Anarchists: how to abolish markets

[Macchendra]

My question is simply this: how (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish markets, money and trading alltogether, without assigning or claiming the authority to do so? Such a claim of authority would certainly imply a hierarchy.

(BTW, in the hope of avoiding polarized responses, IMHO, anarcho-capitalism == crypto-landlordarchy. Capitalism is a form of territorialism that grants supreme rights of authority to the landlord.)

[repeater138]

I guess they deserve a little more time, but this oughta be rich.

[Cult of Reason]

In the first world, we live in an environment where there is an inhibited capability to produce an abundance of goods and services. After a revolution, there would be no incentive for those inhibitions to continue to exist. Therefor, an abundance of goods and services would be produced, in the sense that it would be technically possible to give everyone what they need. And, once there is an abundance, market systems collapse automatically for anything that is abundant. Air is abundant, so noone can sell it. Sand is abundant in Saudi Arabia, so noone sells it.

Markets would be destroyed by production!

[violencia.Proletariat]

how (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish markets, money and trading alltogether

Workers after repossessing their workplaces will create assemblies that work in cooperation with community assemblies to work out production for need based distribution. This in itself destorys "the market". It's too early to tell if a LTV syystem is needed, but one would be put in place by community vote if need be. The phasing out of money would be a community process, it will be decided in the community assemblies, there is no specific action to stop this.


without assigning

Delegation does not require hierarchy.


Such a claim of authority would certainly imply a hierarchy.

Why? While it may require a bit of bureaucracy, this will be closely monitered and can be withdrawn by a public vote at any time.

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:32 PM
Markets would be destroyed by production!
This certainly applies to software, music, video markets.
However, not everything is as easy produced as by copying bits.

Did any of those inhibitions cease to exist in any former attempts to abolish markets, money and trading?

Let me add one more inevitable factor:
How (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish the extraction or appropriation of surplus value in such a system?

(Reappropriation maybe ;) )

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:40 PM

how (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish markets, money and trading alltogether

Workers after repossessing their workplaces will create assemblies that work in cooperation with community assemblies to work out production for need based distribution. This in itself destorys "the market". It's too early to tell if a LTV syystem is needed, but one would be put in place by community vote if need be. The phasing out of money would be a community process, it will be decided in the community assemblies, there is no specific action to stop this.


without assigning

Delegation does not require hierarchy.


Such a claim of authority would certainly imply a hierarchy.

Why? While it may require a bit of bureaucracy, this will be closely monitered and can be withdrawn by a public vote at any time.
So far, I am liking this thread.

What I am hearing is basically:

The "capitalist" market loses the battle because it cannot compete where workers and consumers (or community assemblies, if you like) democratically work together and have full say over market elements.

I agree completely that this does not require police or military, or hierarchy.

I do not see collaborative action as being hierarchical.

I see it possible even today, in this horribly inequitable market.

I think that even broaching the topic of communism with people today is difficult, because all they see is the police, military and hierarchy of past attempts.

The movement today is even filled with those who see the police or military, or hierarchy as being necessary.

I think that we need to get past the police or military, or hierarchy approach.

I believe we can manifest a new economy merely through our cooperation.

Peace!
David

[repeater138]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:32 PM
In the first world, we live in an environment where there is an inhibited capability to produce an abundance of goods and services. After a revolution, there would be no incentive for those inhibitions to continue to exist. Therefor, an abundance of goods and services would be produced, in the sense that it would be technically possible to give everyone what they need. And, once there is an abundance, market systems collapse automatically for anything that is abundant. Air is abundant, so noone can sell it. Sand is abundant in Saudi Arabia, so noone sells it.

Markets would be destroyed by production!
So how do anarchists plan to organize production to create this abundance? Or will it just happen on its own?

[repeater138]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:40 PM
Workers after repossessing their workplaces will create assemblies that work in cooperation with community assemblies to work out production for need based distribution. This in itself destorys "the market".
How does that in itself destroy the market? You had worker controlled factories in Argentina that were all about the market. After all the market is just one matrix of "need based distribution". The question is what and whose needs.

