Anarchist economics

[barista.marxista]

I'm curious about anarchist economics. I've heard a lot of trash talk on centralized planning, on parecon, etc., and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the anarchist economic model is. I assumed it was a parecon-esque system of autonomous councils. Am I wrong? Can anyone give me an explaination, and then some works to read?

[anomaly]

'Anarchist' economics are a rather broad topic.

But, I think most pretty much agree with the Marxists, that is, communist 'economics'. You know, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Basically a gift economy.

I don't think any 'autonomous councils' will oversee or 'run' any economic affairs. The idea is for workers to have self management, not new management.

Perhaps we would have demarchic (semi)-autonomous councils for governance of some kind (and issues decided would be of far less impact than today), not economic affairs.

I think Proudhon wrote a bit about 'mutualism', but other than that, I really don't know anything good to read.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:35 AM
I'm curious about anarchist economics. I've heard a lot of trash talk on centralized planning, on parecon, etc., and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the anarchist economic model is. I assumed it was a parecon-esque system of autonomous councils. Am I wrong? Can anyone give me an explaination, and then some works to read?
There is not really an "anarchist platform", and that is the beauty of it.

However, I guess most anarchists take the council communist model.

[wet blanket]

The models will vary depending on the community and nature of work being done. Ideally, things would be as decentralized as possible and a limited division of labor(if any at all).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:35 AM
I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the anarchist economic model is.
A man called James Guillaume who was a comrade of Bakunin's on the first international wrote a paper called 'Ideas on Social Organisation' (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm) in which he argues for a collectivist form of organisation as a transitional period after capitalism.

If you study Spain during the civil war you will see that they used collectivist economics in Catalonia and Aragon which was a massive success.

It is believed that collectivism will gradually develop into a gift economy (communism), which operates on the maxim "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

However, in an anarchist society it will be so that communities can organise themselves economically in what ever way they choose. So althougth he standard would most likely be communism you may find primitivst and mutualist examples.


Gift Economy: Also called anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. A gift economy would abolish money and trading all together. Production and distribution would be done purely on the basis of need through a confederation of free communes. The economy would be organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." The "communism" in anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the countries which some erroneously call "Communist" (USSR, China, etc.). None of those countries actually claimed to be communist; they claimed to be in a transition to communism. Anarcho-communists opposed these dictatorships from the very beginning and have participated in many rebellions against them. Anarcho-communists would do away with money, central planning and the state - all of which were present in the USSR, China, etc.


Collectivism: In Collectivism markets would be abolished. Instead of using markets to coordinate production they would set up workers councils, as described above, to coordinate production. Each workplace would be run by it's own worker assembly and each assembly would federate with other workplace assemblies in the area, forming a local workers council. The workers councils would federate with each other (forming more councils) as needed on many levels. Money would be kept and people paid on the basis of how much they work. Most collectivists believe that collectivism would eventually evolve into a gift economy.


Mutualism: In mutualism people would be either self-employed or part of a worker-controlled cooperative (individual cooperatives would be run by worker assemblies as described above). They would produce goods and trade them on a market. Although mutualism uses markets to coordinate production it is not capitalist because wage labor would be abolished. No one would sell their labor to others but would instead work in cooperatives or for themselves.

'Basic Principles of Anarchism' (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html)

NB. Mutualism was and idea in Proudhon's time and collectivism was the economic theory developed by both Proudhon Bakunin and later updated by Malatesta and Kropotkin. This lead to the establishment of anarchist communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

A thread that may be of interest: The Anarchist Paradigm for Transition (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34437&hl=)

[emokid08]

'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

I agree (!)


I don't think any 'autonomous councils' will oversee or 'run' any economic affairs. The idea is for workers to have self management, not new management.

Councils are self management. Councils are where the workers manage themselves.

I believe in Collectivism and a Gift Economy. If one could lead to the other or a hybrid between the tow could be achieved, I think that would be best.


QUOTE
Gift Economy: Also called anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. A gift economy would abolish money and trading all together. Production and distribution would be done purely on the basis of need through a confederation of free communes. The economy would be organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." The "communism" in anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the countries which some erroneously call "Communist" (USSR, China, etc.). None of those countries actually claimed to be communist; they claimed to be in a transition to communism. Anarcho-communists opposed these dictatorships from the very beginning and have participated in many rebellions against them. Anarcho-communists would do away with money, central planning and the state - all of which were present in the USSR, China, etc.



QUOTE
Collectivism: In Collectivism markets would be abolished. Instead of using markets to coordinate production they would set up workers councils, as described above, to coordinate production. Each workplace would be run by it's own worker assembly and each assembly would federate with other workplace assemblies in the area, forming a local workers council. The workers councils would federate with each other (forming more councils) as needed on many levels. Money would be kept and people paid on the basis of how much they work. Most collectivists believe that collectivism would eventually evolve into a gift economy.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by TAT
If you study Spain during the civil war you will see that they used collectivist economics in Catalonia and Aragon which was a massive success.


How exactly was it a massive success? Source?

Anarchist economics is for a large part based on Marxist economics, in fact, they both share the same critique of capitalism...although it's ironic that when that critique was under attack by bourgeois economists it were Marxists who defended it. Anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economic theory.

[dannie]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 17 2006, 04:54 PM
Anarchist economics is for a large part based on Marxist economics, in fact, they both share the same critique of capitalism...although it's ironic that when that critique was under attack by bourgeois economists it were Marxists who defended it. Anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economic theory.
Why are we anarchists theoretical leeches? We can't use marx's theory because? He probably wrote somewhere that "The only people that may use my theory's are marxist-leninists because they are the true heirs of my legacy"

BULLSHIT!!!!

I acknowledge marx's economics and I believe they are valueable for a post-revolution society, this makes me a leech? Just because i don't believe in your vanguardism?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Jannes+--> (Jannes)Why are we anarchists theoretical leeches? We can't use marx's theory because? He probably wrote somewhere that "The only people that may use my theory's are marxist-leninists because they are the true heirs of my legacy"

BULLSHIT!!!!
[/b]

Read before you post!


Marxism-Leninism
Anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economic theory.

See the "in terms of economic theory", for Marx sake, if they leeched on Marx for their entire theory they wouldn't have been called anarchists, now would they?


I acknowledge marx's economics and I believe they are valueable for a post-revolution society, this makes me a leech?

Yes, it makes you a leech, you take one part of his theory and dump the rest...let me rephrase that, you actively fight against the rest (i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat).


Just because i don't believe in your vanguardism?

Eh, no? Just because you don't "believe" in the intermediary stage of socialism.

[Dyst]

Yes, it makes you a leech, you take one part of his theory and dump the rest...let me rephrase that, you actively fight against the rest (i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Hah! What happened to being an individual, capable of thinking for yourself and having opinions?

The idea might be new to you.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ugh, can you people think before you post?

What do you expect? That I write up my own "unique" version of a critique of capitalism just so that I can say that I "thought about it myself"?

And of course I have opinions, you are wrong and Marx is right is one of them.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Yes, it makes you a leech, you take one part of his theory and dump the rest

You have to admit, M-L, it is rather silly to call someone a "leech" who simply doesn't adhere to every bit of Marx's.

That's like saying that I'm a "leech" of Nietzsche's thoughts because I agree that god doesn't exist. Quite the opposite, it's just that many of Nietzsche's writings were reactionary and promoted hero-worship.

I think you're a little too quick to attack anarchist theory just because it happens to have the word "anarchist" in it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical
You have to admit, M-L, it is rather silly to call someone a "leech" who simply doesn't adhere to every bit of Marx's.


