anarcho-Communists, Left and Council Communists, non-Leninist Communists), but our slight differences in theory don't drive us to make idiotic claims in order to contest our cases. On the contrary.
Then perhaps a critical perspective is needed. I certainly don't consider myself a 'libertarian communist' or a 'capitalist' for that matter. I try to avoid "ism"s but occasionally I'll consider myself an 'anarchist' even though I find the term inadequate.


Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Pannekoek, Mattick, Rühle, Gorter, Pankhurst, Kollontai, From, Lanti, Bordiga, etc. are the contradicting truth to the one-sidedness of that list from which, supposedly, you draw your critique. Allot of things in there just don't add up.
Admittedly I've read little to none of the authors mentioned with the exception of Luxemburg and Pankhurst. And after having read that document in your signature, "What Does the Sparacus League Want?" I found one sentence near the end which 'set an alarm off'...

"The Spartacus League will never take over governmental power except in response to the clear, unambiguous will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of all of Germany, never except by the proletariat's conscious affirmation of the views, aims, and methods of struggle of the Spartacus League."

Now, I can see and understand the noble intention in there. But she's still supporting the representation of the working class, even if the masses 'want it', I still find it unacceptable.


What do you mean by SI?
The Situationist International, a revolutionary intellectual/artistic movement of the late 20th century.


"Countless bourgeois economics"? Yeah, great source. Did it occur to you that this source might use the same standpoint to attack both Marxists AND anarchist theory?
Yes I realize that. But I don't dismiss their entire analysis because I disagree with a single part of it. I don't disagree with much of what Marx wrote in Das Kapital, but I certainly disagree with a lot of the 'historical necessity' garbage among other things.


In example, the fantasy which states that history has a course of development determined by the lives of every individual, which living practice - the production of real life - is the soul of all social dynamics and process.

It is a bit more complicated than what both of you are asserting.
I know it's more complicated and it's probably unfair that I didn't get into the subject, but for argument's sake with redscare, I was being brief.


Well, stripping one off another whould be very naive.

If The Red Scare really conceives of social struggle as a one-sided "process" - well, then your 'antitheses' is not much better.

Ongoing struggle IS a process, in which we actively take participation. Our social status determines our position, standpoint and practice within the struggle. But just because we take active direct action - it does not mean that the result itself will be the "theoretically" expected one -- since the result and the struggle itself is determined by every interconnected element within it.
You know, I'm going to concede to you on this one(though I don't entirely accept determinism, but I won't get into that now), because I wasn't thinking along those lines when I wrote that. When he said that revolution is a process, and when on to explain the revolutionary 'tasks' of the proletariat, I was thinking of the term 'process' as a "Lenninist Checklist For Revolution" as I'm sure our friend Red Scare was.


Well, since The Red Scare said that "proletariat [is] to seize control over the state" it would be very unfair and out of place to say that communists themselves want to "assume" state power as your answer to it.
Historically it has been the case, but it would be unfair to assume that all communists want to. To but it better: "Anarchists want to abolish state authority while communists want to control a state with the support of the majority of the working class". Regardless, the state(even a 'proletarian state') implies representation and alienation, which is something I don't support.


It's true that Leninism in its both theoretical and practical expression emphasizes the role of the vanguard over the masses and the role of the political struggle over the economic struggle.

This, however, is a major brake-up with Marxism; an irreconcilable contradiction tearing all seemingly unbreakable links between them and confronting one with the other.

Thus, if instead of "communists" we could read "Leninists", it would be a correct notion.
Well, it really depends on how you look at it. To an anarchist, Marx and Engel's suggestions and demands within the IWMA, specifically their distaste for the libertarian(bakuninist) element within the international, there is a very real danger of a "red bureaucracy" in Marxist theory.
While I won't argue with you that there are several aspects of Leninism which are completely incompatible with Marxist ideology, but bureaucratic representation of the proletariat is something that I think could feasibly use Marxism as a justification because of Marx and Engels' "silence" on the subject and their praise of the paris commune(which had an internal jacobin tendency which Kropotkin highlighted in his critical/supportive analysis).


================================================


Yes, I am aware that the IWW is very a-political when compared to pro-capitalist trade unions; however, the IWW members can be political if they chose to be. My question is who is going to politically stop the military from shooting those who participates in the "General Strike" when the commander-in-chief orders it to protect the interest of the capitalist class?
The most political thing a striking worker can do when faced with state repression would be to violently resist.


I was looking for a better response. I mean, what form of compensation would workers get in place of wages when the exploitive aspect is removed?
What do you mean by 'compensation'? They would be entitled to all that they create, nothing less. How a community chooses to value goods and services and exchange them is entirely up to the people within that particular community.


I don't think people would comsume less to begin with considering our (U.S.) behavior is geared toward consumption. There will definately be shortages throughout the U.S. unless there is a form of compensation for work done in the "new society" so that production can keep pace with consumption.
People will consume less if they have to, and believe me, there will come a day when we have to. You cannot equate 'capitalist consumption' with 'post-capitalist consumption' in the same manner that you cannot equate capitalist production with post-capitalist production. The means and purpose of 'doing work' will shift drastically. If you're thinking that there's still going to be a rush to keep up with iPod or Cadillac consumer demands in an post-capitalist society, you're kidding yourself.


