The Nicky Scarfo Manifesto

[Nicky Scarfo]

Or some such shit...

I wrote part of this on another thread in another subforum and figured I'd give it its own thread in the Theory forum and see what people thought. But first an explanation of where I'm coming from-- ideologically I'm rooted in Libertarianism/Classical Liberalism more than Marxism or Anarchism. My main concern is individual liberty. Where I deviate from the more traditional big "L" Libertarians, is that I think along very Utilitarian lines when it comes to personal liberty (the greatest aggregate individual liberty) and believe that some form of socialism is necessary to achieve that. While I think Adam Smith is great in theory, I don't believe capitalism will ever work out that way in practice.

How it has worked out is a system which has expanded aggregate individual liberty vis-a-vis the feudalist system it replaced, but now has its own institutional imperatives which are now reversing those liberties (at worst), or at best creating severe limitiations on the further expansion of aggregate individual liberty.

First off, in modern capitalism the majority of people must work for someone else to maintain subsistence. That means the majority of our waking adult lives are spent in a dictatorship, with few rights, no freedom of expression, very little freedom to control our own labor. We are subject to arbitrary authority for the majority of our adult lives simply to put food on the table. This is not freedom as far as I'm concerned.

Secondly, the big corporations control us in terms of our material consumption and our role as independent political agents. They control the products we consume and tend towards monopolistic practices. Our rights as consumers (and increasingly our choices) in late capitalism are becoming very limited, as the consumer products and media industries trend towards further conglomeration (and with mandatory arbitration moving towards replacing civil court action in the handling of consumer grievances). Furthermore the political superstructure and liberal "democracy" is a joke as the autocratic conglomerations of wealth pull all the political strings. They always have and always will. We can exert some power as voters, but, again, it is severely limited by the superstructure and direct corporate influence.

So, what would Nicky Scarfo's future society look like then? Glad you asked. Read on below.

__________________

My belief is that all the basics-- food, housing, education, communication, certain tech and R/D, energy, transportation, construction, steel, polymers, health care, etc.-- should be totally socialized and people's basic needs (food, shelter, health care) along with mass communication (free internet and phone) should be provided free of charge.

Non-essential enterprises (entertainment and entertainment-related technology, restaurants, etc.) should operate in an open but regulated market. All businesses, public and private (w/ the exception of family run shops of 5ees or less) should be collectively operated by worker committee (from the shop level all the way up to the international level) . The public enterprises should also have oversight by consumer committees (again from the local level all the way to global). In the case of private enterprises, they should be collectively owned by the workers in those businesses.

Worker and consumer committees should be popularly elected, subject to recall, and have strict term-limits, among other structural and procedural safeguards to prevent a new bureaucratic caste from emerging.

I think that workers should receive some extra remuneration which is directly tied to what they produce, so they may spend some currency on non-essential luxuries, gadgets and toys on the open market. Those unable to work would receive a fixed income tied to the median individual extra remuneration of all working society.

The reason I think such remuneration is necessary is that I think the idea of a socialist society where there are no individual material incentives to excel at your work is pure utopianism. Otherwise people WILL shirk their duties. Humans are not inherently good or evil, but let's face it, if we can sit on our ass and get all the same shit someone who works hard does, a lot of us would do it, especially if we were stuck doing shit jobs (and until it is technologically possible to automate all of those jobs, shitty jobs will be around after "the revolution").

Also the "big-picture" kind of self interest just ain't gonna work for a lot of people, no matter how much you explain how necessary it is for everyone to do their part for society to function properly. You're always gonna have people motivated by what's immediately good for them. You will always have lazy people and you'll always have greedy people. The idea behind socialism is that we can restructure society in such a fashion that greed and immediate individual interest is not institutionalized, but you can't wipe it out entirely anymore than you could ever erase basic stupidity and dickheadedness. Even in the best functioning society, you'll always have dumbfucks and assholes (though hopefully fewer and their impact on others lessened).

So, some sort of individual material incentive is necessary in my opinion.

In Nicky's world, there would also be a cap on the amount of personal wealth an individual, family or organization could accumulate, and there would also be strict limits and regulation on new private investment. With the exception of expanding an existing worker co-op or investing internally in equipment upgrades or R/D, which would even then have to be approved by the consumer committees (though hopefully a streamlined process could be set up for the more perfunctory stuff-- hiring a couple more cooks or buying a new stove at a restaurant for example). Any purchase of existing worker co-ops by other worker co-ops would similarly be limited and strictly scrutinized.

So while not a TOTALLY egalitarian society (which I believe is impossible), it's pretty damn close, as the richest people would have only a little more than the poorest. And unlike capitalist society, how "poor" or "rich" you are (relatively speaking) would be entirely up to how hard and how well you chose to work. But if someone is motivated to work harder (or better) so she can get that plasma TV she wanted, then why not, just cause the guy down the street would rather relax and play basketball than acquire material possessions? Again, I think some individual material incentives will be necessary because some people will always be motivated by that sort of thing.

Such a system would be much fairer than capitalism, would take into account some of the more negative aspects of human behavior, and provides the maximum amount of individual liberty for consumers and workers.

But in any case, the basics would be free to all and workplace democracy would be a fact of life for every worker in Nicky Scarfo's vision. Not a Communist utopia I grant you, but then again I'm not a Communist, or an Anarchist for that matter.

______________

So, how do we get there? I dunno. Maybe I'll make a companion thread to this one later on.

[redstar2000]

"Market Socialism" -- Are We "For Sale"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
Worker and consumer committees should be popularly elected, subject to recall, and have strict term-limits, among other structural and procedural safeguards to prevent a new bureaucratic caste from emerging.
You can have all the &#39;safeguards&#39; you want. When you allow this &#39;official hierarchy&#39; to rear its ugly head, the safeguards are, ultimately, in the hands of those on top. These &#39;committees&#39;, no matter how &#39;democratic&#39;, would probably develop into the new ruling class in society. And with a ruling class comes a ruled class. We also get the &#39;goodies&#39; of surplus value and wage-slavery. In Nicky&#39;s society, all major traits of capitalism still exist. <_<


I think that workers should receive some extra remuneration which is directly tied to what they produce
A fancy word, but nonetheless we see Nicky wants a class society. And Nicky says that in this society, people will be &#39;paid more&#39; if they &#39;work harder&#39;. Well, how do we objectively measure this?


if we can sit on our ass and get all the same shit someone who works hard does, a lot of us would do it, especially if we were stuck doing shit jobs (and until it is technologically possible to automate all of those jobs, shitty jobs will be around after "the revolution").
The problem with this old capitalist idea is that humans are not stupid. If we need to do something to survive, we&#39;ll do it. The idea that we&#39;ll all sit on our asses and watch our society wither away is sheer lunacy.

And by the time the revolution happens, technological advancements should be at a level that if the bounds of capitalism are removed (or overthrown), we really won&#39;t have to work very much at all. We&#39;ll be able to produce everything needed and more in a rather short amount of time. And &#39;shitty jobs&#39; will probably be mostly automated. Those that aren&#39;t can be done voluntarily (for example, instead of having a janitor, people can just pick up after themselves) or collectively.


In Nicky&#39;s world, there would also be a cap on the amount of personal wealth an individual, family or organization could accumulate, and there would also be strict limits and regulation on new private investment.
Such regulations in a capitalist system (which is what you are describing) will amount to system-suicide.


Such a system would be much fairer than capitalism
It is capitalism, actually. Capitalism &#39;with a human face&#39;. ( :lol: )


I&#39;m not a Communist, or an Anarchist for that matter.
Obviously. :lol:

Isn&#39;t there some &#39;reformist-left&#39; message board that would be more suitable for you, Nicky?

[Nicky Scarfo]

You can have all the &#39;safeguards&#39; you want. When you allow this &#39;official hierarchy&#39; to rear its ugly head, the safeguards are, ultimately, in the hands of those on top. These &#39;committees&#39;, no matter how &#39;democratic&#39;, would probably develop into the new ruling class in society.

Bullshit, Mr. Anarchist w/ the Red/Black Star. Let me give you an education on the practical application of your own ideology. Almost every anarchosyndicalist union, including the CNT and the IWW are structured around such elected committees and those committees, along with elected officers run the unions&#39; day-to-day business (at least at the higher levels of the organization), even though they are ultimately accountable to the membership for major decisions and policy. Why? Cause if a membership meeting had to be held for every decision, nothing would ever get done. It&#39;s possible to have direct consensus or majority rule in small groups, but if you are talking about regional, industrial, national or international organizations, it&#39;s unworkable.