Yes, that is indeed very silly, but I did not say anarchists are theoretical leeches because they don't adhere to every bit of Marx's theory, if I said that I would be a theoretical leech myself for the very same reason.

I said anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economics, I backed it up by adding that anarchists basically took over the Marxist critique of capitalism, and not once bothered to defend it from bourgeois economics' attacks.

Oh, yes, and because they actively fight against the rest of Marx's theories (specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat), which are based on his economic works.

[barista.marxista]

Okay, how about this: Leninists are not fucking welcome in topics that do not concern them. What you're doing, M-L, is trolling. So GET THE FUCK OUT.

On topic: besides the gift economy, are there more systematic economic ideas? I just picked up a copy of Parecon, and while I haven't gotten a chance to look through it, it seems like an updated, Pannekoek-esque model of councilism.

[emokid08]

On topic: besides the gift economy, are there more systematic economic ideas? I just picked up a copy of Parecon, and while I haven't gotten a chance to look through it, it seems like an updated, Pannekoek-esque model of councilism.

It is. Council Communism and Gift Economics go hand in hand, at least I think so. I think that Economics should be Collectivized or communalized and Democratic.Economics should include all so it benefits all. And in order to benefit ALL OF SOCIETY, it needs to be organized into some federation of councils, syndicates,Collectives, soviets etc etc. Totalitarian Beauracracy will only stifle a post revolutionary economy.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by barista.marxista+--> (barista.marxista)Parecon[/b]
I wouldn't touch the stuff, especially if you are an anarchist.

This thread may be of interest...Parecon (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48539)


Originally posted by M-[email protected]
I said anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economics, I backed it up by adding that anarchists basically took over the Marxist critique of capitalism, and not once bothered to defend it from bourgeois economics' attacks.
What have we to defend? And how could we defend it? And where were the Marxists to 'defend' Marx's words? And was there anything they possibly could have done?

Questions a rhetorical there, so don't feel inclined to answer. I'm simply making a point: in periods of reaction, it is very difficult to 'defend' any revolutionary material.


Oh, yes, and because they actively fight against the rest of Marx's theories (specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat), which are based on his economic works.
The 'economic works' you speak of are the volumes of Capital. This was critique of the capitalist system. Anarchists can certainly agree with this.

However, Marx didn't right much at all about post-revolutionary society. So trying to do 'what Marx said' doesn't make much sense here at all.


TAT
It is believed that collectivism will gradually develop into a gift economy (communism), which operates on the maxim "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
Perhaps this could be used. However, collectivism does not abolish the market. I'm curious as to how we could destroy the market from collectivism. After all, the profit motive would still be in place.

Myself, as far as 'transitionary' economics go, I am rather fond of the idea of time labor vouchers. These eliminate the profit motive, and thus eliminate the market as we know it (there will be no 'sellers', and thus no profit to be made), and vouchers can be mathematically decided. This is based on labor time divided by output, so it also eliminates surplus value. Basically, what you put into the social pot is equivalent to what you take out of it.

I had a rather lengthy conversation with SocialGreenman and NovelGentry awhile back. I was 'convinced' after read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. Here is the thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039).

The only thing I don't like is NovelGentry's suggestion that these be regulated by some sort of state. But I think TLVs could work on a commune-to-commune basis. It's really a rather simple concept, so I don't think it requires any state to 'regulate' or 'distribute' them.

Now, I of course would prefer to go straight to a free-access system (that is, communism), but, just in case this isn't materially possible (as of yet we have no idea what will be possible and what won't be possible), TLVs seem a viable option.

[Janus]

The only thing I don't like is NovelGentry's suggestion that these be regulated by some sort of state. But I think TLVs could work on a commune-to-commune basis.
I guess that would have to depend on one's definition of "state", how strict or broad it is. So anarchists agree that there will be some sort of economic transition after the collapse of capitalism but this just won't involve a central organization, right?

[LoneRed]

ML isnt trolling he was merely stating a fact, that many anarchists take certain parts of Marxs theory, then ignore or FIGHT against other core parts, and even have gone so far as to call marx an authoritarian after using his views on capitalism, hypocrisy at best

[barista.marxista]

Are you Communist League people following me? Get the fuck out! Your Lenin-god abandoned a lot of Marxism too -- like how revolution needs to be made in the first world! Gee, I wonder what the repercussions of that were... At least anarchists try to actually make what they say they stand for, unlike you fucks.

Again: THIS THREAD IS NOT LENIN-FRIENDLY. If you want to have a thread talking about anarchism, make your own. Don't hijack ours.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:01 PM
Are you Communist League people following me? Get the fuck out! Your Lenin-god abandoned a lot of Marxism too -- like how revolution needs to be made in the first world! Gee, I wonder what the repercussions of that were... At least anarchists try to actually make what they say they stand for, unlike you fucks.

Again: THIS THREAD IS NOT LENIN-FRIENDLY. If you want to have a thread talking about anarchism, make your own. Don't hijack ours.
Calm down, *****ing at fellow leftists obviously isn't getting us anywhere and won't get us anywhere. I like how radical leftists are such a minority but within ourselves we feel the need to constantly fight with each other. Hmm maybe that's why there wont't be a revolution in the near future.

[321zero]

Marxist theory is um, open-source.

B-M don't shout. Either make like the tarbaby or call in the mods.

Someday, when you are a mod, you can persecute Lennies to your hearts content :P

[barista.marxista]

I'm not persecuting anyone. I would like to have a discussion where Leninists don't come in and hijack the thread because they feel excluded. Just as I wouldn't post about Parecon in a topic about Imperialism, they shouldn't post about Leninism in a topic about anarchist economics. That's called trolling, and I did report the post.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:42 PM
I'm not persecuting anyone. I would like to have a discussion where Leninists don't come in and hijack the thread because they feel excluded. Just as I wouldn't post about Parecon in a topic about Imperialism, they shouldn't post about Leninism in a topic about anarchist economics. That's called trolling, and I did report the post.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc10.jpg

This is a public forum. Grow up, b.a.

Miles

[barista.marxista]

Jeez, what an ugly baby. You can go back to selling your newspaper now. kthnxbai :D

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)So anarchists agree that there will be some sort of economic transition after the collapse of capitalism but this just won't involve a central organization, right?[/b]
Well, like I said, we just don't know if this transitionary TLV system will be needed or not. It will depend on the objective material conditions immediately after revolution. We have no idea right now what will be possible and what won't. I'm keeping my mind very open to the possibility of using a TLV system in the immediate post-revolutionary society. And I think we all need to keep our minds open.

But there are certain things we just can't have. Like the state, or, if you want to call it so, 'central organization'. As I've said before, the state is hierarchy within society. And we just can't have that.


Originally posted by barista.marxista+--> (barista.marxista)Parecon [/b]
Comrade, this is a market socialist system. It's a bad idea. Check out that thread I linked.


Jesus Christ!@
I like how radical leftists are such a minority but within ourselves we feel the need to constantly fight with each other.
I rather like BM's (haha...funny name :P ) 'direct confrontational' style towards Leninists. I think Leninists need to be fought wherever they show up.


LoneRed
even have gone so far as to call marx an authoritarian after using his views on capitalism, hypocrisy at best
This isn't hypocrisy. It's only hypocrisy if you take your view: that we either support all of Marx or none of it.

Nobody likes an idol. We think Marx had some good ideas. However, he, like all other thinkers, made some mistakes. And we merely point out the mistakes we think he made.