Labor Time Vouchers (TLVs) would be fair, workable and uniform accross the U.S, etc, as an alternative to the exploitive wage system. It's a system that gives the workers their full labor value when at work. Its a credit system that is exchanged for goods and services. Once the transaction is done the credits use just disapears but does leave a paper trail so that inventory of products can be maintained. It also serves as a measure in the production process: What items are produced more and what items are produced less. Those who work in production create TLVs for those in the service sector. What I am saying is that for every hour worked in production about twenty minutes of TLVs go to pay for those who work in technical research in automation, healthcare and research, education and social services. After society is well under way in socialism then the prospect of a gift economy can be considered.
This sounds a lot like something I refer to as "walmart socialism"; the idea that there will be some sort of state or bureaucracy which keeps track of all sorts of spectacular goods and services created and exchanged with some elaborate 'credit system'. Perhaps one day this could possibly be instituted but I really don't see something like this as adequate and potentially dangerous because of the centralization of production and consumption required for something like this to work. Proponents of such ideas are generally lack a very critical understanding of capitalist consumption within our society and the actual reasons and conditions under which spectacular commodities are produced. Do you think that laborers on the assembly line, once liberated from the chains of capitalism, are going to want to return to the same boring and uncreative shit they were doing prior to a revolution just so their fellow proletariat can enjoy a flat screen TV, lawn sprinkler, or whatever shit that's thrown together in said factory?
I highly doubt it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:51 AM
The Marxism / Leninism conflation is a folly that one would assume to be 'below' those on the Left.

Apparently not.

Very few Marxists would agree with Blanqui, unlike dear Vlad.


Really? Because my criticism of Marxism isn't anything original. I criticize it in the same fashion as many have done long before me: Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin, Vaneigem, Debord, the SI, and countless bourgeois economists.

The anarchist appropriation of Debord, one of the most ingenious political theorists of that century, is terribly confusing. Not for a moment do I suggest that anarchists should refrain from drawing from Debord. But to turn a deep Hegelian-Marxist thinker against his own school of thought is, well... plain cheeky.

Please, actually read The Society of the Spectacle rather than just gleaning the superficial froth - very exciting superficial froth I'm the first to admit - of the Situationists' canny depiction of themselves at the heart of the May revolt in France. This is a work dependent on Marxism and Marxism - and no not due to a rejection of it.

To illustrate: intrinsic use of Historical Materialism; 'detournement' of Capital ('accumulation of Spectacles' etc... wonderful stuff); Feuerbach; Marxist alienation ('seperation' among other elements to Debord); Luckas' writings on consumerism and the proletariat; cross-fertilisation with post-Trotskyist coucil commuist group 'Socialisme ou Barbarie'; the lengthiest chapter (by far) is a historical discussion of Marxist politics etc...

That you can possibly claim that such a brilliant and original thinker undermines Marxism ( :lol: ) is rather demonstrative, I think, of your whole understanding of the matter.

As to your remark about Marxism as a dead ideology falling upon deaf workers' ears... well, I'll have to remember to join those lively discussions about anarchism they have at the plant down in Tadley Industrial Estate :lol: .

I've got news for you: leftism today is in a state of relative ideological impotence. Anarchists or Marxists may take credit for any minor liberal protest they like - doesn't mean either are making a deep impact.
Ahahahaha.

I think you are the one that didn't understand Society of the Spectacle, after all.

He may have used marxist ideas, but it is a blatant lie to say he didn't criticize Marxism at all. He did criticize the "scientific-deterministic" part of Marxism. While in a sense, some situationists did find the revolution inevitable (I don't know if Debord did, but Vanageim definitely did), Debord said that theory and practice are inseparable. Thus to look at revolution in a scholarly fashion, as many marxist intellectuals do, is counterrevolutionary.



"... it is seen as essential to patiently study economic development, and to go back to accepting the suffering which that development imposes with a Hegelian tranquility. The result remains “a graveyard of good intentions.” The “science of revolutions” then concludes that consciousness always comes too soon, and has to be taught. “History has shown that we, and all who thought as we did, were wrong,” Engels wrote in 1895. “It has made clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was far from being ripe.” Throughout his life Marx had maintained a unitary point of view in his theory, but the exposition of his theory was carried out on the terrain of the dominant thought insofar as it took the form of critiques of particular disciplines, most notably the critique of that fundamental science of bourgeois society, political economy. It was in this mutilated form, which eventually came to be seen as orthodox, that Marx’s theory was transformed into “Marxism.”"


" His scientific conclusions about the future development of the working class, and the organizational practice apparently implied by those conclusions, became obstacles to proletarian consciousness at a later stage."


"If Marx, during a certain period of his participation in the proletarian struggle, placed too great a reliance on scientific prediction, to the point of creating the intellectual basis for the illusions of economism, it is clear that he himself did not succumb to those illusions. In a well-known letter of 7 December 1867, accompanying an article criticizing Capital which he himself had written but which he wanted Engels to present to the press as the work of an adversary, Marx clearly indicated the limits of his own science: “The author’s subjective tendency (imposed on him, perhaps, by his political position and his past), namely the manner in which he views and presents the final outcome of the present movement and social process, has no connection with his actual analysis.” By thus disparaging the “tendentious conclusions” of his own objective analysis, and by the irony of the “perhaps” with reference to the extrascientific choices supposedly “imposed” on him, Marx implicitly revealed the methodological key to fusing the two aspects."