Maybe someone should define "the market" or better yet use a concept which isn't absurdly idealist, so we can get away from the "invisible hand" logic.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by repeater138
So how do anarchists plan to organize production to create this abundance? Or will it just happen on its own?
It obviously will depend on the specific situation, but a few things are clear. Firstly, private property, and thus class relations, will be abolished. This will usher in the common ownership of the means of production.

Also, we must remember that today technology and communication methods will prove extremely important in coordinating this production. I think that's sort of what Haraldur was hitting on.

TLVs may prove neccesary in collectivist economy, as nate mentions. But even if we must use them (the only reason would be if production capabilities are not sufficiently advanced to use a free-access system), some goods can clearly be socialized.

None of this requires hierarchy, or even much centralization (if any). In fact, by eliminating private property, any thought of hierarchy goes out the window. :)

[violencia.Proletariat]

How does that in itself destroy the market?

It won't destroy the world market, it's not ment to. I am a materialist, even after communist revolutions have taken place in the advanced capitalist countries I believe capitalism will still exist in the less developed countries.


You had worker controlled factories in Argentina that were all about the market.

The majority of factories in Argentina are not worker controlled, nor are the workers communists wanting to destroy capitalism.


After all the market is just one matrix of "need based distribution".

A market is a matrix of who can afford to pay for this shit distribution. Need based distribution is that it is given to those who need it first, not who can pay the most for it.

[Cult of Reason]

However, not everything is as easy produced as by copying bits.

True, but the capability already exists. In the EU, for example, there are efforts made to reduce food production, in order to save Capitalism! Stockpiles, destruction (maybe even deliberately early sell-by dates?) etc..


Did any of those inhibitions cease to exist in any former attempts to abolish markets, money and trading?

No idea. I would guess not, however. Why? I do not think (though please someone correct me if I am wrong) that in Spain, for example, there was the possibility to produce more of the important things than was needed. The method I give is probably not the only one, but is one that is applicable to the First World today.


How (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish the extraction or appropriation of surplus value in such a system?

(Reappropriation maybe wink.gif )

:blink: Sorry, I need simpler words to understand this.

[Cult of Reason]

So how do anarchists plan to organize production to create this abundance? Or will it just happen on its own?

Well, obviously there will have to be some organisation to get things produced at all, but beyond that there will be little extra organisation to do (beyond the logistics of distributing the stuff on the basis of need and (possibly) accounting the energy used). This is because of the various mechanisms of wasting production or reducing it. For a start, when a product is produced, there is a conscious decision to limit production according to the laws of supply and demand. This would, naturally, cease to exist if money is not deemed as important. Stockpiling of goods to keep prices up. Oh, and disposable goods.

Let us use the example of a razor blade. Let us assume that the average modern razor blade lasts 3 days. It is possible, at no extra expense, to produce razor blades that remain sufficiently sharp for 20 years. Let us reduce that to 3 years. Therefore, 365 times more stuff sold and thrown away! Indeed, this was quite a problem when disposable razor blades were introduced. Before then, razor blades lasted for quite a while. How did they get everyone to waste their money on disposables? They managed to convince millions that disposables were sharper! Bottled water is purer, disposable razorblades are sharper... both examples of making abundant (or potentially abundant) things scarce. In Communism, if people are aware of this they would naturally make the longer lasting razor blades!

I am sure there are many other examples of deliberate organisation to inhibit abundance that would disappear with Capitalism.

[repeater138]

It obviously will depend on the specific situation, but a few things are clear. Firstly, private property, and thus class relations, will be abolished. This will usher in the common ownership of the means of production.

How are you going to abolish class relations? By simply "abolishing" private property? That won't work. Class relations are much more complicated than that, and they're embedded much deeper into our consciousness than that.