You Lennies do the same thing, except you say we need more authoritarianism. We say we need less. See the conflict? Good. :)

[KC]

Okay, how about this: Leninists are not fucking welcome in topics that do not concern them. What you're doing, M-L, is trolling. So GET THE FUCK OUT.

Actually these are public discussions. Everyone that is registered on the board is welcome to contribute. Deal with it.


Originally posted by Loyal Subject

The 'economic works' you speak of are the volumes of Capital.

His economic works are much more extensive than the three volumes of Capital.



Again: THIS THREAD IS NOT LENIN-FRIENDLY. If you want to have a thread talking about anarchism, make your own. Don't hijack ours.


Quit being so sectarian. This thread is public. If you wanna have private conversations with your little anarchist friends, start your own forum or use aim or pm or something.


You can go back to selling your newspaper now.

Our newspaper's free. Go yell at the RCP if you wanna whine about this shit. You obviously don't know anything about the League and your temper tantrums show both your intelligence and maturity when it comes to matters which require the utmost of both. Grow up.

[anomaly]

Show me where Marx detailed the economic intricacies of post revolutionary society, O Mighty One. That's what this thread was about.

[barista.marxista]

How am I being sectarian, when the first thing M-L said is "You anarchists are just theory leeches"? Do you see the absurdity of that? Especially considering that Lennies, always, claim anyone who is not a strict adherent to the Red Tsar is an anarchist. Spell this out: A-U-T-O-N-O-M-I-S-M, baby!! :P

And, Anomaly: you're a good guy. Thanks a lot. ;)

[redstar2000]

It's a matter of record that the first Russian translation of Volume I of Das Kapital was done by a fellow you may have heard of...Bakunin. So it's not particularly surprising that elements of Marxist economics "found their way" into anarchist circles.

------------------------------

I've already received two complaints about this thread: sexist language and Leninist trolling and disruption.

Please do not call people "*****es" on this board...the English language is rich in gender-neutral epithets. Please use them!

This is a public board and any member is free to contribute to any thread; the best way to deal with "trolls" (or people you think are deliberately trolling) is to ignore their posts completely.

Responding to such posts -- traditionally called "feeding the trolls" -- simply encourages them to "do it some more".

If things get totally out of hand, ask a mod or an admin to "split the thread"...it's something pretty easy to do and takes but a few minutes. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LoneRed]

leftists are taking shit to far, when we cant use the word *****es, stop all the PC bullshit. Also B.M just because i defended ML doesnt make me a leninist, i like some of his ideas, but a lot i do not like, but yet we are both leaguers, leninist and non-leninist, well ill be damned. anomaly check out


18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Poverty of Philosophy

German Ideology

Communist Manifesto- come on anomoly i thought you knew more than that

Grundisse

shall i go on?

take a bit out that silly anarchists

[anomaly]

I've read two of the above: 18th Brumaire and Communist Manifesto.

In my opinion, Civil War in France (which I'm in the middle of) and Critique of the Gotha Program are far superior to both of the above.

But, LoneRed, what is your point? Do you think that if anarchists read the works you mention, we'll all become Leninists or 'Leaguers'?

Actually, the more I read, the more anarchistic I became. This was especially true after reading parts of What Is To Be Done, by Lenin.

And the Marxists I constantly disagree with are always of the vanguardist varient (that is, those with a heavy Leninist influence). I find myself almost constantly agreeing with libertarian Marxists.

Also, TAT, what do you think about the possibility of using TLVs in collectivism rather than markets and money? I think TLVs are a good fit myself.

[emokid08]

Anamoly quote:

Actually, the more I read, the more anarchistic I became. This was especially true after reading parts of What Is To Be Done, by Lenin.

And the Marxists I constantly disagree with are always of the vanguardist varient (that is, those with a heavy Leninist influence). I find myself almost constantly agreeing with libertarian Marxists.

I am the same way, I seem to have taken qualitative steps to the left the more I have read. I agree with RedStar and his piece titled 'The curse of the Lenin Mummy'

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LoneRed
leftists are taking shit too far, when we cant use the word *****es, stop all the PC bullshit.

This is not a matter of "political correctness". "*****" is a misogynist slur which is unacceptable on this board.

If you are unable to post without using sexist language, then I suggest that you will soon find yourself unable to post here at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 18 2006, 07:00 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 18 2006, 07:00 PM)
LoneRed
leftists are taking shit to far, when we cant use the word *****es, stop all the PC bullshit.

This is not a matter of "political correctness". "*****" is a misogynist slur which is unacceptable on this board.

If you are unable to post without using sexist language, then I suggest that you will soon find yourself unable to post here at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I have to agree with RedStar here, especially given the context in which it was used, which was as a derogatory term.

Miles

[LoneRed]

i didnt see the context in which it was used, but i rarely use the word, but even if you take this word aside Pc goes too far.


also to anomoly, you asked where he talked about post-revolutionary society, i gave you many works, and you even added two in there that i left out, that was the point. disagreeing with "vanguardists" doesnt make one an anarchists, unless you completely abandon marxs claims, or realy misinterpret them

[LoneRed]

"Our newspaper's free. Go ***** to the RCP if you wanna ***** about this shit"

is this where it was used?

[anomaly]

My actual question was 'where does Marx detail the economic intricacies of post-revolutionary society'. It was meant as a joke because Marx never does this.

And I haven't abandoned all of Marx. I fully accept the idea of historical materialism. That is Marx's real genius, I think.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:00 PM
"Our newspaper's free. Go ***** to the RCP if you wanna ***** about this shit"

is this where it was used?
No, anomaly edited his comment out of his post. This was from Lazar. But this comment is something that should be discussed.

Miles

EDIT: To clarify the pronouns.

[anomaly]

That's a lie. I never said that.


Originally posted by Lazar
Our newspaper's free. Go ***** to the RCP if you wanna ***** about this shit.
I looked and actually Lazar posted this comment.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 17 2006, 09:47 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 17 2006, 09:47 PM)
Originally posted by barista.marxista+--> (barista.marxista)Parecon[/b]
I wouldn't touch the stuff, especially if you are an anarchist. [/b]
This seems to be your M.O., anomaly, critcize various proposed theories of socialist economic structure and organization, without being able to point to a comprehensive theory of economic organization that YOU think will work.

Instead we are left with endless repetition of Marx's most famous quote, some nebulous talk about "gift economy", "networks" and "communes", continually lacking any specific and concrete ideas of how such a system would be structured.

I see you took note of TAT's definitions of Mutualism and Collectivism. Good. Perhaps you will note, that based on your criticisms of me and my ideas in the Nicky Scarfo Manifesto, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Tito would all be "reformists" and if they were to arise from the dead tomorrow and start posting here, you'd tell them that RevLeft is not an appropriate forum for them.

Proudhon-- worker collectives in an open market, so according to you, based on what you wrote in the other thread, Proudhon is a supporter of "wage slavery" and "capitalism".

Tito-- some market socialism, therefore a "reformist"

Bakunin-- money still exists and people paid according to their labor, therefore Bakunin supports "wage slavery" and "class society", if you stick by what you wrote about me.

So according to the great revolutionary anomaly, two of Anarchism's early leaders and theorists, along with a Communist who led the only successful resistance to the Nazis in Occupied Europe are "reformists", and supporters of "capitalism", "wage slavery" and "class society", and goes on to argue against worker councils, which were supported by leading Russian anarchists and communists in the early days of the Revolution, before the Leninists liquidated the anarchists, Left SRs, Left Communists and Bolsehvik opposition factions, then bureaucratized the Soviets and turned them into state organs.