He also mentioned that the Spanish anarchist revolution, while being flawed, was the most powerful expression of proletarian revolution. He did criticize anarchists for being utopian and being idealists.

Besides, what is the point of you saying that Debord was a marxist anyway? We anarchists don't really care for the overall perfection of a person. We recollect what is good, and we dismiss what is bullshit. Maybe you Marxists should start doing that too.

[wet blanket]

One more... :)


The anarchist appropriation of Debord, one of the most ingenious political theorists of that century, is terribly confusing.
HOOOOOOOOOOOLD on one minute here. Not once have I referred to Debord as an anarchist. I merely said that my criticism draws from his writings(among many others).


Not for a moment do I suggest that anarchists should refrain from drawing from Debord.
Oh I won't.


But to turn a deep Hegelian-Marxist thinker against his own school of thought is, well... plain cheeky.
How did I 'turn him against his own school of thought'? You'd be wrong to characterize him as a Marxist though. He was well versed in marxist thought, but it would be rather inaccurate to call the guy or his work marxist.


Please, actually read The Society of the Spectacle rather than just gleaning the superficial froth - very exciting superficial froth I'm the first to admit - of the Situationists' canny depiction of themselves at the heart of the May revolt in France.
Yes I've read it before, and am going to read it again sometime, and again. Frankly, I think the SI's depiction of themselves at the heart of the may revolt was rather pompous and silly.


This is a work dependent on Marxism and Marxism - and no not due to a rejection of it.
It's also very critical of Marxism and Marxist ideology, which is precisely what I'm trying to argue against here. Honestly, I didn't even reference Society of the Spectacle once in this topic(though I did use the term "spectacular") so I don't know what you're even going on about this for.


That you can possibly claim that such a brilliant and original thinker undermines Marxism ( :lol: ) is rather demonstrative, I think, of your whole understanding of the matter
That you can possible claim that I even suggested such a thing is rather demonstrative, I think, of your ability to read an comprehend what I posted before rushing to hit the reply button to really "show me what's what". I dropped his name in a list of authors that have, in some way or another, criticized aspects of Marxism. That's It.


As to your remark about Marxism as a dead ideology falling upon deaf workers' ears... well, I'll have to remember to join those lively discussions about anarchism they have at the plant down in Tadley Industrial Estate
When did I ever say that? Putting words in my mouth is bad form. Marxism is not a dead ideology, though it's appeal disappears as you step outside of the intelligentsia's 'realm'(for lack of a better term). The same goes for Anarchism, that shit's boring as fuck (http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/yourpoli.html). :lol:


I've got news for you: leftism today is in a state of relative ideological impotence. Anarchists or Marxists may take credit for any minor liberal protest they like - doesn't mean either are making a deep impact.
This is news?
I've gotta ask though, why on earth do you have a link to the English socialist party in your signature? :lol:

[RevolverNo9]

That you can possible claim that I even suggested such a thing is rather demonstrative, I think, of your ability to read an comprehend what I posted before rushing to hit the reply button to really "show me what's what". I dropped his name in a list of authors that have, in some way or another, criticized aspects of Marxism. That's It.

I apologise, I shall revise my criticism, although certainly to characterise Debord as a Marxist is true.

My worry was that you were offering Debord as an anti-Marxist anarchist so as to illustrate the bankruptcy of Marxist thought.


He may have used marxist ideas, but it is a blatant lie to say he didn't criticize Marxism at all.

I would never say such a thing. Any thinker worth his salt will criticise the tradition he stands in. However, to say he 'used Marxist ideas' is rather an understatement.


Debord said that theory and practice are inseparable. Thus to look at revolution in a scholarly fashion, as many marxist intellectuals do, is counterrevolutionary.

But ofcourse - the union of theory and practice, praxis is possibly the most essential element to a marxian perspective. Gramsci was particuarly perceptive in the name he coined for Marxism - 'The Philosophy of Praxis'. May I remind everyone of a little-know thesis Marx wrote on Feuerbach: 'Philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world, however the point is to change it.'

Essential to Debord's critique is the rejection of the idea of Marxism with a capital 'M' as a dogmatic, orthodox and constrictive ideology, which of course was an all too pervasive current when he was writing, as is now and even was when Marx was still alive (who said, of course that if such ideologues called themselves Marxists, 'then I am not a Marxist.')


He also mentioned that the Spanish anarchist revolution, while being flawed, was the most powerful expression of proletarian revolution. He did criticize anarchists for being utopian and being idealists.

Certainly, I'm inclinded to agree with him.


Besides, what is the point of you saying that Debord was a marxist anyway?

I'm just tired of a tendency I've noticed for anarchists to de-marxify Debord and then uphold him as a racey anarchist. Sorry if I went to far this way in my present criticism. But you know, anyone who read CrimethInc would think that they and the Situatinosits thoguht the same thing :rolleyes: .


You'd be wrong to characterize him as a Marxist though. He was well versed in marxist thought, but it would be rather inaccurate to call the guy or his work marxist.

Oh I heartedly disagree. He was a council communist practically and his philosophical underpinning are saturated with the thoughts of Marx and later thinkers. I haven't read it but an Anselm Jappe wrote an biography on Debord and his thought so I'm sure that would explain it all.


Frankly, I think the SI's depiction of themselves at the heart of the may revolt was rather pompous and silly.