Do you consider these committees and officers to be a "ruling class" of the union?

In your utopia, how do you propose day-to-day operational decisions to be made across entire industries all over the globe? A fuckin membership vote of the whole fuckin world? Or decentralize everything to the point that there is no method of centrally managing big decisions regarding conumption and production that will effect the entire planet? How do decisions get made in your scheme? How are the organizations structured? I see you offering plenty of criticism but few alternative systems of organization.


We also get the &#39;goodies&#39; of surplus value and wage-slavery.

Surplus value is bullshit and how are people "wage-slaves" when they collectively own and democratically operate their workplaces?


A fancy word, but nonetheless we see Nicky wants a class society.

Bullshit again. Your political dogma blinds you to the fact I just laid out an essentially classless society. Not perfectly egalitarian as your utopian vision would have it, but a society with no owner/employer class. A society where wealth disparities exist, but to a negligible extent (to the extent that someone with a new Mercedes is richer than someone w/ an older Acura) and is based ENTIRELY on a workers own choice. Don&#39;t want to work as much, fine, get more leisure time but fewer resources to expend on non-essential goodies. Want to work more and buy a plasma TV, go for it, but there&#39;s a cap on how much you can own.


The problem with this old capitalist idea is that humans are not stupid. If we need to do something to survive, we&#39;ll do it. The idea that we&#39;ll all sit on our asses and watch our society wither away is sheer lunacy.


Not everybody, but enough to cause huge inefficiencies. There are people who are stupid in this world and are motivated only by immediate self-interest. There are many people who are incapble of looking at things in a long-term or "big picture" manner. I&#39;m not necessarily saying most, but enough to fuck things up in a world where there was no IMMEDIATE incentive for them to work. If you think such people do not exist in large numbers or that such people will not exist after the revolution, you are living in a dream-world.


And by the time the revolution happens, technological advancements should be at a level that if the bounds of capitalism are removed (or overthrown), we really won&#39;t have to work very much at all. We&#39;ll be able to produce everything needed and more in a rather short amount of time. And &#39;shitty jobs&#39; will probably be mostly automated.

I&#39;m hoping for one in the next 30 years.


It is capitalism, actually. Capitalism &#39;with a human face&#39;.

The fuck it is. What, just because there&#39;s market trading of goods and services? There&#39;s no owner/employer-class and very little private investment of capital. Therefore, it&#39;s not capitalism. Except in your dogmatic world everything is perfectly bifurcated for you, so since it&#39;s not communism/anarchism then it must be capitalism. Down with the deviationist bourgoeis running dog, Nicky Scarfo&#33; I apologize for intruding into your little ideological box.


Obviously.

Obviously, huh? I suppose it is equally obvious that Tito was not a communist?


Isn&#39;t there some &#39;reformist-left&#39; message board that would be more suitable for you, Nicky?

Isn&#39;t there some Starbucks for you and the other snot-nosed middle-class Anarchists to spraypaint on your revolutionary adventure before becoming Liberals (or one of those sad hippie radical fucks) in middle age?

Actually this board is perfect for you, you can sit on your ass and tell people how wrong they are without doing a damn thing to build revolutionary organization, momentum or preconditions. Yeah everybody who doesn&#39;t fit into the neat Communist or Anarchist box is a "reformist" to you. Look here buddy, I&#39;ve taken my lumps and paid the price for my activity on many occasions, and I&#39;m not some fuckin lefty Liberal, so get the fuck off your fuckin high-horse.

You know, we might have had a reasonable discussion/debate here if you hadn&#39;t immediately started talking down to me due to your arrogant ideological intrasingence. Funny how the "authoritarian" Sparts and modern-day "libertarian" Anarchists often have the same stubborn, snotty attitude.

Redstar, I&#39;ll give a detailed response to your link later.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nicky
Bullshit, Mr. Anarchist w/ the Red/Black Star.
This is starting out well. :lol:


Do you consider these committees and officers to be a "ruling class" of the union?
I really don&#39;t know enough about the unions to say. However, if you look over my posts, you&#39;ll see that a support a revolutionary organization without any hierarchy--a network.

Also, I really don&#39;t think the power these &#39;union committees&#39; have is at all comparable with what you&#39;re talking about. State power is a far different thing.


Surplus value is bullshit and how are people "wage-slaves" when they collectively own and democratically operate their workplaces?
Surplus value isn&#39;t bullshit. How else do you explain the fact that the fatcats make the most money while the workers do all the work?

Also, the existence of currency is rather telling in your society. Money is a product of class society. This means your society will have classes. This, in turn, because of the capitalistic qualities of the society, entails wage slavery. I&#39;m guessing that people would end up ultimately being servants of the state, since to do what you suggest would require a massive growth of the state (the creation of a &#39;hyperstate&#39;). That is, where the surplus value actually goes remains unclear. (with surplus value comes wage-slavery)


Bullshit again. Your political dogma blinds you to the fact I just laid out an essentially classless society.
No you didn&#39;t. Otherwise currency would have no use. Currency, or money, is a product of class society. I&#39;ve hypothesized the general &#39;class outlook&#39; of your society, and disagree with that as you wish, but this society is certainly not classless.


There are people who are stupid in this world and are motivated only by immediate self-interest...I&#39;m not necessarily saying most, but enough to fuck things up in a world where there was no IMMEDIATE incentive for them to work.
Being determines consciousness. As revolutionary outlooks grow more popular (I think they will), look for this &#39;stupidity&#39; you cite to drastically decrease. And the immediate incentive to work will either be out of interest or, more &#39;primitively&#39; I suppose, for sheer survival.


The fuck it is. What, just because there&#39;s market trading of goods and services? There&#39;s no owner/employer-class and very little private investment of capital.
There will inevitably be classes, and thus some sort of upper class in your society. I don&#39;t know why this hurts you so much. And, yes, your society does not destroy the market. The only thing this society does is eliminate private property, and this will probably mean private property becoming state property.


Isn&#39;t there some Starbucks for you and the other snot-nosed middle-class Anarchists to spraypaint on your revolutionary adventure before becoming Liberals (or one of those sad hippie radical fucks) in middle age?
Ouch. :lol:

Seems I&#39;ve gotten under Nicky&#39;s skin&#33; But, I&#39;ll inform you, I&#39;m not middle class, I hardly ever go to Starbucks, and I don&#39;t spraypaint. Nor do I have any intentions of becoming a liberal.


Yeah everybody who doesn&#39;t fit into the neat Communist or Anarchist box is a "reformist" to you. Look here buddy, I&#39;ve taken my lumps and paid the price for my activity on many occasions, and I&#39;m not some fuckin lefty Liberal, so get the fuck off your fuckin high-horse.
This, to me, looks like reformism. Capitalism with a human face. I&#39;m sorry I disagree with you. :lol:


You know, we might have had a reasonable discussion/debate here if you hadn&#39;t immediately started talking down to me due to your arrogant ideological intrasingence.
Damn dude. If you hate dissenting opinions so much, perhaps you shouldn&#39;t have started this thread. If you thought I sounded &#39;arrogant&#39;, well, sorry. Here, I&#39;ll throw you a bone: maybe you&#39;re right. We just don&#39;t know. I simply happen to disagree.

Calm down, little Nicky. I didn&#39;t know you&#39;d take such offense to what, in my opinion, is obviously not a communistic or anarchistic idea but rather a reformist idea. But, honestly, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find much support around here.

And yea, this idea does sound better than Leninism, but it still doesn&#39;t abolish the very system which oppresses. You leave the door open for &#39;full&#39; capitalism to come back. And by keeping the profit motive, classes, surplus value and the like in existence, the prospects of this society regressing back to &#39;full&#39; capitalism become much greater.

[black magick hustla]

This is not new stuff buddy. If anything, this manfiesto resembles alot classical american individualist anarchism, with people such as Benjamin Tucker.

The whole thing of democracy in the workplace but a bit of "market" is very remniscent of this paradigm.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Marmot
classical american individualist anarchism
I really hate how they call that shit &#39;anarchism&#39; at all. Only in America could such overtly capitalist crap get the label &#39;anarchism&#39;.

Just a side note. :P

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:18 AM
This is not new stuff buddy. If anything, this manfiesto resembles alot classical american individualist anarchism, with people such as Benjamin Tucker.