And yet the keyboard commando is mum on any other concrete organizational ideas, knows next to nothing of syndicalism and cannot recommend to the thread's author anything to read on the subject he is posting about. But he's good at recommending AGAINST things.


Originally posted by Marmot
There is not really an "anarchist platform", and that is the beauty of it.

Organizationally speaking, I don't think there's anything beautiful about lacking a platform. But, in point of fact, some anarchist currents (such as revolutionary syndicalists) do posses a platform of sorts.


[email protected]
However, I guess most anarchists take the council communist model.

That or syndicalist model, or some combination of the two. Amongst the main currents at any rate. The anarchist movement is varied and includes many variations, some of which were listed by TAT (though oddly excluding syndicalism, probably the most influential model historically speaking). The anarcho-communists are a big current, I suppose, but I think it's utopian garbage myself, short on concrete and workable organization/structures. Then there are the many teenage anarchists who simply don't have a fuckin clue.


LoneRed
ML isnt trolling he was merely stating a fact, that many anarchists take certain parts of Marxs theory, then ignore or FIGHT against other core parts, and even have gone so far as to call marx an authoritarian after using his views on capitalism, hypocrisy at best

By this logic, any Communist who defended themselves in court against state censorship on First Amendment grounds is a hypocrite because they actively fight many of the things the Bill of Rights' authors believed in.

Ya know, you and M-L might wanna consider that some people think Marx was good at one part of his analysis, but don't buy into everything he said and that does not make them hypocrites. Hitler made some very good analytical points about political behavior, even if the rest his ideas and analysis were bunk. Einstein was a brilliant scientist but his political writing shallow (and he wasn't even right about all of his scientific theories). Aristotle a great philosopher and a shitty scientist. Hume was one of the founders of evidentiary method, paving the way for much scientific and social progress, but he was also a founder of modern social conservative thought.

FUCK! I almost forgot the best example of them all-- Hegel. Do you think Marx was a hypocrite for making dialectics the bedrock of his theory, yet explicitly rejecting other parts of Hegel's thought? Was Marx, to paraphrase M-L, a "philosophical leech"?

Again, it's possible, just possible, my dogmatic Leninist friends, that borrowing theoretical ideas and analyses from other people while rejecting other ideas by that same thinker, does not make one a hypocrite, but rather a CRITICAL THINKER. I would suggest that it is the dogmatic Marxists who are the true "theoretical leeches" as they are unable to form an independent analysis, and instead must rely on unwavering devotion to a pre-packaged theory. The hostility towards those who think independently and critically, and yes even "synthesize" different ideas merely underscores the doctrinaire and stubborn prejudices of those making the criticisms.

[KC]

I looked and actually Lazar posted this comment.


Slipped out. Fixed.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nicky
Instead we are left with endless repetition of Marx's most famous quote, some nebulous talk about "gift economy", "networks" and "communes", continually lacking any specific and concrete ideas of how such a system would be structured.
We know we want a free access society eventually. We know we want communes. You didn't say you wanted this. So I told you what we want.

I think the communes would probably use some sort of planning system involving very technological communication. I've already described this.

There is also another idea I've been floating around, that of Time Labor Vouchers. Perhaps you could check that out.


Perhaps you will note, that based on your criticisms of me and my ideas in the Nicky Scarfo Manifesto, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Tito would all be "reformists" and if they were to arise from the dead tomorrow and start posting here, you'd tell them that RevLeft is not an appropriate forum for them.
This is probably true. I'm not very familiar with Tito, but as far as the other two go, things have evolved since the 19th century.

Of course, we'll never know for sure. They're dead. :P


Bakunin-- money still exists and people paid according to their labor, therefore Bakunin supports "wage slavery" and "class society", if you stick by what you wrote about me.
Well, maybe. If you'll note, I suggested that if you make some minor adjustments to your proposed system, namely using TLVs (as this would eliminate the profit motive, which still exists in your proposed society), I'd probably support you. Bakunin here sounds a lot like the collectivism described by TAT.

I'll post you some shit if you want it. Here's a good link.

TLVs (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039)

There's also a few other 'economics' threads (or threads that have come to discuss economics) crawling around in Theory.

I will say this, though: the kind of thing you want from me, apparently a detailed description of the post-revolutionary economy, is extremely difficult to do, since we don't know the material conditions of that economy.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:19 AM
I fully accept the idea of historical materialism.
can we please drop the sexist, gender specific language? i would prefer if if we cease this male-centric view of societal progression and refer to it instead as herstorical materialism. anything short is misogynist.

nicky scarfo: you would be hard pressed to find anarchists that take proudhonian mutalism seriously these days.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:44 AM
can we please drop the sexist, gender specific language? i would prefer if if we cease this male-centric view of societal progression and refer to it instead as herstorical materialism. anything short is misogynist.
From Wikipedia:


The term history comes from the Greek "ιστορία" historia, "an account of one's inquiries," and shares that etymology with the English word story.

And if you're looking for gender-neutral, the word you want is "itstory".

Miles

[black magick hustla]

Organizationally speaking, I don't think there's anything beautiful about lacking a platform. But, in point of fact, some anarchist currents (such as revolutionary syndicalists) do posses a platform of sorts.

the syndicalist "platform" is not really very specific and developed. there are certain tenets that form the anarchosyndicalist current, like a great emphasis in workplace democracy, union organization, and the general strike as the most powerful tool for achieving revolution.

however anarchosyndicalist unions organize themselves in the most libertarian way they deem possible. there are certain different conditions surrounding every union and that the unionists need to adapt to. i dont think the way the CNT is organized is exactly the same way the IWW is organized.

that is why i think platfroms are kinda useless for anarchism. different communities will find different conditions to adapt to.

who will monitor that the platform is followed accordingly anyway. the state? the vanguard?

a platform requires some sort of centralized authority in order for it to be followed.



Instead we are left with endless repetition of Marx's most famous quote, some nebulous talk about "gift economy", "networks" and "communes", continually lacking any specific and concrete ideas of how such a system would be structured.

the thing is that we don't know.

we analyze historical examples and make experiments, but we don't have a fucking clue about how a communist society will look.

that is why there was a while i was focusing more on historical experiments made in russia, mexico, and spain than pure anarchist theory. if you have read anarchist books, you will realize that while interesting and enlightening, they are pretty vague in what they advocate.

you wont see an anarchist book with specific instructions on how to construct an anarchist society. capitalists have those books though, there are millions of bookpages on how to organize and mantain the capitalist state and market.

you need to give some margin to experimentation and the spontainiety of the people.

[LoneRed]

i dont find the phrase "*****ing about it" a sexist comment, if one were to say ***** as in reference to another person, then possibly, but hes using *****ing as a stronger form of complaining. whether or not this word started as "sexist" it clearly is used as a commonplace word for complaining without recognizing its connotations.

for the record, i was merely stating lazars slip. even if it has sexist connotations.
I recognize why this term is misogynist, and to clear things up, i dont advocate the word, i just didnt see the anomoly post, i thought you were referring to lazar

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:53 AM
i dont find the phrase "*****ing about it" a sexist comment, if one were to say ***** as in reference to another person, then possibly, but hes using *****ing as a stronger form of complaining. whether or not this word started as "sexist" it clearly is used as a commonplace word for complaining without recognizing its connotations.
just shut up seriously

if there is a sexist connotation in the word *****, why defend the use of it? *****ing obviously has a negative connotation, and it is probably used in that way because women are considered to whine and cry more than men.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
Hitler made some very good analytical points about political behavior, even if the rest his ideas and analysis were bunk.