Yes definitely. Although it was part of an extremely cunning proccess of auto-biography that precluded their depiction by hostile parties. I can only say that they succeeded. Clever people.


It's also very critical of Marxism and Marxist ideology, which is precisely what I'm trying to argue against here. Honestly, I didn't even reference Society of the Spectacle once in this topic(though I did use the term "spectacular") so I don't know what you're even going on about this for.

Critical of stale Marxist ideology - from a Marxist point of observation. I only brought it up because I was discussing Debord and an discussion of Debord's thought logically begins with 'S of S'.


Marxism is not a dead ideology, though it's appeal disappears as you step outside of the intelligentsia's 'realm'(for lack of a better term).

Yes, although its time as a major current in the workers' movement hasn't entirely expired since the previous decades.


I've gotta ask though, why on earth do you have a link to the English socialist party in your signature?

Yes that is rather a personal anachronism. The Socialist Party are the only revolutionary organisation in my area and so I have been and still am only happy to collaborate with the individuals concerned. It's a practical organ for me. I have since moved away from Trotskyism but that's how things have worked out. But yeah, probably wise to change the signature some time :lol: .

[Social Greenman]

Wet Blanket wrote:


The most political thing a striking worker can do when faced with state repression would be to violently resist.

Well, we will just have to see who is the greater force but I think guns and tanks most likely would win the contest.


What do you mean by 'compensation'? They would be entitled to all that they create, nothing less. How a community chooses to value goods and services and exchange them is entirely up to the people within that particular community.

I do understand what you mean by being entitled to what is created but you have to consider planning, filling orders and shipment to distribution centers which goes beyond local communities so some form of compensation has to be used for exchange of products since products are not created with equal labor value.


People will consume less if they have to, and believe me, there will come a day when we have to. You cannot equate 'capitalist consumption' with 'post-capitalist consumption' in the same manner that you cannot equate capitalist production with post-capitalist production. The means and purpose of 'doing work' will shift drastically.

I have no doubt that "one day" people will consume less. Perhaps they will become more self sufficent in the new society or rely more on automation of products. Who can say for sure? What I was asking is how is the means of production going to change from capitalist to post-capitalist society? What is the economic transition plan?


If you're thinking that there's still going to be a rush to keep up with iPod or Cadillac consumer demands in an post-capitalist society, you're kidding yourself.

You better tell the people in your community what you wrote here because they are conditioned to consume. If they can't get what they want then they will use the means of violent theft against those who have them.


This sounds a lot like something I refer to as "walmart socialism"; the idea that there will be some sort of state or bureaucracy which keeps track of all sorts of spectacular goods and services created and exchanged with some elaborate 'credit system'.

Uuummm, I was refering to a computer program used by the union to keep track of what orders are to be filled after consumption of products. All of this is done at the local level and not by a central authority. Of course this is networked since different communities create different products.


Perhaps one day this could possibly be instituted but I really don't see something like this as adequate and potentially dangerous because of the centralization of production and consumption required for something like this to work.

Again, the workers themselves implements the computer program locally through the international union. The workers run the union in the absence of the political state(s). There is no central authority. What I am trying to get accross is that people will consume what is created, therefore, an inventory has to be kept so that orders can be filled when there is a demand for twinkies or some other product. Also, there has to be products created and set aside for disaster relief. Union Socialist economic planning is vital for the well being of everyone.


Proponents of such ideas are generally lack a very critical understanding of capitalist consumption within our society and the actual reasons and conditions under which spectacular commodities are produced. Do you think that laborers on the assembly line, once liberated from the chains of capitalism, are going to want to return to the same boring and uncreative shit they were doing prior to a revolution just so their fellow proletariat can enjoy a flat screen TV, lawn sprinkler, or whatever shit that's thrown together in said factory?
I highly doubt it.

Ahem, I do understand that the present production is based on profit. Because of this people are artifically conditioned to behave in a certain way and to consume what is advertised through different media outlets. Many in the U.S. believe this is freedom. If a new society is to emerge from the old then the laborers, being liberated from the chains of capitalism, will have to return to the same boring uncreative shit because people will still have demands for different foods, computers, flat screen TV's, lawn sprinklers, cars, etc. You think a general strike is going to change people overnight and made to wait for products? I think you are asking for chaos. It's going to have be a gradual change. I don't think people will be very supportive when they are told that what they once expected will no longer be available. That will just go against the grain so to speak.

[wet blanket]

Revolver9, semantics aside, I think we've come to an understanding.


Well, we will just have to see who is the greater force but I think guns and tanks most likely would win the contest.
Several factors come into play. How do you think a soldier would feel if he was ordered to turn his gun on his own countrymen? Also, from a militaristic perspective, look how shitty the US military has demonstrated itself to be in urban conflict in Iraq. Do you really think the military would roll tanks into an urban area and risk destroying their own country's infrastructure? It's not like a revolt be an angry hoard with pitchforks against the pentagon, 'no-holds-barred'. In the situation of a prolonged general strike, the state will be at the mercy of the masses.


I do understand what you mean by being entitled to what is created but you have to consider planning, filling orders and shipment to distribution centers which goes beyond local communities so some form of compensation has to be used for exchange of products since products are not created with equal labor value.
This is done by free association between the two parties involved. A labor voucher system could feasibly be acceptable, but personally I think it would be best to leave it up to the individuals and communities involved with said exchange. I'm not going to scheme up some sort of universal plan for everyone to use for exchange, and I'm going to be very critical of those who do.