The whole thing of democracy in the workplace but a bit of "market" is very remniscent of this paradigm.
Um, no. Based upon my limited knowledge of Tucker, he never supported the wholesale socialization of basic industry, which is a key facet of my proposal. And I don&#39;t think he was a really big proponent of workplace democratization on the scale I&#39;m talking about.

Although maybe some of the other ideas I expressed are in a similar vein. I really don&#39;t know enough. I&#39;ll have to do some research and get back to you.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 15 2006, 07:24 AM--> (anomaly @ Apr 15 2006, 07:24 AM)
Marmot
classical american individualist anarchism
I really hate how they call that shit &#39;anarchism&#39; at all. Only in America could such overtly capitalist crap get the label &#39;anarchism&#39;.

Just a side note. :P [/b]
Again, based on my limited understanding of Tucker&#39;s beliefs, it is by no means certain that he was any sort of "anarchocapitalist" at least no more than Proudhon, who&#39;s tradition, as best I can tell, is linked to Tucker&#39;s ideology.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by wiki
Instead, he advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand."
Anarcho-capitalist.

Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo+Apr 15 2006, 07:33 AM--> (Nicky Scarfo @ Apr 15 2006, 07:33 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 07:18 AM
This is not new stuff buddy. If anything, this manfiesto resembles alot classical american individualist anarchism, with people such as Benjamin Tucker.

The whole thing of democracy in the workplace but a bit of "market" is very remniscent of this paradigm.
Um, no. Based upon my limited knowledge of Tucker, he never supported the wholesale socialization of basic industry, which is a key facet of my proposal. And I don&#39;t think he was a really big proponent of workplace democratization on the scale I&#39;m talking about.

Although maybe some of the other ideas I expressed are in a similar vein. I really don&#39;t know enough. I&#39;ll have to do some research and get back to you. [/b]
Perhaps, my knowledge about them is pretty "cloudy".

However, Tucker was a mutualist and Proudhon advocated something similar to what you said:

"n cases in which production requires great division of labour, it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among the workers... because without that they would remain isolated as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage workers, which is repugnant in a free and democratic society. But where the product can be obtained by the action of an individual or a family... there is no opportunity for association."

Besides, boith Tucker and Proudhon argued that a laborer should own the fruits of his labor completely. And both were very specific about it, because they loathed the capitalist class. It is kinda logical to conclude that the only way to achieve this is through democratic control of the means of production. Because with a boss and a wage-slave, this is impossible.

You may be correct, though.

[wet blanket]

My belief is that all the basics-- food, housing, education, communication, certain tech and R/D, energy, transportation, construction, steel, polymers, health care, etc.-- should be totally socialized and people&#39;s basic needs (food, shelter, health care) along with mass communication (free internet and phone) should be provided free of charge.
We&#39;re starting out on the right track...


Non-essential enterprises (entertainment and entertainment-related technology, restaurants, etc.) should operate in an open but regulated market.
Who does the &#39;regulating&#39; and why would these things even need to exist? I have no real problems with the concept of a dining-hall establishment, but "entertainment technology" and restaurants as we know them in our society are nothing more than a part of capitalism&#39;s spectacle. They have no place in a post-capitalist society.


All businesses, public and private (w/ the exception of family run shops of 5ees or less) should be collectively operated by worker committee (from the shop level all the way up to the international level) .
What&#39;s to stop someone from creating a private enterprise? Obviously since there&#39;s a market, the incentive for profit by means of exploitation of labor still exists.


The public enterprises should also have oversight by consumer committees (again from the local level all the way to global). In the case of private enterprises, they should be collectively owned by the workers in those businesses.
I have no problem with public institutions being decentralized and managed by means of direct-democracy through councils, but private enterprises are owned privately not collectively and have no place in socialism.


Worker and consumer committees should be popularly elected, subject to recall, and have strict term-limits, among other structural and procedural safeguards to prevent a new bureaucratic caste from emerging.
Why bother even have representatives to begin with? It seems that if you want to avoid bureaucracy, the best way to go about it would be to eliminate it entirely&#33;


I think that workers should receive some extra remuneration which is directly tied to what they produce, so they may spend some currency on non-essential luxuries, gadgets and toys on the open market. Those unable to work would receive a fixed income tied to the median individual extra remuneration of all working society.
Again, such things should not even exist. The real goal of a socialist revolution is to get past all of this.


The reason I think such remuneration is necessary is that I think the idea of a socialist society where there are no individual material incentives to excel at your work is pure utopianism.
...says the person laying out the blueprints for their idea of a perfect society.


Otherwise people WILL shirk their duties.
Depends on what those &#39;duties&#39; are.


Humans are not inherently good or evil, but let&#39;s face it, if we can sit on our ass and get all the same shit someone who works hard does, a lot of us would do it, especially if we were stuck doing shit jobs (and until it is technologically possible to automate all of those jobs, shitty jobs will be around after "the revolution").
Shitty jobs won&#39;t always be around. Our entire society needs to be radically transformed, which includes a vast reduction of the division of labor and a serious re-evaluation of what kind of and how much work we do.


Also the "big-picture" kind of self interest just ain&#39;t gonna work for a lot of people, no matter how much you explain how necessary it is for everyone to do their part for society to function properly.
Depends on how you would define &#39;functioning properly&#39;. A person like me, who see&#39;s an ideal society as a loose federation of decentralized and highly-democratic communities of people carrying about their lives in a lesiurely way free from inherently exploitative markets and their spectacle, I see your definition of "functioning properly" highly undesireable&#33;


You&#39;re always gonna have people motivated by what&#39;s immediately good for them.
Of course.


You will always have lazy people and you&#39;ll always have greedy people.
Depends on the situation. But in a communist society, the greedy folks won&#39;t be looked too kindly upon.


The idea behind socialism is that we can restructure society in such a fashion that greed and immediate individual interest is not institutionalized, but you can&#39;t wipe it out entirely anymore than you could ever erase basic stupidity and dickheadedness.
That&#39;s not the idea behind socialism, that&#39;s the idea behind reformism. It&#39;s really nothing new and it&#39;s gotten us nowhere.


In Nicky&#39;s world, there would also be a cap on the amount of personal wealth an individual, family or organization could accumulate, and there would also be strict limits and regulation on new private investment.
Who enforces this and how? It would seem that those who have more wealth would also have more power.


With the exception of expanding an existing worker co-op or investing internally in equipment upgrades or R/D, which would even then have to be approved by the consumer committees (though hopefully a streamlined process could be set up for the more perfunctory stuff-- hiring a couple more cooks or buying a new stove at a restaurant for example). Any purchase of existing worker co-ops by other worker co-ops would similarly be limited and strictly scrutinized.
Scrutinized by whom? Is big brother going to be looking over every purchase order a coffee shop makes?


So while not a TOTALLY egalitarian society (which I believe is impossible), it&#39;s pretty damn close, as the richest people would have only a little more than the poorest.
No matter how many &#39;checks and balances&#39; are in place, any market is going to concentrate wealth and power.


But if someone is motivated to work harder (or better) so she can get that plasma TV she wanted, then why not, just cause the guy down the street would rather relax and play basketball than acquire material possessions?
Why would that plasma TV even exist and who would make it? Under what conditions?


Not a Communist utopia I grant you, but then again I&#39;m not a Communist, or an Anarchist for that matter.
This place is not for you. Try OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES.

also, a little P.S.
Try giving THIS BOOK (http://bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/index.htm) and THIS PAMPHLET (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html) a read(they&#39;re really short, I promise). I think they&#39;ll give you an understanding of where I&#39;m coming from with my objections as I don&#39;t really have the time to write out an essay on my thoughts of market socialism.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 15 2006, 07:39 AM--> (anomaly &#064; Apr 15 2006, 07:39 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Instead, he advocated that liberty and property be defended by private institutions. Opposing the monopoly of the state in providing security, he advocated a free market of competing defense providers, saying "defense is a service like any other service; ... it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand."
Anarcho-capitalist.

Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) [/b]
A different viewpoint on Tucker here-- http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/.../an_or_cap.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/an_or_cap.html)


I really don&#39;t know enough about the unions to say.