The only one that comes to mind is that political rallies "must not be boring"...something that he actually copied from the early KPD.


Aristotle [was] a great philosopher and a shitty scientist.

He was, in fact, a quite competent field biologist...the first to note that dolphins were mammals, for example.

As to philosophy...well, he was better than Plato -- but then that's not really saying much, is it?


The hostility towards those who think independently and critically, and yes even "synthesize" different ideas merely underscores the doctrinaire and stubborn prejudices of those making the criticisms.

Sometimes. But sometimes the "independent synthesis" is not really new at all...and has already been discredited.

"Intelligent Design" could be described as a "synthesis" of Christianity and Darwinism...but it's still a self-evidently rotten idea.

The problem with arguing against "dogmatism" in principle is that sometimes the "dogmatist" is right.

True, there's often a considerable time-lag before we find out for sure, one way or the other.

Yes, critical independent thinking is "a good thing" and should be supported; but it's not some kind of "all purpose free pass" to speak nonsense without fear of contradiction.

If someone proposes something that's bullshit, the advocate cannot defend his proposition solely on the grounds that he's being "an independent thinker" and all of his critics are "mere dogmatists".

They might be "dogmatists"...but they might also be right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Cult of Reason]

I suggest that the word "dog" is reclaimed as an insult. Would we then have one gender-specific insult pair?

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 19 2006, 09:49 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 19 2006, 09:49 AM)
Nicky Scarfo
Hitler made some very good analytical points about political behavior, even if the rest his ideas and analysis were bunk.

The only one that comes to mind is that political rallies "must not be boring"...something that he actually copied from the early KPD.


Aristotle [was] a great philosopher and a shitty scientist.

He was, in fact, a quite competent field biologist...the first to note that dolphins were mammals, for example.

As to philosophy...well, he was better than Plato -- but then that's not really saying much, is it?


The hostility towards those who think independently and critically, and yes even "synthesize" different ideas merely underscores the doctrinaire and stubborn prejudices of those making the criticisms.

Sometimes. But sometimes the "independent synthesis" is not really new at all...and has already been discredited.

"Intelligent Design" could be described as a "synthesis" of Christianity and Darwinism...but it's still a self-evidently rotten idea.

The problem with arguing against "dogmatism" in principle is that sometimes the "dogmatist" is right.

True, there's often a considerable time-lag before we find out for sure, one way or the other.

Yes, critical independent thinking is "a good thing" and should be supported; but it's not some kind of "all purpose free pass" to speak nonsense without fear of contradiction.

If someone proposes something that's bullshit, the advocate cannot defend his proposition solely on the grounds that he's being "an independent thinker" and all of his critics are "mere dogmatists".

They might be "dogmatists"...but they might also be right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Well, except the dogmatists ARE wrong here, redstar, because they are asserting that to agree with one part of a thinker's analysis, while rejecting other ideas, is prima facie hypocritical. Surely one could think of contexts in which it may be hypocritical, however, none of the Leninists here have made a compelling case for why it's hypocritical for Anarchists to accept some or much of Marx's analysis of capitalism while rejecting his ideas on the transition into socialism (or even Lenin's interpretation of those ideas!).


just shut up seriously

if there is a sexist connotation in the word *****, why defend the use of it? *****ing obviously has a negative connotation, and it is probably used in that way because women are considered to whine and cry more than men.

Because in the real-world, "*****" is considered by most people (women included) as being sexist when used as a noun (and sometimes even then only in certain context) and not when used as a verb. Contrast this with how most black people react to a white guy sayin "nigger" in almost ANY context. Now, a strong argument could be made that in any context, "*****" carries sexist roots and/or connotations. However, redstar's assertion that the word, in the context in question, is not just sexist but also "misogynist", is clearly over-the-top in my opinion.

I know many working-class socialist sisters who don't give a flying fuck about the use of the word. The only people who seem overly concerned with the word are the bourgeois left, the socially isolated and the self-serious. Working-class socialists of action, rather than those of theory, usually have bigger things to worry about than someone using the word "*****" in a fairly innoccous context. For example, building class and gender equality in a meaningful and tangible way. Few but armchair socialists, the bourgeois left, and young left adventurists go around slapping fellow socialists over use of the word *****, especially in the context it was used here. Unfortunately, internet political forums of all sorts are filled with the bourgoeis, keyboard commandos and youthful adventurists, and socialist forums are no exception, so we have arguments over stupid shit like this.

If you want to all use of words and phrases that have sexist roots and/or connotations, might as well ban phrases like "Lenin had some balls on him" or "stop busting my stones", as both play into ideas of sexist machismo. Hey, if we're gonna start on the slippery slope of PC/bourgoeis idenitity politics squabbling over the content of every word and phrase, might as well slide all the way into the valley.

[321zero]

I suggest that the word "dog" is reclaimed as an insult. Would we then have one gender-specific insult pair?

Nah - "dogging" wouldn't work as a verb in the way we need it to. :lol:

[321zero]

Nicky Scarfo Posted on Apr 20 2006, 02:10 AM

...none of the Leninists here have made a compelling case for why it's hypocritical for Anarchists to accept some or much of Marx's analysis of capitalism while rejecting his ideas on the transition into socialism (or even Lenin's interpretation of those ideas!).

There is no compelling case, those lennies are being silly. Silly lennies.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:58 PM
There is no compelling case, those lennies are being silly. Silly lennies.
We should make a child's song out of that. ;)

[LoneRed]

you say there is no compelling case, yet fail to prove it wrong. It is simply true what scarfo said. your sounding a lot like those undialectal marxists, who simply dont understand whats going on

[321zero]

It's silly to get upset when anarchos appreicate some aspect of Marx's work. Like I said upthread it's 'open source'. Anyhow this argument is inane and a diversion from the thread topic. I'm gonna shut up now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Apr 17 2006, 04:54 PM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Apr 17 2006, 04:54 PM)
Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)If you study Spain during the civil war you will see that they used collectivist economics in Catalonia and Aragon which was a massive success.
[/b]

How exactly was it a massive success? Source?[/b]
From Eddie Conlon's book 'Anarchism in Action: The Spanish Civil War' (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_intro.html)


Eddie [email protected]
Collectivisation of the land was extensive. Close on two thirds of all land in the Republican zone (that area controlled by the anti-fascist forces) was taken over. In all between five and seven million peasants were involved. The major areas were Aragon where there were 450 collectives, the Levant (the area around Valencia) with 900 collectives and Castille (the area surrounding Madrid) with 300 collectives. Not only was the land collectivised but in the villages workshops were set up where the local tradespeople could produce tools, furniture, etc. Bakers, butchers, barbers and so on also decided to collectivise


Eddie Conlon
Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country".

You can also read Anthony Beavers (a liberal) account of the Spanish Civil war where the collectives are discussed indepth or any of Jose Perites [a Spanish anarchist in spain during the civil war] books on the subject; including 'Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War' (http://websell.pipex.com/beta-cgi/abooks/90225.html) . If that doesn't satsify your need to understand the massive success' of the Spanish collectives, read 'Lessons of the Spanish revolution' (http://websell.pipex.com/beta-cgi/abooks/90258.html) by Vernon Richards.