I have no doubt that "one day" people will consume less. Perhaps they will become more self sufficent in the new society or rely more on automation of products. Who can say for sure? What I was asking is how is the means of production going to change from capitalist to post-capitalist society? What is the economic transition plan?
I've found that with all kinds of addictions and nasty habits, the best solution is to stop 'cold-turkey'. There is no transition plan, that's reformist, you cannot remake society within the shell of the old.


You better tell the people in your community what you wrote here because they are conditioned to consume. If they can't get what they want then they will use the means of violent theft against those who have them.
Again, if there ever were to be any kind of revolution, things like this would not be a priority for people. A revolution in which hierarchy and the 'spectacle'(a society in which social relations are mediated by images and commodities) still exists is not a revolution at all.


Uuummm, I was refering to a computer program used by the union to keep track of what orders are to be filled after consumption of products.
Walmart does the same thing, which is why I refer to it as "Walmart Socialism"


All of this is done at the local level and not by a central authority. Of course this is networked since different communities create different products.

Again, the workers themselves implements the computer program locally through the international union. The workers run the union in the absence of the political state(s). There is no central authority. What I am trying to get accross is that people will consume what is created, therefore, an inventory has to be kept so that orders can be filled when there is a demand for twinkies or some other product. Also, there has to be products created and set aside for disaster relief. Union Socialist economic planning is vital for the well being of everyone
I can tell you right now that something like this could require a centralized union bureaucracy and authority. Who would dispense said vouchers? Who would maintain this computer? Who would do the planning? If I could see such a system proposed in detail streamlined and automated enough to gauge how much of a good or service is needed, to assist in production, perhaps I'd be more inclined to go along with it, but as an abstract concept it sounds awfully fishy.


Ahem, I do understand that the present production is based on profit. Because of this people are artifically conditioned to behave in a certain way and to consume what is advertised through different media outlets. Many in the U.S. believe this is freedom.
They are wrong.


If a new society is to emerge from the old then the laborers, being liberated from the chains of capitalism, will have to return to the same boring uncreative shit because people will still have demands for different foods, computers, flat screen TV's, lawn sprinklers, cars, etc.
That's not liberation. That's social reformism, a practice that has failed in the past will continue to fail.


You think a general strike is going to change people overnight and made to wait for products?
No.


I think you are asking for chaos.
Is it really that hard for you to think outside the capitalist consumer mindset?


It's going to have be a gradual change.
That's not revolution.


I don't think people will be very supportive when they are told that what they once expected will no longer be available. That will just go against the grain so to speak.
When faced with the decision of liberation or the 'same old shit all over again', one can hope that people would choose liberation. Nobody said this revolution business would be easy.

[Social Greenman]

Several factors come into play. How do you think a soldier would feel if he was ordered to turn his gun on his own countrymen? Also, from a militaristic perspective, look how shitty the US military has demonstrated itself to be in urban conflict in Iraq. Do you really think the military would roll tanks into an urban area and risk destroying their own country's infrastructure? It's not like a revolt be an angry hoard with pitchforks against the pentagon, 'no-holds-barred'. In the situation of a prolonged general strike, the state will be at the mercy of the masses.

Because I know corporations and big businesses have strike insurance. These para-military people are brought in and paid big bucks to allow safe passage of "scabs" to continue production. They also film strikers when they are on the offensive for corporations to use in court. They also will use force and beat strikers or break legs when cameras are not in their direction (my information comes from a former para-military officer). A good soldier will not question orders when they are told to use lethal force against "communist forces" who are trying to take over their country. The Iraq situation is different since other nations are involved with the U.S. with military operations.


This is done by free association between the two parties involved. A labor voucher system could feasibly be acceptable, but personally I think it would be best to leave it up to the individuals and communities involved with said exchange. I'm not going to scheme up some sort of universal plan for everyone to use for exchange, and I'm going to be very critical of those who do.

With so many individuals and communities you keep writing about as having their own form of exchange system for products made...are you writing about tribalism? I thought socialism had no boundries.


I've found that with all kinds of addictions and nasty habits, the best solution is to stop 'cold-turkey'. There is no transition plan, that's reformist, you cannot remake society within the shell of the old.

People, especially here in the U.S., are not going to give up on what pleasures them. I can not tell you how many time the envirometalist people have told the public that they have to drive smaller cars and reduce energy consumption but the big corporations continue to produce those things that are harmful and wasteful for profit and people just keep on consuming them with no thought of any consequences. I also found it odd for you to write that their is no transition plans. I thought Marx wrote that socialism would emerge from capitalism carrying with it those things that are reconizable to all in society and that socialism would eventually transform into a communist society.


Again, if there ever were to be any kind of revolution, things like this would not be a priority for people. A revolution in which hierarchy and the 'spectacle'(a society in which social relations are mediated by images and commodities) still exists is not a revolution at all.

You better paint a better picture of what a post-capitalist society would look like and how it would function.


Walmart does the same thing, which is why I refer to it as "Walmart Socialism"

Every business keep track of their inventory otherwise there would be shortages on everything which include food and clothing. A socialist society would have to keep track of food, clothing and materials to build or repair homes and the natural gas to heat them.