As an anarchist, you should. The syndicalists in my opinion are the only anarchists to have a concrete, workable plan as to how the economy is to operate after the revolution. Well, Proudhon and, to a lesser extent, Bakunin, did-- but by your standards both of these guys would be considered "reformists" (at least Proudhon would be) as both advocated that workers should be entitled to the fruit of their labor directly (proportional to what they, as individuals, produced) which is still a fairly individualist form of socialism/anarchism. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but your views seem close to Krotopkin&#39;s Anarcho-Communism. And Krotopkin didn&#39;t offer any more in terms of concrete organizational forms in end communist society than Marx did.


However, if you look over my posts, you&#39;ll see that a support a revolutionary organization without any hierarchy--a network.

Again, how precisely is that to function? I would not take the risk of launching a revolution over such a nebulous concept, which could result in the entire destruction of society and the deaths of billions without a workable plan for exactly how the economy and society is to be structured and organized post-revolution.


State power is a far different thing.

Um, who said any thing about state power? Do you consider syndicalism to be statist? Because other than the presence of worker co-ops in an open market for non-essential consumer goods and services, the basic structure I&#39;m talking about is not much different than syndicalism (with the addition of independent consumer oversight).


Surplus value isn&#39;t bullshit. How else do you explain the fact that the fatcats make the most money while the workers do all the work?

Uh, cause the employers fuck over their workers and pay them as little as they possibly can for what they produce? In this sense, there is surplus value, I will give you that, but I don&#39;t believe in the Marxian LTV. I really don&#39;t think that&#39;s necessary to argue for worker emancipation or the construction of socialism.

And in any event, in my system workers control their own labor and any profits "extracted" from that labor go one of three places-- a) directly to society, in the case of socialized industries, b) in their own pocket, c) to the co-op that workers collectively own and democratically operate. What&#39;s so fuckin bad with that? Calling that wage-slavery is simply the hyperbole and rhetoric of an ideological dogmatist.


That is, where the surplus value actually goes remains unclear. (with surplus value comes wage-slavery)

See above.


Also, the existence of currency is rather telling in your society. Money is a product of class society. This means your society will have classes.

This logic sucks. There is no indpendent employer/owner class, and there is a limit on personal wealth both on the high and low end, so material differences are neglibile. No economic classes. No political classes. No social classes. The fact that people have a little bit of currency, script, vouchers, whatever to buy some trinkets on the market (maybe a birthday gift for their daughter), does not mean there is a class society, no matter what logical acrobatics you perform to try and discredit my ideas as "capitalistic" or "reformist".


No you didn&#39;t. Otherwise currency would have no use. Currency, or money, is a product of class society. I&#39;ve hypothesized the general &#39;class outlook&#39; of your society, and disagree with that as you wish, but this society is certainly not classless.

See above.


I&#39;m guessing that people would end up ultimately being servants of the state, since to do what you suggest would require a massive growth of the state (the creation of a &#39;hyperstate&#39;).

Nope. Well, perhaps, but that is no more certain than the creation of a "hyperstate" in syndicalism or DeLeonism, and in any case you have not come up with any compelling alternatives other than the nebulous concept of "networks".


wet_blanket
Who does the &#39;regulating&#39; and why would these things even need to exist?

Already explained that. Consumer committees. Before you start in on that, please review how I thought consumer and worker committees should be structured.


...says the person laying out the blueprints for their idea of a perfect society.

A better society.


What&#39;s to stop someone from creating a private enterprise?

Again, already explained this. Please review the OP.


Why bother even have representatives to begin with?

I&#39;ll ask you the same thing I asked anomaly. How else would you propose running a global economy? Direct membership vote of the entire world on every decision? Or a system so decentralized that global distribution of resources is highly ineffcient or impossible? Let&#39;s hear some specifics. I&#39;ve offered specific organizational forms and so far none of my critics have. So let&#39;s hear it.


Our entire society needs to be radically transformed, which includes a vast reduction of the division of labor and a serious re-evaluation of what kind of and how much work we do.

Not sure about the division of labor part but I agree with the rest.


That&#39;s not the idea behind socialism, that&#39;s the idea behind reformism. It&#39;s really nothing new and it&#39;s gotten us nowhere.

According to your dogmatic defnitions, which I obviously think suck.


Scrutinized by whom? Is big brother going to be looking over every purchase order a coffee shop makes?

That was explained in the very passage you quoted.


Who enforces this and how?

Tell you what, you get back to me with specific suggestions as to the concrete organizational and operational forms of your vision of socialist society and I&#39;ll oblige you with an answer. But I&#39;m fuckin sick of responding to crticism from people with no concrete organizational ideas of their own.



This place is not for you. Try OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES.

Why? Because I&#39;m not an Anarchist or a Communist?

Or because I&#39;m not a utopian teenager?

Or because my beliefs are not sufficiently dogmatic?

Or because I&#39;m not stuck in 1917 or 1936?

Or because I actually help organize and participate in class struggle instead of just endlessly talking about it?

Or because I dare utter the heresy that some market trading may be acceptable providing all essential goods and services are socialized, there are strict limits on the accumulation of wealth and capital investment, no owner/employer class and the presence of workplace/economic democracy?

Yes, I&#39;m quite the counterrevolutionary dog. I surely belong with the capitalists and lefty Liberals for such ideological heresy.

I expected people would criticize my ideas when I posted this thread, but I really didn&#39;t expect people to politely tell me to take a hike from the forum altogether. Which half of the respondents to this thread have (you and anomaly).

By youse guys incredibily dogmatic, purist (and entirely theoretical) definition of "revolutionary", Tito Broz wouldn&#39;t be welcome on RevLeft because his market socialism policies would be considered "reformist", but some 15 year old yelling "smash the state&#33;" would be. Obviously its all the teenage and/or college-student Commies and Anarchists here who are the "authentic" revolutionaries, even if their activity consists entirely of posting messages here or at best youthful adventurism.

Call my ideas "reformist" if you like, but they would result in a radical restructuring of present society and the expropriation of the entire ruling class by the working class. I&#39;m guessing that if such a movement ever gained momentum in this country, the ruling class would consider it sufficiently "revolutionary" to imprison and murder the movement&#39;s leadership.


Try giving THIS BOOK and THIS PAMPHLET a read(they&#39;re really short, I promise). I think they&#39;ll give you an understanding of where I&#39;m coming from with my objections as I don&#39;t really have the time to write out an essay on my thoughts of market socialism.

After I&#39;m done reading up on Tucker, I surely will. At the very least this thread is encouraging to do some more reading on such topics.

Redstar, I believe I owe you a reply. And it was nice of you to critically respond to my post without arrogantly pissing all over me and politely telling me to go elsewhere. That article is quite good, my response below--


The "common wisdom" in bourgeois circles has it that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern European "people&#39;s democracies" was due to the failure of their "command economies".

I think "command economies" are perfectly able to control production of basic industry, but I do think they are unable to efficiently provide for nonessential consumer items. In that case, I do think a market is necessary. Unless you want to take the position, like wet_blanket, that under socialism there will be no non-essential consumer goods.

In any event, it seems clear to me that in practice the "command economies" did not provide for worker emancipation as well as Tito&#39;s "market socialist" Yugoslavia did. Now there are reasons for this other than the lack of markets, mostly the return to one-man management and the bureaucratization of the Soviets under Lenin, which was in turn emulated by subsequent Communist* states. However, the presence of a market under Titoism did result in higher standards of wealth for the common worker in Yugoslavia than under any of the other Communist nations, and the worker committees which helped control production resulted in greater democracy and freedom for the workers than in any other Communist nation.

You could say that such "market socialism" led to the swift return of capitalism in Yugoslavia a decade after Tito&#39;s death and a year after the USSR&#39;s collapse. I won&#39;t argue that, but its not like the USSR, the Warsaw Pact states, or even China have fared much better in that regard.

But be honest-- would you rather have been a worker in Tito&#39;s Yugoslavia (or even a Social Democratic state like Sweden) or the USSR? During the short-lived Khruschev era it might have been a close-call for me, but during any other time, as a worker I&#39;d pick Yugoslavia or even Sweden over the USSR or any other Communist state. It looks like Venezuela is quickly approaching that model as well, and it seems (so far) to be working out pretty well for workers there.

*By Communism, I mean big "C" Communism, in other words, various permutations of Leninism.


With the abolition of the capitalist class as such and with no individual opportunity to invest in the means of production, "market socialism" has, initially, a very simple class structure. Those who are employed in some enterprise--the working class; those who are not employed at all--non-workers; and those who work in some capacity directly for the state apparatus.