Anarchist economics is for a large part based on Marxist economics, in fact, they both share the same critique of capitalism

Surely that's self-evident. Anyone who has studied anarchism even slightly can see that this is the case.


...although it's ironic that when that critique was under attack by bourgeois economists it were Marxists who defended it.

It's fine to speculate, but it's of little value in a theoretical discussion.


Anarchists are theoretical leeches in terms of economic theory.

Whether you use the word borrowed, agreed or even leeched is of little consequence really. Yes, anarchist economics is based largely on Marxist economics...What's the big deal?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:50 PM
ML isnt trolling he was merely stating a fact, that many anarchists take certain parts of Marxs theory, then ignore or FIGHT against other core parts, and even have gone so far as to call marx an authoritarian after using his views on capitalism, hypocrisy at best
I'm not sure why I or anyone else should grasp what you're saying. Essentially what your opinion amounts to is: You must believe everything Marx says otherwise you're a hypocrite.

I don't see why it's a problem that anarchists have adopted parts of Marxism which make sense and rejected those parts that don't? I fail to see how that constitutes hypocrisy?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 19 2006, 05:30 AM
listed by TAT (though oddly excluding syndicalism, probably the most influential model historically speaking).
anarcho-syndicalism isn't an economic structure it's a practical and tactical organisation of anarchists.

Most anarcho-syndicalists accept collectivism and a gift economy as the consequences of a class revolution.

There was no need to list syndicalism.


The anarcho-communists are a big current, I suppose, but I think it's utopian garbage myself, short on concrete and workable organization/structures.

'Conquest of Bread' - 'Factories, fields and Workshops' are but two indepth books on the creation of an anarchist communist society.

My suggestion would be to read them.

[The Feral Underclass]

'To Each According To Need: An Anarchist Look At Communist Economics' (http://nefac.net/node/1907) is an interesting essay by a NEFAC member.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:11 PM
Also, TAT, what do you think about the possibility of using TLVs in collectivism rather than markets and money? I think TLVs are a good fit myself.
I don't really know enough about it nor have I had the opportunity to really consider it as a proposal.

Obviously you're not going to abolish money straight away, so the idea would be to make it as obsolete as possible. Using this voucher system is one way of achieving this I suppose.

[LoneRed]

I completely agree with Scarfos point about that word. its just a forum guys, forums dont change lives.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by TAT
It's fine to speculate, but it's of little value in a theoretical discussion.


I wasn't speculating, I was stating a fact.

The most fierce attack against Marxist economics was started by the Austrian school of economics in the early 1900's, the subjectivists with their theory of supply and demand and subjective economics tried to refute Marxist economics. Their leader, namely; Bohm-Bahwerk, wrote his famous (famous in bourgeois economic circles) Karl Marx and the close of his system.

Marxist economics was then pronounced dead by the vast majority of economists. The only ones actively trying to save the theory were, guess what, Marxists. Bukharin fired back at Bohm-Bahwerk, but was unable to refute him completely, he only pointed to errors in subjective economics without bothering to defend Marxists economics from his attacks. It was a Marxist named Hilferding who completely and utterly refuted subjective bourgeois economics in his Bohm-Bahwerks criticism of Marx.

This theoretical battle in the field of economics was, and is still, going on for decades, yet there has never been an anarchist theoretician who has even bothered to defend Marxist economics, or elaborate on it, or write anything of importance about it...you just wait for Marxists to do it for you.

That's what I call a theoretical leech.


Whether you use the word borrowed, agreed or even leeched is of little consequence really. Yes, anarchist economics is based largely on Marxist economics...What's the big deal?

There is no "big deal", I was just stating a fact, some anarchists just can't stand being called a theoretical leech.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The economic restructing of society takes some considerable studying.

So far I agree with the LTV system is the area of exchange, and I guess that will mean mutalism in the way of production. If co-op exclude workers councils, I don't see why they should, the federation of councils can decide what needs to be produced.

LTVs and a market seem to make the distribution of goods more accessable to the people.

However, LTVs may advocate rents on housing, the only remedy I can see to this is if theres a treasury on locals scales that pay for property. Lenins idea in the State and Revolution of rent being paid on by the tenants of the household basis kind of makes me feel uncomfortable. Capitalism denies some people the right to shelter, and Communists shouldn't do that.

A gift economy seems like something that will have to develop with technology.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Obviously you're not going to abolish money straight away, so the idea would be to make it as obsolete as possible. Using this voucher system is one way of achieving this I suppose.[/b]
Money is too vague a concept for my taste. It is an arbitrary measure of value.

However, TLVs are rather concrete. They abolish exploitation, eliminate the entire concept of 'profit' (rather, one simply takes out of society precisely what one puts in), and it abolishes private property.


E K
So far I agree with the LTV system is the area of exchange, and I guess that will mean mutalism in the way of production.
Do mean how will we coordinate production? I think simple planning, perhaps done by such workers' councils, should be reasonable. Again I cannot stress enough the importance of communication.


However, LTVs may advocate rents on housing, the only remedy I can see to this is if theres a treasury on locals scales that pay for property.
TAT mentioned that we should make any 'currency' as obsolete as possible. I think he's probably right.

Some goods would probably be socialized right away. They would literally be free to the public. Remember, the only reason to use a TLV system in the first place is if technology is not advanced enough to use a full free access system. (if technology is advanced enough immediately after revolution, we would go straight to a free access system, but I don't think this is likely)

However, things such as food, shelter, and clothing will probably be produced in such amounts that they can be socialized. Once the revolution is over, I think it will become quite apparent which goods can be socialized and which cannot.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 20 2006, 08:55 PM
This theoretical battle in the field of economics was, and is still, going on for decades, yet there has never been an anarchist theoretician who has even bothered to defend Marxist economics, or elaborate on it, or write anything of importance about it...you just wait for Marxists to do it for you.
Bakunin and Kropotkin both supported Marxist economics in their works. But quite frankly, what use does it have argueing with the bourgeoisie about economics? Maybe anarchists have better things to do with their time.


There is no "big deal", I was just stating a fact, some anarchists just can't stand being called a theoretical leech.

It's usually because it spews forth from leninists who take any opportunity to call us nasty names.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by TAT
But quite frankly, what use does it have argueing with the bourgeoisie about economics?

Ehh, it might have to do with the fact that an economic theory has to be valid to be recognized as a correct science?

Without a theoretical bullet-proof Marxist economics there is no base for political Marxism, for example, if the LTV was proven to be invalid, Marxism basically becomes defunct.

And we don't want that, now do we? Probably the only reason Marxism got so influential was because of its critique of bourgeois economics.

[nickdlc]

It was a Marxist named Hilferding who completely and utterly refuted subjective bourgeois economics in his Bohm-Bahwerks criticism of Marx.I'm not so sure about that or else we would see many marxists quoting him.

What I do know is that his vision of communism was totally reactionary! In fact it was very close to lenin's conception of socialism. He was a member of the German SPD which is a good indicator that his politics and economics are not too great. I do want to read finance capital though so if someone knows where i can find it on the net please post the link!


However, LTVs may advocate rents on housing, the only remedy I can see to this is if theres a treasury on locals scales that pay for property. Not sure where you got this from but from what i understand of LTV and lower phase of communism thats not how it works. With the means of production in common who would you be paying rent to?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by nickdlc
I'm not so sure about that or else we would see many marxists quoting him.

Many Marxists do quote him...there's just not that many debates on in-depth Marxist economics versus bourgeois economics on this forum, so you wouldn't notice it here.

In the theoretical field they do quote him a lot.