I can tell you right now that something like this could require a centralized union bureaucracy and authority. Who would dispense said vouchers? Who would maintain this computer? Who would do the planning? If I could see such a system proposed in detail streamlined and automated enough to gauge how much of a good or service is needed, to assist in production, perhaps I'd be more inclined to go along with it, but as an abstract concept it sounds awfully fishy.

Why would it be centralized and bureaucratic? Think of it, the software exist and is distributed because computers are every where so there is no maitenence of "the one all powerful computer." The vouchers are distributed right there at the factory to everyone there. All computers are pretty muched networked otherwise we would not be having this conversation. In every community voucher cards are issued to everyone and used in every transaction (I say this because cards are made in many different locations so their funtion may vary according to each community). Since we would be off the profit system every one who wants to work can do so. Technicalogical advances can be implemented to help increase automation, produce better crops, increase public transportation, increase medical technology, education, help people in backward countries to transform their societies so that they can be housed, well fed, educated, and have top quality health care.


They are wrong.

I agree.


That's not liberation. That's social reformism, a practice that has failed in the past will continue to fail.

No, what was created was state capitalism headed by a vanguard. However, if every worker decided that what was produced was just a boring waste of time then who will operate the canneries? the tractor in the fields? who would do the butchering and baking? who would deliver the propane in rural areas? Who would make the furnaces when old ones break down. Who takes care of the mentally institutionalised people who cannot wipe their own ass? Who will produce fibulators for people who have heart attacks? Where would the sheet rock, wood, hammer, nails, tape measure, joint compound come from if all workers decided that they are not going back to their boring jobs? Revolution is about taking the means of production from the capitalist class for social ownership. Production would have to continue while new and better things are created to replace the old. In other words it going to take time to transform society after the revolution and the population weaned off the "supply and demand" mentality. Trying to make them do it "cold turkey" would just make them beg for the return of the capitalist class--revolution would go belly up.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by wet blanket
Firstly, I don't think that Marxism is a dead ideology, it's very alive and well. Secondly, even I would never connect marx to mao, that's a bit of a stretch.

Good.


Now, I can see and understand the noble intention in there. But she's still supporting the representation of the working class, even if the masses 'want it', I still find it unacceptable.

Actually, you can see the whole programme (demands) of the League, and it's obvious that it was a strong councilist orientated group.

You shoud check out her critique of the Bolsheviks, and her persistance in the self-governing and mass action of the whole class.

That "what if" sentence has no real meaning, since we've seen how Spartacists acted in the German revolution.


I don't disagree with much of what Marx wrote in Das Kapital, but I certainly disagree with a lot of the 'historical necessity' garbage among other things.

Hmm.. This might be interesting. Start a thread about Marx's 'historical necessity' you disagree with. I'm sure it would draw big attention.


"Anarchists want to abolish state authority while communists want to control a state with the support of the majority of the working class". Regardless, the state(even a 'proletarian state') implies representation and alienation, which is something I don't support.

Still not good enough, and far from the truth.

Communists (real communists) want the working class itself to "control the state" through direct democracy. We all know that in the system of direct workers' democracy there is no place for external political representation. "Communists" as a political-orientation just can't fit into the mechanism of it. (As I've been saying) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43928&view=findpost&p=1291988695)

Who ever - concidering himself a 'communist' - asserts otherwise - is not in contact with the science of social transformation and the reality itself. (As I've been saying, again) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43928&view=findpost&p=1291989084)

There is no place to justify bureaucratic means of management with "marxist ideology". Both Marx and Engels are clear on the assertion that socialism is a product of the working class itself.

If we speak of the IWMA alone, the fear of "red bureaucracy" is not justified.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Hi. I'm new to anarcho syndicalism, and to this forum.
The great difference between leftist anarchism and communism is the revolutionary tactics in relation to the state. What, then, clearly and simple, is the difference between anarcho syndicalism and communism? I suppose that will make it clear to me exactly what anarcho syndicalism is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Kamerat [email protected] 20 2005, 05:49 PM
Hi. I'm new to anarcho syndicalism, and to this forum.
The great difference between leftist anarchism and communism is the revolutionary tactics in relation to the state. What, then, clearly and simple, is the difference between anarcho syndicalism and communism? I suppose that will make it clear to me exactly what anarcho syndicalism is.
Hey, welcome.

I would say the main difference between anarchism and communism is that communism is more a materialist objection to capitalism while anarchism is a philosophical objection.

[enigma2517]

I'm inclined to disagree and say its a matter of strategy.

Capitalism ---> (Transition) ----> Communism (no classes, gift economy, etc.)

The transition that takes place is what is in question. Dictatorship of the proletariat (the workers suppressing the bourgeoise/reorganizing society) has to happen. Does DoTP happen with the help of a state or without the help of a state.

[Social Greenman]

I'm inclined to disagree and say its a matter of strategy.

Capitalism ---> (Transition) ----> Communism (no classes, gift economy, etc.)

The transition that takes place is what is in question. Dictatorship of the proletariat (the workers suppressing the bourgeoise/reorganizing society) has to happen. Does DoTP happen with the help of a state or without the help of a state.

Well, I like to know what in hell would be the consensus among all here to what exist in transition? I believe that once everyone agrees to what the purpose and plan that would exist in the transition period known as socialism, then the overall winning of the workers would be muich easier since they would know what the transition would look like which would be a bit more pleasent to imagine and more desirable than the existing wage slavery.