For employed workers, the key is their paycheck. The more they make, the better off they are, the greater their access to consumer goodies in the marketplace. They have a direct incentive to mobilize in whatever ways they deem effective to increase their pay. This could take the form of votes in an assembly of employees, a special resolution in a regional or national parliament, or even a strike...the refusal to produce some product in high demand unless they receive a greater share of the proceeds.

For non-workers, their lack of money with which to purchase necessities in the marketplace puts them in the same position as they are under capitalism. It does not matter if the regional supermarket is full of food, they must go hungry without money. It does not matter if there are thousands of vacant apartments on the market, they must be homeless without money. Or they must convince some employed individual or some larger collective to support them.

How many people are non-workers is difficult to estimate now and will be even harder to estimate in the future. We know that it&#39;s very difficult for anyone under the age of 15 to earn enough money to live on. We know that the capacity for useful employment begins to decline at an accelerating rate after the age of 50. We know that some percentage of people are effectively "unemployable" due to physical or mental disabilities, extreme drug/alcohol abuse, etc. And we also know that there is something of a long-term trend for fewer and fewer workers to be able to produce more and more...due to the growth of sophisticated technology.

There&#39;s no reason, in principle, of course, that "market socialism" cannot have a "social safety net" just as some capitalist countries have one now. How generous it will be is problematical; some workers express considerable resentment of non-workers and presuming that "market socialism" is democratic, the "safety net" might be closer to that of the United States (almost none) than to that of Scandinavia (fairly decent).

As I previously stated, those unable to work would be a) given all the basics (food, clothing, housing, education, heath care, communication devices, etc.) just like the workers and b) would receive a fixed income per individual equal to the median remuneration of all workers. So there should be no appreciable class differences between workers and those unable to work due to age, mental or physical handicap, maternity/paternity leave or lack of work. Although non-workers could not serve on the worker committees, they could serve on the consumer committees or other organizations which will also be critical to organizing the economy and society.


Whenever income in the form of money determines your access to life&#39;s necessities and luxuries, you are drawn towards a "world-view" that emphasizes the increase of your income at the expense of all other considerations. People are certainly capable of resisting that temptation and many do; some cannot.

How that phenomenon will manifest itself is impossible to predict; but that it will manifest itself is certain. There will be a "pressure" to increase income differences over time and while it might be politically or even morally resisted for a time, it does not go away. The market, like the "devil" of the middle ages, never sleeps but is always looking to snare another "soul".

Non-workers, at least those who have some capacity for purposeful activity, will turn to crime--some form of "private enterprise"--for what they cannot obtain by employment. Employed workers will agitate in one form or another for increases in wages. State employees will seek "perks". All are acting in response to the demands of the market...you must have money, as much as possible, or you&#39;re fucked.

One can certainly imagine steps that might be taken to mitigate this phenomenon; but it can&#39;t be escaped altogether as long as a market exists.

Does this mean that "market socialism" "must" devolve back into capitalism? I would expect that to happen, but I&#39;m not sure that it&#39;s possible to "prove" that. Perhaps the best that can be said at this point is that there would be a tendency to restore capitalism but that there would be not be an "absolute inevitability" about it.

As long as that tendency is resisted, there won&#39;t be capitalism. But there will be a gradual growth in inequality of income and, eventually, accumulated wealth. Human ingenuity will be brought to bear on the problem of how to invest that wealth to make more wealth--if there are no legal ways to do it, perhaps some semi-legal or even illegal ways can be found.

I consider these all to be reasonable criticisms of the society/economy I am proposing. I&#39;m not sure I have a good answer to these concerns, except to say that no system is flawless and neither is the one I&#39;m proposing. But fuck, man, ain&#39;t nobody got it right so far, so my ideas are no worse than anyone else&#39;s. As to "market socialism" in general, I would say that it has proven to be more successful than Leninism has in terms of creating a better life for workers. I can&#39;t say the same about Anarchism, simply because it has not resulted in a successful revolution (at least not one long-lasting enough to draw any good conclusions). It would&#39;ve been nice to see how Spain turned out had the CNT been successful, but unfortunately things started to unravel within a year. But I definitely think they were on a good path before they started allowing the return of bourgoeis elements.


Communism proposes, of course, the complete abolition of markets, wages, prices, etc. Since anyone has access to the necessities and luxuries of life regardless of what they do (even if they do nothing at all), the motives of accumulating wealth--security and status--are rendered meaningless. It is thought that people, being rational, will no longer bother with an activity (accumulation of wealth) that has become pointless.

To "de-couple" work from material reward also means that work is chosen only for its intrinsic satisfaction; status will be conferred on demonstrated competence in work that is considered socially useful.

Well, that&#39;s all well and good. But I&#39;d like to know exactly how that&#39;s gonna work. What are gonna be the organizational forms of production/consumption and specific means of economic and social coordination? How precisely is such a society organized? Marx was silent on the details. That was left for other folks to try and figure out, without much success. The largest current of Marxism-- Leninism was mainly concerned with the organziational forms of the transitional phases towards communism, not the specific organizational forms of the end society. The Left/Council Communists and Syndicalists, desiring an immediate end to state power, were a little more specific about the organizational forms of socialist society, but even the CNT (who had all the necessary structures set up to run the economy years before 1936) were silent on many details. Personally, I think DeLeonism has done the best job in terms of working out organizational details for a future socialist society.

That&#39;s the thing, I get a lot of criticism here for being a "reformist" when I lay out how I&#39;d like to see society function, but very little in terms of concrete explanation of how others think society should function. At least I&#39;ve tried to concretely explain how things would operate organizationally and laid out some ideas for the forms that would take. If people want to criticize me, fine, but at least come back to me with specific organizational recommendations as to how the end stage of communism/socialism/anarchism is going to operate economically and socially.

I dunno, I suspect maybe you have a "redstar paper" on that one too. If so, I&#39;d love to read it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 15 2006, 07:55 AM

Try giving THIS BOOK (http://bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/index.htm)
Haha, sure it is short, but it is not the most fluid and lucid book to be read.

Debord likes technical words and Hegel.
Just a little warning. ;)

[Asteri]

Or because I actually help organize and participate in class struggle instead of just endlessly talking about it?

He has a point. We all talk. We theorize. But why not actually go out and get other people thinking. We could at least start by vandalizing some shit. Graffiti some hammers and sickles. Maybe people will actually qonder what it means and go look it up. Its a start to getting people believing. A Revolution wont come if no one moves and does something.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
I dunno, I suspect maybe you have a "redstar paper" on that one too. If so, I&#39;d love to read it.

Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have, of course, yielded to the temptation to "describe" (speculate about) how the economic details of communist society might "work"...but it&#39;s far easier at this point in our history to see clearly what can&#39;t possibly work to get us what we really want.

All the proposals to set up an improved, even "radically" improved, version of what we have now simply fail to meet communist expectations.

Sure, it would be "better" in a "lot of ways"...and who would choose to live in objectively worse conditions no matter what the "name" of the system was?

In Miami, the electricity stays on; in Havana, it fails at least once every day. :o

That means that there&#39;s no "frozen food" industry in Cuba; you have to shop for food every day.

Who needs that?

Whatever you label a system, we expect reliable technology that makes life less of a hassle.

So when one asks rhetorical questions about "would you rather have lived here" or "there", the answers are not derived from ideology but from objective reality.

Speaking personally, I&#39;d probably be better off now in Holland than anywhere else. But when I was born, Holland was under Nazi occupation and I probably would have died...lots of infants did. :(

Is a communist society that meets people&#39;s perceived material needs possible? And how would it work?

More importantly, how would it work better than any past or potential alternative?

That&#39;s something that revolutionaries must answer convincingly...or we will end up with some "improved" version of what we have now.

And that&#39;s not good enough&#33;

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

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nicky
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but your views seem close to Krotopkin&#39;s Anarcho-Communism. And Krotopkin didn&#39;t offer any more in terms of concrete organizational forms in end communist society than Marx did.
I&#39;m a little buzzed right now, so if this response seems a little odd, that&#39;s why.

I haven&#39;t read Kropotkin. I haven&#39;t read much Bakunin. But you know what? What these guys thought is just not that important. What&#39;s important is what we do now.