What I do know is that his vision of communism was totally reactionary! In fact it was very close to lenin's conception of socialism. He was a member of the German SPD which is a good indicator that his politics and economics are not too great. I do want to read finance capital though so if someone knows where i can find it on the net please post the link!

I never said his politics (or later economic works for that matter) were perfect, in fact they contained many flaws. You know you can agree with a person about one thing he says and disagree about another, right?

[barista.marxista]

Anomaly & co.: Are there any theoretical articles on the TLV as a lower stage of communism? I'm looking into autonomist organizational models (including federalism, parecon, "gift"), so I'd be interested in reading them. :cool:

[LoneRed]

federalisms a great option barista.marxist,


whose With ME!

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 20 2006, 07:55 PM
This theoretical battle in the field of economics was, and is still, going on for decades, yet there has never been an anarchist theoretician who has even bothered to defend Marxist economics, or elaborate on it, or write anything of importance about it...you just wait for Marxists to do it for you.

That's what I call a theoretical leech.
You may want to read The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by ML
You know you can agree with a person about one thing he says and disagree about another, right?

Except when an anarchist does that it makes them a 'theoretical leech' :unsure:

[LoneRed]

except when the anarchists take the parts of marxism, they dont defend marx against the capitalist class.

[Black Dagger]

except when the anarchists take the parts of marxism, they dont defend marx against the capitalist class.

Debateable, but that doesn't make anarchists 'theoretical leeches', using someones ideas does not make you obligated to be their eternal protectors in the realm of bourgeois intellectuals.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:31 AM
except when the anarchists take the parts of marxism, they dont defend marx against the capitalist class.
Bakunin and Kropotkin both did this.

Bakunin in 'Marxism, Freedom and the State' and Kropotkin in 'Factories, Fields and Workshops.'

[LoneRed]

the same bakunin that remarked that was marxism was authoritarian??

HA

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:16 PM
the same bakunin that remarked that was marxism was authoritarian??

HA
taking ideas from his economic work doesn't change what Marx advocated politicallly.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:31 AM
Except when the anarchists take the parts of Marxism, they don't defend Marx against the capitalist class.
A strange complaint...as if Marx "required" advocates in the "court" of bourgeois "public opinion".

Marxism is not something that needs "defending", it's a toolbox that contains tools that were made to be used.

The opinions of the capitalist class as to the utility of Marxism are completely irrelevant!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:16 PM
the same bakunin that remarked that was marxism was authoritarian??

HA
:unsure:

Erm...yes...?

Just to clarify, Bakunin and Kropotkin defended Marxist economics, not marxism.

[Donnie]

However, TLVs are rather concrete. They abolish exploitation, eliminate the entire concept of 'profit' (rather, one simply takes out of society precisely what one puts in), and it abolishes private property.
My opinions on TLV have certainly transformed over the passed year. The TLV system or something similar would be necessary in the transformation from a capitalist to a communist one. I think that as surplus is produced by a collectivist’s economy the need for TLVs would not be needed because people could then afford to take what they need and so this would transform into an anarchist communist society.


TAT mentioned that we should make any 'currency' as obsolete as possible. I think he's probably right.
This is absolutely correct, on such issues as re-housing and housing there should be no such thing as payment, these are basic needs and nobody should have to pay for these during the transformation from a collectivist to a communist economy.

[LoneRed]

marxist economics lie at the center of marxism

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LoneRed
marxist economics lie at the center of marxism
So?

The point is that Marxist economics do not equal Marxism.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:52 PM
marxist economics lie at the center of marxism
You know, even if Marx didn't formalize the left-wing view of economics, there's a possibility it still would have been around. The Anabaptist movement (Oh noez, religion) and the True Levellers of the English Civil War are examples of inspiration for the Anarchist movement and their kind of economics.

And even then, political ideology is a constantly evolving thing. Appropriation of ideas where necessary doesn't particularly matter, if the end result is something beautiful.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+--> (Black Dagger)Except when an anarchist does that it makes them a 'theoretical leech' [/b]

There is a difference of course, the anarchist takes the most essential part of his theory and disregards and fights against the rest, while "the rest" is irrevocably linked to its most essential part.

Without economics Marxist politics and philosophy would be non-existent.

Hilferding is a completely different case, when he defended Marxist economics from Bohm-Bahwerk he was a Marxist, and his politics were actually pretty good, it was only later that his politics degenerated.

Marx's political works were the result of his economic works, and vice versa, Hilferding's later political work was completely seperate from his early economic.

That's why you can take theoretical sections from him and ditch the rest without being a "leech".


Originally posted by RS+--> (RS)Marxism is not something that needs "defending", it's a toolbox that contains tools that were made to be used.

The opinions of the capitalist class as to the utility of Marxism are completely irrelevant![/b]

Idealist nonsense.

There is something called the validity of a theory, Marxism is a theory, theories need to be correct and "sound logical" to receive adherents.

After Marx' Capital social-democracy basically became a Marxist movement by name, because what he wrote "was correct and sounded logical". Guess what, the bourgeois doesn't like that, so they attack the theory and try to degrade it to crap, at first they did this with such figures as Bohm-Bahwerk, i.e., bourgeois theorists who attacked Marxism directly from the outside.

Then they tried it with such figures as Kautsky, Plekhanov and other such scum, they attacked the theory indirectly from the inside, degrading it to revisionism. Now the theory is seemingly only being attacked from the inside by bourgeois agents; Orthodox Marxists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, all of them are in essence agents of the bourgeois and capital...or just misguided individuals.

I hope most of them belong to the latter.


[email protected]
So?

The point is that Marxist economics do not equal Marxism.

Yes it actually does, you can't just take components out of Marxism and claim that the theory as a whole still stands, without economics Marxism is destroyed, ok? It's like a house without a strong base, it collapses.


Fistful of Steel
You know, even if Marx didn't formalize the left-wing view of economics, there's a possibility it still would have been around.

You obviously don't know anything about the history of Marxism as a revolutionary theory.

Without the economic theory the majority of Marxists of the 19th and 20th century wouldn't have become Marxists, because they were all in the social-democratic camp before they became revolutionary Marxists, and the social-democratic camp became Marxist in name as a result of Marx' critique of capitalism.

Logic.

[rebelworker]

As much as I have critiques of Marx as an individual as well as a thinker, he himself was aginst the Idea of Marx-ism.

Ideas are ideas, if you like what marx had to say you should be happy that other people outside of thoes who have built up an ideology around individuals(much like the bible) have taken on much of what he said and tried to develop this with the the lessons of history.

Hate us all you want, we use what is useful from marx, and any other thinker or social movement and build a envolving and changing view of the world.

In my opinon this is one of the greates strenghts of the current anarchist tradition, we are no limited to any one thinker or body of thinkers(especially anarchist thinkers).
Our movement is about practice not lineage.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ML
There is a difference of course, the anarchist takes the most essential part of his theory and disregards and fights against the rest, while "the rest" is irrevocably linked to its most essential part.
Leninist rubbish.

The only reason you say this is because itsuits your interests.

To say that because Marx was right about A does not neccesarily mean he was right about B. That is, unless one is an utter dogmatist.

Myself, I don't worship Marx.


Yes it actually does, you can't just take components out of Marxism and claim that the theory as a whole still stands, without economics Marxism is destroyed, ok?
This, again, is said only because of your statist bias. You rather like the Marxist hypothesis that a transitional state is neccesary, though it is worth noting most of your bias comes from thy saint Vladimir.