It must be understood that a lot of the capitalist system would be reconizable in the early years of the transition. What is to be done when the means of production are socially owned for the first time in an advanced capitalist country? I believe the monetary system has to be replaced with Labor Time Vouchers. This would make the former capitalist powerless since his/her wealth would cease to exist. This would give worker's labor the value that it deserves. No longer would gold, diamonds, or silver be used as wealth but instead as those things that help in production and automation.

What about the State? I have had a hard time musing over this. I can see the Anarchist point of view but I also see how the state can be used to crush workers on strike. I think we need to have people in political places who are able to hold back the police and military from being used against workers. After all is said and done and the workers are in control, then the state can be abolished rather quickly. Workers would be busy transforming society and how work is done till the day when the gift economy is realized with free access to all.


Excerpt from the pamphlet
"Fifteen Questions About Socialism"
by Daniel De Leon (1914)

QUESTION NO. I.

"How will the Co-operative Commonwealth determine the income of each worker?"

ANSWER: --

In order that the answer to the question be understood, two things must first be grasped, and kept in mind.

One is the factor which determines the worker's income today; and that involves the worker's status under Capitalism.

The other thing is the worker's changed status in the Co-operative Commonwealth; from which status flows the factor which will then determine the worker's income.

How is the worker's income determined today, under Capitalism? The income of the worker is his wages.

That which determines the wages of the worker today is the supply and demand for Labor in the Labor market.

If the supply is relatively large, the price of labor-power, that is, wages, which means income, will be relatively low. If the demand is relatively large, then the income, that is, wages, will rise.

As the Law of Gravitation may be, and is, perturbed by a number of perturbing causes, so with the Law of Wages: -- combinations of workers, on the one hand, may counteract an excessive supply of Labor in the Labor market, and keep wages up; on the other hand, capitalist outrages, such as shanghaing, not to mention innumerable others, may counteract a small supply of Labor in. the Labor market, and keep wages down. In the long, run the perturbing causes cease to be perceptible factors, and the Law of Supply and Demand re-asserts itself.

It follows that, under Capitalism, the status of' the worker is not that of a human. His income being his price, and his price being controlled by the identical law that controls the prices of all other articles of merchandise, under Capitalism the worker is a chattel. In so far as he is a "worker" he is no better than cattle on the hoof -- all affectation to the contrary notwithstanding.

What, on the contrary, is the worker's status in the Co-operative Commonwealth ?

"Co-operative Commonwealth" is a technical term; it is another name for the Socialist or Industrial Republic. He who says "Co-operative Commonwealth" means, must mean, a social system that its advocates maintain flows from a previous, the present, the Capitalist regimen ; a social system that its advocates maintain is made compulsory upon society by the impossible conditions which the Capitalist regimen brings to a head; finally, a social system which its advocates maintain that, seeing it is at once the offspring of Capitalism and the redress of Capitalist ills, saves and partakes of the gifts that Capitalism has contributed to the race's progress, and lops off the ills with which Capitalism itself cancels its own gifts. The issue of wages, or the worker's income, throws up one of the leading ills of Capitalism.

The Co-operative Commonwealth revolutionizes the status of the worker. From being the merchandise he now is, he is transformed into a human. The transformation is effected by his pulling himself out and away from the stalls in the market where today he stands beside cattle, bales of hay and crates of crockery, and taking his place as a citizen in full enjoyment of the highest civic status of the race.

The means for the transformation is the collective ownership of all the necessaries for production, and their operation for use, instead of their private ownership by the Capitalist, and their operation for sale and profits.

The worker's collective ownership of that which, being stripped of under Capitalism, turns him into a wage-slave and chattel, determines his new status. The revolutionized status, in turn, determines his income.

Whereas, under Capitalism, the very question whether the worker shall at all have an income depends upon the judgment, the will or the whim of the Capitalist, whether the wheels of production shall move, or shall lie idle, -- in the Co-operative Commonwealth, where the worker himself owns the necessaries for production, no such precariousness of income can hang over his head.

Whereas, under Capitalism, a stoppage of production comes about when the capitalist fears that continued production may congest the market, thereby forcing profits down, and never comes about because there is no need of his useful articles, -- in the Co-operative Commonwealth, use and not sale and profits being the sole purpose of production, no such stoppage of production, hence, of income, is conceivable.

Whereas, under Capitalism, improved methods of production have an eye solely to an increase of profits, and therefore are equivalent to throwing workers out of work, -- in the Co-operative Commonwealth, use and not sale and profits, popular wellbeing and not individual richness, being the sole object in view, improved methods of production, instead of throwing workers out of work, will throw out hours of work, and keep steady, if they do not increase, the flow of income.

Consequently, and finally --

The Co-operative Commonwealth will not determine, the Co-operative Commonwealth will leave it to each worker himself to determine his income; and that income will total up to his share in the product of the collective labor of the Commonwealth, to the extent of his own efforts, multiplied with the free natural opportunities and with the social facilities (machinery, methods, etc.) that the genius of society may make possible.

In other words -- differently from the state of things under Capitalism, where the worker's fate is at the mercy of the capitalist -- in the Co-operative Commonwealth the worker will himself determine, will himself be the architect of his fate.

http://www.deleonism.org/v.htm

[Social Greenman]

What is the compensation for work done in the co-operative commonwealth? Lets not assume that all work is equal nor the workers being that there are those with more ability. Anyways, here is an excerpt from what Daniel DeLeon wrote in 1914 from the link in the previous post.