Again, how precisely is that to function? I would not take the risk of launching a revolution over such a nebulous concept, which could result in the entire destruction of society and the deaths of billions without a workable plan for exactly how the economy and society is to be structured and organized post-revolution.
Do you know what communism is? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Well, that would be the basic principle of any &#39;economy&#39;. I know it may seem utopian to you (and I really don&#39;t care), but I think we should strive for such a &#39;gift economy&#39; from day one after the revolution.

Also, I think you need to read some of my posts on &#39;the revolution&#39; itself. I don&#39;t think it will result in the deaths of billions--certainly not.


Um, who said any thing about state power?
You didn&#39;t. But if you want to be such a &#39;realist&#39;, let&#39;s think realistically. The system you describe will require an expansion of the current &#39;welfare state&#39;. And this system does not eliminate the state. So we can logically deduce that the system will require something of a &#39;hyperstate&#39;. I mean, I am really shocked how idealistic you are despite your labels of &#39;utopian&#39; to anarchism.


any profits "extracted" from that labor go one of three places-- a) directly to society, in the case of socialized industries, b) in their own pocket, c) to the co-op that workers collectively own and democratically operate. What&#39;s so fuckin bad with that? Calling that wage-slavery is simply the hyperbole and rhetoric of an ideological dogmatist.
Haha. I&#39;m the &#39;dogmatist&#39;. :lol:

Well, this all sounds well and good, but in reality, we must realize things will not be so &#39;fair&#39; or &#39;proper&#39;. You see, if this society was really so devoid of an &#39;upper class&#39;, we wouldn&#39;t have wage. We wouldn&#39;t have money. So, in your society, there would be surplus value. And there would be an upper class. Given all the capitalistic qualities of your system, this seems inevitable.


This logic sucks. There is no indpendent employer/owner class, and there is a limit on personal wealth both on the high and low end, so material differences are neglibile. No economic classes. No political classes. No social classes. The fact that people have a little bit of currency, script, vouchers, whatever to buy some trinkets on the market (maybe a birthday gift for their daughter), does not mean there is a class society, no matter what logical acrobatics you perform to try and discredit my ideas as "capitalistic" or "reformist".
I&#39;m sorry, to the reader, that I had to quote the entire paragraph there. But it is all rather interesting.

Given currency, class is inevitable. Any &#39;market socialist&#39; would probably tell you that they do not strive for a classless society. In your society, the simple fact is that classes will exist. There will be surplus value. There will be wage slavery. Again, given the capitalistic qualities of this system, it is inevitable. I am honestly shocked with what energy you defend this system of yours.


Well, perhaps, but that is no more certain than the creation of a "hyperstate" in syndicalism or DeLeonism, and in any case you have not come up with any compelling alternatives other than the nebulous concept of "networks".
Alternatives to what? Post-revolutionary economy?

Well, how about this, for starters. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I think that should be the underlying &#39;slogan&#39; to post-revolutionary society. As to how things will exactly work, well, I am no wizard. I&#39;m guessing we&#39;ll have a loosely connected network of communes, about the size of an old Greek city-state, which will produce. Workplaces will be owned by working people in common. And they will produce what they need, perhaps using some of the technology RS2K speaks of in his website article.

There&#39;s more to anarchism than syndicalism. But, yeah, if you want to argue for a &#39;kindler, gentler&#39; market system (that is, capitalism), I really don&#39;t think this place is for you. Because, going by your &#39;definitions&#39;, this message board is full of &#39;utopians&#39;&#33; :lol:

[KC]

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)You see, if this society was really so devoid of an &#39;upper class&#39;, we wouldn&#39;t have wage.[/b]

Payment doesn&#39;t imply the existence of an upper class.


Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)So, in your society, there would be surplus value. And there would be an upper class. Given all the capitalistic qualities of your system, this seems inevitable. [/b]

This "surplus" that you speak of isn&#39;t surplus at all, as it is redistributed to the workers in full through public works projects (education, transportation, etc...).


Originally posted by Loyal Subject
In your society, the simple fact is that classes will exist.

Classes are defined based on relationships to the means of production. So what would these classes be? Enlighten us.


Originally posted by Loyal Subject
There will be surplus value.

No there won&#39;t. There is no surplus value as the workers are being paid in full.


Loyal [email protected]
There will be wage slavery.

Again, no there won&#39;t. Who would the workers be selling their labour to? The government? They are a part of the government.


The pre-condition for wage labour is a class of people who have no other way of living, and a class of people who own the means of production as their Private Property.
-Source (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/a.htm#wage-labour)

So who is this class of people that own the means of production as their Private Property? The state? But aren&#39;t the workers part of the state? So how is there wage labour?


Loyal Subject

Well, how about this, for starters. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I think that should be the underlying &#39;slogan&#39; to post-revolutionary society.

It&#39;s funny that you are using Marx&#39;s quote from the Critique of the Gotha Programme yet your position is completely in contradiction with Marx&#39;s view, expressed in that very same work. I suggest you read it. It&#39;s not that long; I read it in one sitting.

[redstar2000]

Well, Nicky, if you managed to wade through the muck of Lazar&#39;s post, you have an idea of what communists are "up against"...even on this board.

I can see why you want to "try your hand" at designing a new version of socialism...considering the re-warmed Leninist porridge that still permeates so much of the "left".

First, we&#39;ll nationalize everything.

Then, everybody will work for the government.

For wages.

Which they&#39;ll use to buy whatever they need (and happens to be available).

The stuff they buy will be sold to them by the government at a profit (supposedly).

The profit will be used to establish a really spiffy social welfare apparatus.

And for lots of perks for the people who run the government.

Who will be high-ranking members of -- ta-taa -- the Vanguard Party&#33;

Which will cut down many trees to make the paper to tell us that they are really "one with us" and "just like us" only "smarter and more capable".

Altogether about as inspiring as a diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer&#39;s Disease&#33; :lol:

Ah well, what can you do?

Even though you think it "sectarian" to continually protest this well-meaning nonsense, I think it&#39;s something that just has to be done.

How are we ever going to make any progress if we keep hanging around Lenin&#39;s Mausoleum...waiting for "The Resurrection"? :lol:

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

[KC]

Then, everybody will work for the government.

Everybody will be the government.



For wages.

Labour Time Vouchers.



The stuff they buy will be sold to them by the government at a profit (supposedly).


No.



And for lots of perks for the people who run the government.


The people that run the government will be workers as well.



Who will be high-ranking members of -- ta-taa -- the Vanguard Party&#33;


The party is composed of proletarians.



Which will cut down many trees to make the paper to tell us that they are really "one with us" and "just like us" only "smarter and more capable".

Your failure to understand what a vanguard is and claims of elitism of the vanguard are hilarious.



Altogether about as inspiring as a diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer&#39;s Disease&#33;

Sure you&#39;re not starting to develop Alzheimer&#39;s?



Even though you think it "sectarian" to continually protest this well-meaning nonsense, I think it&#39;s something that just has to be done.

I haven&#39;t said anything that was nonsense, and throwing me into a grouping of other Leninists is pretty funny considering the fact that I&#39;m not a Leninist.



How are we ever going to make any progress if we keep hanging around Lenin&#39;s Mausoleum...waiting for "The Resurrection"?

Nobody is advocating this.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Anomaly, I think you&#39;re more than buzzed, you must be blind drunk. I asked you for concrete organizational forms and functional means and you trot out "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Jesus Christ man, Oh-Dae-Su could&#39;ve given me that as an explanation for how communist society is supposed to work. A one-line phrase or some nebulous talk about "communes" and "networks" ain&#39;t gonna cut it. Maybe billions won&#39;t die in the revolution, but if the movement leading it lacks any concrete program for restructuring the economy, billions WILL die after the current system is toppled.

I could debate with you about how there is no wage-slavery or class structure in my envisioned society, which should be fuckin obvious (at least redstar&#39;s critique argues that class society will re-emerge under a "market socialism" system, which he regards my ideas as encompassing, but he recognizes that under such a system intitally the ruling class ceases to exist), but repeating the same points to you over and over again would be about as fun as bashing my head against a brick wall. You just don&#39;t want to listen.


But, yeah, if you want to argue for a &#39;kindler, gentler&#39; market system (that is, capitalism), I really don&#39;t think this place is for you.