You seem to be saying that because of the economic works of Marx (the critique of capitalism, essentially), the post-revolutionary state is a fact of life. There is a flaw in this reasoning, however. Marx's economic works dealt very little, if at all, with post-revolutionary economics. They were a critique of capitalism.

As such, it seems rather odd to say that borrowing this critique of capitalism and then rejecting your coveted state makes us 'leeches'.

Marx was no god. He was no idol. We need not choose between 'all of Marx' or 'none of Marx', as you wish things were.

[Messiah]

Besides, if someone can defend their theories, and show them to follow logically, which anarchists can and do, does it really matter where these ideas came from? Does it matter that anarchists will mold them in their own image? Lenin, for instance, took what Marx said and immediatly added his own spiel to it. So did Mao, so did countless others.

Anarchists make no secret of the fact that they share and even "owe" a great deal of their philosophy to Marx, yet the "Marxists" get all huffy about it. And I truly don't understand why. Marx didn't invent communism, he certainly made it more cohrent and applicable and formal, but he didn't invent it. And while we should respect all the great minds that have added to the cause, what is the point of this sensless idoltary?

Political theory the sort of which we all practice, or at least claim to, is an evolving thing. As "revolutionaries" or at least indviduals who support the idea of revolution we certainly do have principles we believe in, but there is no logic at all in worshipping any one individual's work or life. We have seen what that leads to, have we not friends?

Being an "orthodox" anything is not a good thing, period.

[LoneRed]

and show them to follow logically, which anarchists can and do,


It would be a good thing, if that actually happened, as of yet, ive failed to see considerable or logical anarchist responses of the whole communist-anarchist debate

[Messiah]

It would be a good thing, if that actually happened, as of yet, ive failed to see considerable or logical anarchist responses of the whole communist-anarchist debate

Fair enough, but it would help if you could be specific as to what exactly you think does not follow according to anarchist thought.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:37 AM

and show them to follow logically, which anarchists can and do,


It would be a good thing, if that actually happened, as of yet, ive failed to see considerable or logical anarchist responses of the whole communist-anarchist debate
Then you simply haven't been paying attention. Granted you've only been here a month, but there is a search button.

Further, if you want to proposition some argument I would be happy to refute it in depth, but thus far all that is being discussed is whether anarchism is a theoretical leech.

Quite frankly, who cares? It's not a particularly interesting discussion.

[LoneRed]

oh its as simple as that? I set up the problem and you refute it? hehhehe. Im afraid it isnt that easy TAT. ML and I have said that anarchists will take the parts of Marxs theory, which is a necessary part of the other parts, and will abandon the rest, calling him an authoritarian, or literally failing to stand up against bourgeois intellectuals, the serious attacks against the bourgeois (intellectually) have been by marxists, that isnt refutable

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by anomaly
Leninist rubbish.

The only reason you say this is because itsuits your interests.


No, the only reason I say this is because it's a fact.


To say that because Marx was right about A does not neccesarily mean he was right about B.

Depends on what A and B are.

If A is Marx' view on some political situation happening in his time, while B is his views on historical materialism, then it could be that he was wrong about A while he was right about B.

But Marxist economics and Marxist theory in general? Sorry, that won't work, if one is wrong then the other is too, and vice versa with being correct.


This, again, is said only because of your statist bias. You rather like the Marxist hypothesis that a transitional state is neccesary, though it is worth noting most of your bias comes from thy saint Vladimir.

You seem to be saying that because of the economic works of Marx (the critique of capitalism, essentially), the post-revolutionary state is a fact of life. There is a flaw in this reasoning, however. Marx's economic works dealt very little, if at all, with post-revolutionary economics. They were a critique of capitalism.

As such, it seems rather odd to say that borrowing this critique of capitalism and then rejecting your coveted state makes us 'leeches'.

Marx was no god. He was no idol. We need not choose between 'all of Marx' or 'none of Marx', as you wish things were.

Off-topic bullshit, that is.

[Messiah]

oh its as simple as that? I set up the problem and you refute it? hehhehe. Im afraid it isnt that easy TAT. ML and I have said that anarchists will take the parts of Marxs theory, which is a necessary part of the other parts, and will abandon the rest, calling him an authoritarian, or literally failing to stand up against bourgeois intellectuals, the serious attacks against the bourgeois (intellectually) have been by marxists, that isnt refutable

If the other parts can stand on their own, which they can, without having to be attached to certain other aspects of Marxist theory that anarchists may feel is not in their character, who are you to tell them otherwise?

The fact alone that the Leninists refuse to deal with the obvious personality worship that develops around Marx and Lenin speaks exactly to this. Not only the belief that these men were seemingly infalliable, but also that we have to take it all as truth, or abandon it all. It's asinine, it's childish, it's counterproductive most of all.

Marx was no god, as has been said, nor an idol. We do not have to use/believe everything he said, nor do we. And we certainly do not have to believe or us much of anything Lenin said or did. Especially not from an anarchist perspective.

[LoneRed]

the reason why marx is brough up in this discussion and we are using his argument, is because this is a debate between anarchism and marxism. of course we are going to bring reference to Marx. The point is that they dont stand on their own,


"We do not have to use/believe everything he said, nor do we"


It clearly shows in your theory, kudos...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:35 PM
oh its as simple as that? I set up the problem and you refute it? hehhehe. Im afraid it isnt that easy TAT. ML and I have said that anarchists will take the parts of Marxs theory, which is a necessary part of the other parts, and will abandon the rest, calling him an authoritarian, or literally failing to stand up against bourgeois intellectuals, the serious attacks against the bourgeois (intellectually) have been by marxists, that isnt refutable
You're right, and in fact if you had been paying attention you would have seen that I actually agreed with it.

You still fail to show why any of that is of any intellectual, theoretical, practical, tactical or conversatinal interest or consequence?

[Messiah]

the reason why marx is brough up in this discussion and we are using his argument, is because this is a debate between anarchism and marxism. of course we are going to bring reference to Marx. The point is that they dont stand on their own,


"We do not have to use/believe everything he said, nor do we"


It clearly shows in your theory, kudos...

No, this is not a debate between Marxism and anarchism, it is a debate between Leninism and anarchism. For someone who has such a high opinion of Marx, I find it amazing that you fail to realize how quickly Lenin bastardized what the man wrote. Mind you, he had the right to do so, but it wasn't Marxist anymore. It was Leninist, and that's the debate.

And secondly, you can either debate in constructive debate with us, and I have done nothing but invite this or you can sit there and spin your little one liners. Obviously, you've made your choice. However, if you think you're somehow hurting our feelings by labeling us as unorthodox, heretical, anti-marxists then you've truly got another thing coming.

[LoneRed]

im not trying to hurt anyones feelings, if by the process of argument that happens, then so be it.

and Marx got brought up, so we handle that point when it arises, not ignoring it.

It seems that only raanistas and similar ones i have problems with, i dont have problems with many other anarchists

TAT, marxism needs all the support it can get, as the world is against it. Yes its a tool and blah blah blah, but like ML said if it doesnt recieve active support, and credibility it is nothing

its in the battle for communism, that the theory has to be realized by many more.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 06:04 PM
TAT, marxism needs all the support it can get, as the world is against it. Yes its a tool and blah blah blah, but like ML said if it doesnt recieve active support, and credibility it is nothing
Why would I, an anarchist, be interested in defending Marxism?


its in the battle for communism, that the theory has to be realized by many more.

Clearly, anarchists think exactly the opposite.