...under the regimen of the Co-operative Commonwealth, the same economic and sociologic laws work differently. Given the instance of 200 conductors and 200 motormen being needed, the supply of conductors, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for conductors' function, and the supply of motormen, which will be indicated by the number of applicants for motormen's function, will be an exact index of the amount of tissue expended in each function. Temperamental and other exceptional causes being left aside, it will be found that the preference will be generally given by the applicants to the pleasanter, or easier, function, that is, to the function that consumes less tissue. Say that, in the instance under consideration, 400 workers apply for the function of conductor, while only 50 apply for the function of motorman, it would follow that 1 hour of a motorman's function consumes as much tissue as do 8 hours of a conductor's. The rate of tissue consumption being the index of the contribution to the social store, and the rate of contribution to the social store being the index for the rate of compensation, the motorman's 1 hour would receive a compensation equal to the conductor's 8 hours. The huge advantage of leisure that the motorman's function would thus be found to enjoy, and the conductor's function to be deprived of, would have the effect of counterbalancing the discrepancy in the consumption of tissue. A deflection of applicants from the conductors' to the motormen's function would set in. The effect of this effect would be the equilibration of the relative hours of the two. The action and re-action upon one another of these effects and counter-effects will ultimately and unerringly adjust the number of hours of the motorman's function which, all told, would be equivalent to the number of hours of the conductor's function. If, say, in the final adjustment 2 hours of the motorman's function are equal to 4 of the conductor's, then the voucher for labor performed, -- that is, for contribution made to the social store, -- paid out to the motorman for 2 hours' work will enable him to draw from the social store as much wealth as the voucher paid out to the conductor for 4 hours' work; and the voucher paid out to either will enable them to draw from the social store as much of the wealth produced by the other workers as they, motormen and conductors, respectively, contributed to the same store.

It will escape none but those whose powers of perception are clouded by bourgeois class interests; or by habits of thought; or by some other hindrance to rectitude of reasoning; -- it will escape none other that the process for determining the worker's rate of compensation in the Co-operative Commonwealth follows, as has been indicated, the identical lines that are followed under Capitalism, to wit, the line of supply and demand, with, however, the difference that, whereas under Capitalism the process works evil, hence, injustice to the worker, under Socialism the process works good, hence, justice, -- a justice that the abundance of wealth for all, producible today, underscores the injustice that obtains under Capitalism.

[Octobox]

How about a Marvel Team Up

The enemy to the Misean Free-Market types is Big Gov't and Corporatists (the people that lobby and control politicians)

The enemy to the Anarchist (of all varieties) is Big Gov't and Corporatists (the people that lobby and control politicians -- giving advantages to capitalists)

How to control a Corporatists Revenue Stream and Make them Yield in 2009!!!

The title of the "team-up" -- Something to please both camps (one agreeable word each)

"Consumer-Union"

In a Corporatist Society (like what we live in) a Corporations Revenue Stream looks like this: 1) Consumer Purchases, 2) Consumer Investors (stocks bonds - board members), and 3) Lobby-Eared Politicians (Bailouts - Subsidies - Corporate Welfarism)

The ideal society (since the worker is the consumer) would have a Corporate Revenue Stream that looked like this: 1) Consumer Purchases (workers consumptive choice) and 2) Consumer Investors (the worker investor class -stocks bonds - board members)

We do not live in the latter society -- we live in the Corporatist Society. In the latter society the Consumer has the power as the Consumer Investor is himself a consumer, he is the board member, and holds a portion of his wealth in that company. If the consumer pulls his daily-dollar-vote (Consumer-Union Strike) then the consumer investor's wealth immediately falls -- without bailout potential consumer investor tells corporation to give the consumer what he wants (say we want "no sweat-shop" products from Nike) and we win! Because they have no other revenue stream.

In the Corporatist Society the Consumer Investor will not necessarily pull his investment if the corporatist can get a bailout. Nevertheless there is a tipping point -- if the Consumers are united under a "union banner" (a refusal to purchase products) they can put pressure on the politicians (as a voting bloc) and/or if the drop in consumer purchases is enough the bailout will be infeasible and the corporatists will have to bend.

Our demand would then be "use your corporatist influence to eliminate all lobbying" - their pressure on the politician plus our voting bloc will eliminate lobbying and thus return power to consumer or the wage earner.

The best industries to target are ones that offer substitute products by businesses that are not subsidized – Organic Food Products – Organic Free-Range Meats – Beverage Industry (again boycott by purchasing Organic) – Organic Shade Grown Coffee over Starbucks. For those industries that are subsidized we chose the “least” evil of them and buy only from them – putting pressure on the other firms.

I have huge “free-market” type communities I belong too – If you guys could get the liberal-communist-anarchist college students to join our Marvel Consumer Union Team-Up I could get mine. If we could get the atheistic-libertarians and the Christians from fighting over abortion and porn for two minutes we might get them on board as well.

Just think of the influence and the numbers – Once we get rid of the Corporatists and the Big Gov’t sell-outs we can go back to arguing over idealism!!!

[Bilan]

Please do not revive threads from 2005. Really fucking annoying. Also, you're a free market anarchist.