Guy, I don&#39;t think "Theory" is the right place for you. You claim to be an anarchist of some sort, yet you are unfamiliar with syndicalism, the IWW, the CNT, Bakunin or Krotopkin. A lack of reading on the subject is partially excusable, but when pressed for details on the organizational functioning of the end socialist society you are so committed to (and on which basis you are criticizing my ideas) the best you can come up with is a one-liner by Marx known by almost everyone and some half-baked shit about "networks" and "communes"? You might wanna stick to Chit-Chat cause I think you&#39;re over your head here.

And for the record, I think any "anarchist" who is not a member of the IWW or another labor organization is not in any way a serious revolutionary. If you&#39;re not engaging in serious efforts to organize the working-class at the point of production, all the flyering and protests are just petty shit by some young radicals out on an adventure. Being a revolutionary demands not just the "correct" theory but concrete organizational action. Until you step the fuck up and start taking some, I ain&#39;t gonna hear this I&#39;m a reformist and an advocate for capitalism bullshit. I&#39;ll be damned if I&#39;m gonna listen to some punk teenager who doesn&#39;t grasp his own ideology and hasn&#39;t done anything to organize the working-class try to play "revolutionary" to my "reformism"

And you want me to take a hike so bad, then you better start up a thread in the CC demanding I be restricted or banned, cause until that happens I ain&#39;t goin fuckin nowhere.

Redstar

Thanks, and I&#39;ll be sure to read your shit and reply when I get a chance.


Nobody is advocating this.

I AM&#33; Oh fuck yeah, just like the Simpsons episode--

Russian/Soviet Diplomat: "The Soviet Union will be pleased to offer amnesty to your wayward vessel."

US Diplomat: "Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up."

Russian/Soviet Diplomat: "Nyet&#33; That&#39;s what we wanted you to think, hahahahahaha&#33;"

Zombie Lenin emerges from tomb: "Must crush capitalism... grrr&#33;"

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nicky+--> (Nicky)And for the record, I think any "anarchist" who is not a member of the IWW or another labor organization is not in any way a serious revolutionary.[/b]
RAAN???

The reason I repeat the &#39;same old shit&#39; to you is simply so you understand that we don&#39;t want market socialism&#33;&#33;

If you want that, perhaps you&#39;ll find an ally in the Mighty Lazar. :lol:

By the way, my suggestion of a network is merely a suggestion for organization now.


hasn&#39;t done anything to organize the working-class
My constant suggestion has been for the working class to organize themselves. :)

And as for me being involved in any organizational process, I am currently unable to do this (there are just no fellow revolutionaries where I live).

Fortunately, however, the college I am going to next year does have a ready-made network that I am going to join.


Lazar
I suggest you read it
Already have. However, if you read Nicky&#39;s posts, what he is describing has nothing to do with TLVs. (in fact, if you read some old NovelGentry posts, I think he understood this concept far better than you).

Indeed, TLVs could serve as a means of transition. They require no classes, and Marx outlines the concept rather well in Gotha.

However, what Nicky is describing demands a massive increase in the size of the government. The profit motive is not eliminated. I really don&#39;t think this was what Marx was talking about, if that is the &#39;standard&#39; you live up to.

Personally, I take what Marx wrote only as a suggestion of what we could do. You, however, seem to take Marx&#39;s words as the words of god.


The party is composed of proletarians.
In theory. This sounds similar to what Vladimir always said. But it didn&#39;t work out in practice.

It&#39;s funny that you continue to avoid the label &#39;Leninist&#39;. I think RS2K was hitting on this point as well--that your ideology sounds suspiciously &#39;in tune&#39; with Leninism.

I can already tell you that you are not very popular with the anarchists, and the lib-Marxists don&#39;t much care for you rambles either. Perhaps you&#39;ll become a Leninist out of neccesity. :lol:

[anomaly]

I see that what Nicky wants, probably rightfully so, is an idea of what communist society will actually look like, and how things will work.

Essentially, says Nicky, if my society ain&#39;t good enough for ya, what do you suggest?

Well, here you go.

First, the reason I repeated "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was so that you have a general idea of the slogan, of sorts, of communist society. In your society, Nicky, the goal is still &#39;acumulate as much wealth as possible&#39;.

You can try to set legal bounds for this, and it is a noble goal. However, I&#39;m sure you realize that Marx pointed out that legal &#39;rules&#39; are always subordinate to economic ones in society.

So the slogan of Nicky&#39;s society is "from each according to his ability, to each according to how hard he works".

Some immediate problems become obvious. First, unless you do suggest the use of TLVs, how do you measure &#39;how hard&#39; somebody works?

Now, as for communist society, I think RS2K outlines one possible way the economy could &#39;function&#39;. That card-wipe technology he mentions could be very useful. That way, consumer trends can be easily spotted, and adjustments in production can be made accordingly.

I think we have to remember just how advanced communication technologies already are. Communication between communes will likely prove vital in communist society. In this way too can production be coordinated.

In any case, without the profit motive, production can be planned using a variety of techniques, two of which are briefly mentioned above. And as technology advances, we should reach a point when machines can literally do almost all labor formerly left to humans. The technological levels at the time of the revolution will prove very interesting, and we will then have a much better idea of what actually is possible.

However, another reason I oppose your market socialism idea is that I think there are a few things that must go once the revolution is over.

1. The state: it is hierarchy. The Leninists wish to keep it, and Lazar has some rather unique ideas about this, but claiming that our goal is not to destroy the state creates a very sticky situation. You then leave open the possibility of any type of hierarchy, any type of charismatic leader, any type of tyranny having the ability to, for lack of a better phrase, really fuck things up. This revolution must serve to destroy the state. I&#39;ll repeat it again, if we do not destroy the state, we perpetuate the state. There are some who claim this is impossible. However, if you look over my posts, I outline a method in which it is entirely possible to destroy the state.

2. The market: If we continue using the capitalist market, well, then we really haven&#39;t accomplished much. Now, TLVs are a rather different story. Rather than an arbitrary wage, workers would receive actual compensation for their labor. We would basically use the labor time to output ratio, and using this, convert each person&#39;s labor &#39;value&#39; into vouchers of some sort. With TLVs, however, the market is still destroyed. We will have no &#39;sellers&#39;, only &#39;buyers&#39;. There is no profit. We simply measure labor value, and a TLV system does, in theory, transition to a communist free-access system rather well.

In your system, Nicky, the profit motive is not eliminated. This is a major contrast between your system and a TLV system.

3. Private property: This is the essence of the capitalist system. So long as it exists, capitalism exists. With a revolution, we should abolish private property, and replace it with communal property. That way we can create a society which truly has working people holding the means of production in common.

I&#39;m sure Lazar disagrees with me, as does every single Leninist on this board. Nicky, I think the system you outline just needs some minor changes, so as to &#39;fit&#39; with the three things listed above.

However, I hope your tone towards me will change a bit. :)

Sorry for the long post, but I felt I had to clarify some things.

[KC]

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
It&#39;s funny that you continue to avoid the label &#39;Leninist&#39;. I think RS2K was hitting on this point as well--that your ideology sounds suspiciously &#39;in tune&#39; with Leninism.

I can already tell you that you are not very popular with the anarchists, and the lib-Marxists don&#39;t much care for you rambles either. Perhaps you&#39;ll become a Leninist out of neccesity.[/b]

Yes, because there is absolutely no middle ground. You didn&#39;t even understand my view on what a party is and its role in post-revolutionary society. I said that various bodies of the party should have power, and you immediately called me authoritarian, and then when I told you that you don&#39;t even know what these various bodies consist of or how they are organized, and told you to check out the Communist League rules, you didn&#39;t reply. Shows how much you know.


Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)The state: it is hierarchy.[/b]

Of course it is&#33; Of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.


Originally posted by Loyal Subject
You then leave open the possibility of any type of hierarchy, any type of charismatic leader, any type of tyranny having the ability to, for lack of a better phrase, really fuck things up. This revolution must serve to destroy the state. I&#39;ll repeat it again, if we do not destroy the state, we perpetuate the state.

Yes, because the proletariat shouldn&#39;t be allowed to take power. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Loyal Subject
However, if you look over my posts, I outline a method in which it is entirely possible to destroy the state.

You don&#39;t even know what the state is. If someone tells you the definition you say "that&#39;s a weird definition, and not many people use it" when in reality it is the actual definition of the word. What is the definition of "state"? Let&#39;s look:


[email protected]
The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.
-Source (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state)

The proletariat needs to take control of the state. They need to take hold of the institution of organized violence so they can use it, as the ruling class of a country, to maintain the conditions of its rule. If you are against this then you are against the proletariat taking power.


Loyal Subject

I&#39;m sure Lazar disagrees with me

Just where you&#39;re wrong.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by The Mighty Lazar
The proletariat needs to take control of the state. They need to take hold of the institution of organized violence so they can use it, as the ruling class of a country, to maintain the conditions of its rule. If you are against this then you are against the proletariat taking power.
Emphasis mine.

Do you know what will happen if we enter revolution with state power as our goal? Well, we can just open a history book to the twentieth century to see.

If we enter a revolution with the destruction of the state as our goal, guess what won&#39;t happen? We won&#39;t have any permanent state structure that would have to eventually be dealt with.

Saying &#39;we want state power&#39; is a dangerous proposition. I think TAT has a rather relevant quote in his sig: "All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State". And I&#39;ll say it again: if we do not destroy the state, we perpetuate the state. You may like the latter proposition, but I certainly do not.

And as for your political ideology, you sound more &#39;pro-Leninist&#39;, to say the least, with every post. And I think others are beginning to see through your charade. <_<

As for the rest of your post...YAWN

[KC]

Originally posted by Loyal Subject+--> (Loyal Subject)
Emphasis mine.

Do you know what will happen if we enter revolution with state power as our goal? Well, we can just open a history book to the twentieth century to see.[/b]

Ah. So you are against the proletariat taking power then.


Originally posted by Loyal [email protected]
If we enter a revolution with the destruction of the state as our goal, guess what won&#39;t happen?

Anything destructive to the capitalist system is what won&#39;t happen.


Loyal Subject
We won&#39;t have any permanent state structure that would have to eventually be dealt with.

That&#39;s because the bourgeoisie would still rule because you wouldn&#39;t have any way to maintain proletarian power because you are against that.



And as for your political ideology, you sound more &#39;pro-Leninist&#39;, to say the least, with every post. And I think others are beginning to see through your charade.

Yes, I&#39;m so Leninist. You got me&#33; :lol:



As for the rest of your post...YAWN

Glad to see you can&#39;t wrap your head around what a state actually is, even after I provide you with the definition.

[Nachie]

Labour Time Vouchers.
Bigger cages, longer chains&#33;
Bigger cages, longer chains&#33;

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Mighty One+--> (Mighty One)That&#39;s because the bourgeoisie would still rule because you wouldn&#39;t have any way to maintain proletarian power because you are against that.[/b]
I believe that it is you that can&#39;t wrap your head around the concept of destroying the state. :lol:

You seem to have an emotional attachment. :lol:

If we have a revolution, the ex-bourgeoisie (because they lose their place relative to the means of production) have three choices: assimilate into post-revolutionary society, leave it, or fight it. I highly doubt very many at all with take the third road. Capitalists are notoriously opportunist, so I think they&#39;ll take life over death.

In any case, the ex-bourgeoisie cease to function as a class in post-revolutionary society. There is simply no place for this class. Thus, there is no place for a state.

And you may joke about being a Leninist now, but anyone who reads your posts sees your moving that way.

By the way, why are you so afraid of what will become an insignificant minority anyway? :huh:


Nachie
Bigger cages, longer chains&#33;
I used to think that way about TLVs. But, really, they seem to be a suitable method of economic transition, if we need them. They simply let an individual take what he puts into society. The profit motive is eliminated. And people can &#39;run&#39; the &#39;TLV system&#39; themselves.

In any case, I think we need to keep our mind open, just in case we need to use TLVs.

[321zero]

Quoting Nicky from upthread, butchered for my narrow purpose -

In any event, it seems clear to me that in practice the "command economies" did not provide for worker emancipation as well as Tito&#39;s "market socialist" Yugoslavia did ... However, the presence of a market under Titoism did result in higher standards of wealth for the common worker in Yugoslavia than under any of the other Communist nations,...
...
You could say that such "market socialism" led to the swift return of capitalism in Yugoslavia a decade after Tito&#39;s death and a year after the USSR&#39;s collapse. I won&#39;t argue that, but its not like the USSR, the Warsaw Pact states, or even China have fared much better in that regard.

I&#39;m not sure that the credit for Yugoslavia&#39;s relatively higher living standards can be attributed to Tito&#39;s market-socialism, a more likely candidate would be Tito&#39;s foreign policy. Yugoslavia&#39;s non-aligned status, it&#39;s opposition to the Warsaw pact, meant that for strategic/political reasons it became a recipient of western investment and IMF loans. These were made on easy terms initially but were called in pretty sharpish when the imperialists began to realise they had the upper hand over the USSR in the 80&#39;s. As a result the Yugoslav economy began to tail-spin leading to the increasing economic disparity between the various republics which ultimately saw the richest (Slovenia, Croatia) go for seccession and then - whoopsie daisy - civil war.

If Cuba wasn&#39;t 90 miles of the Florida Coast they might&#39;ve gotten a similar &#39;easy ride&#39; - however as a singular example for a whole hemisphere they didn&#39;t qualify.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:34 AM
Quoting Nicky from upthread, butchered for my narrow purpose -

In any event, it seems clear to me that in practice the "command economies" did not provide for worker emancipation as well as Tito&#39;s "market socialist" Yugoslavia did ... However, the presence of a market under Titoism did result in higher standards of wealth for the common worker in Yugoslavia than under any of the other Communist nations,...
...
You could say that such "market socialism" led to the swift return of capitalism in Yugoslavia a decade after Tito&#39;s death and a year after the USSR&#39;s collapse. I won&#39;t argue that, but its not like the USSR, the Warsaw Pact states, or even China have fared much better in that regard.

I&#39;m not sure that the credit for Yugoslavia&#39;s relatively higher living standards can be attributed to Tito&#39;s market-socialism, a more likely candidate would be Tito&#39;s foreign policy. Yugoslavia&#39;s non-aligned status, it&#39;s opposition to the Warsaw pact, meant that for strategic/political reasons it became a recipient of western investment and IMF loans. These were made on easy terms initially but were called in pretty sharpish when the imperialists began to realise they had the upper hand over the USSR in the 80&#39;s. As a result the Yugoslav economy began to tail-spin leading to the increasing economic disparity between the various republics which ultimately saw the richest (Slovenia, Croatia) go for seccession and then - whoopsie daisy - civil war.

If Cuba wasn&#39;t 90 miles of the Florida Coast they might&#39;ve gotten a similar &#39;easy ride&#39; - however as a singular example for a whole hemisphere they didn&#39;t qualify.
Good point. Some more research is needed on my end.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 15 2006, 11:55 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 15 2006, 11:55 PM)
Nicky Scarfo
I dunno, I suspect maybe you have a "redstar paper" on that one too. If so, I&#39;d love to read it.

Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have, of course, yielded to the temptation to "describe" (speculate about) how the economic details of communist society might "work"...but it&#39;s far easier at this point in our history to see clearly what can&#39;t possibly work to get us what we really want.

All the proposals to set up an improved, even "radically" improved, version of what we have now simply fail to meet communist expectations.

Sure, it would be "better" in a "lot of ways"...and who would choose to live in objectively worse conditions no matter what the "name" of the system was?

In Miami, the electricity stays on; in Havana, it fails at least once every day. :o

That means that there&#39;s no "frozen food" industry in Cuba; you have to shop for food every day.

Who needs that?

Whatever you label a system, we expect reliable technology that makes life less of a hassle.

So when one asks rhetorical questions about "would you rather have lived here" or "there", the answers are not derived from ideology but from objective reality.

Speaking personally, I&#39;d probably be better off now in Holland than anywhere else. But when I was born, Holland was under Nazi occupation and I probably would have died...lots of infants did. :(

Is a communist society that meets people&#39;s perceived material needs possible? And how would it work?

More importantly, how would it work better than any past or potential alternative?

That&#39;s something that revolutionaries must answer convincingly...or we will end up with some "improved" version of what we have now.

And that&#39;s not good enough&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Okay, just got around to reading that link. It was a very good read.

I&#39;ll have to reply later though. It&#39;s getting late and I just finished a 14-hour day and got a 12-hour one tomorrow. I should clock about 160 or more hours of stress over the next two weeks, and goddamn if I don&#39;t need to work in some time to try and get laid. But I&#39;ll try and remember to re-read that thread at some point in the near future and reply with my thoughts.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:58 AM

Labour Time Vouchers.
Bigger cages, longer chains&#33;
Bigger cages, longer chains&#33;
:lol: well put.