So how exactly would abolishing private property also abolish class relations? Do you sign a law? Who goes in and takes away this property from all the people who think they still own it? Once its taken away do the former owners become classless? Does that mean that there are millions of classless individuals in society right now (those without private property).

And how does abolition of Private Property mean that there is then common ownership?

And how does any of this destroy the market mechanism, since that is the question posed.



None of this requires hierarchy, or even much centralization (if any). In fact, by eliminating private property, any thought of hierarchy goes out the window.

Sounds like you're going to need a little hierarchy and coercion to even "abolish private property", or will people just drop everything one day and come together to create this classless society. What do you do with all the houses? Some houses are bigger than others. Others are in really good locations. So simply giving everyone a house or a room doesn't mean they're equal and out of those inequalities will arise new hierarchies. The issue of land for farming is more obvious: if everyone is parcelled out a chunk of land equally they in fact will not end up at an equal situation, because not all land is equal and some families are larger or have health problems etc. Out of this uneveness will arise more uneveness and hierarchies. The other option is collectivization. Who's going to organize that, and how are you going to get people who have spent their entire lives working the family farm to work something collectively? Not to mention the uneveness between those who're educated and those who are not and how that can't simply be brushed aside by abolishing private property. Again this uneveness is in fact all ready a hierarchy, but it will produce a more oppressive hierarchy if it is not dealt with in a more thoroughgoing way than simply abolishing private property.

Pretty idealist answer if you ask me. Sort of wave the wand and define class relations out of existence, nevermind reality.

[anomaly]

How are you going to abolish class relations? By simply "abolishing" private property? That won't work. Class relations are much more complicated than that, and they're embedded much deeper into our consciousness than that
Classes are materially based upon our relations to the means of production. Make the access to these means the same, and society is functionally classless.

A simple answer, but I'm sure I've managed to confuse the Lennie. :lol:


Who goes in and takes away this property from all the people who think they still own it?
Damn buddy. That's pretty fucked up. Ever heard of revolution? :huh:


And how does abolition of Private Property mean that there is then common ownership?
You're questions are exceedingly stupid. The goal is to create common ownership. The hypothesis is that it's in the interest of the proletariat to do this. I think that hypothesis is right.


And how does any of this destroy the market mechanism, since that is the question posed.
That would be the function of TLVs. TLVs a distributed based upon the ration of one' output to labor time. This will be used a distribution method until everything can be socially distributed. So, in a sense, the market won't be destroyed right after the revolution, but rather it will be destroyed gradually as material conditions advance.


Sounds like you're going to need a little hierarchy and coercion to even "abolish private property", or will people just drop everything one day and come together to create this classless society.
Sound like you're just echoing Engels. His hypothesis that 'revolution is an authoritarian act' does not mean the resulting society must be authoritarian i.e. hierarchical.


So simply giving everyone a house or a room doesn't mean they're equal and out of those inequalities will arise new hierarchies.
Ever heard of from each according to his ability; to each according to his need? Damn. Leninists. :lol:


if everyone is parcelled out a chunk of land equally they in fact will not end up at an equal situation, because not all land is equal and some families are larger or have health problems etc. Out of this uneveness will arise more uneveness and hierarchies. The other option is collectivization. Who's going to organize that, and how are you going to get people who have spent their entire lives working the family farm to work something collectively? Not to mention the uneveness between those who're educated and those who are not
The aim is not to create a society in which all our equal down to the minutest detail. The aim is to create a society with the above slogan in mind.

I have the utmost confidence in the people themselves to decide the issues you mention themselves. No state needed, no hierarchy needed.

Although, Haraldur has an interesting idea called 'rational authority'. It's a good one, in my estimation. You might want to check it out.


Again this uneveness is in fact all ready a hierarchy, but it will produce a more oppressive hierarchy if it is not dealt with in a more thoroughgoing way than simply abolishing private property.
I think you need to understand that once private property is abolished, and common property replaces it (since you like to be nitpicky), the material basis for class disappears.

However, you seem to think that the state can do magic wonders. It, although a simple tool for class suppression, can end classes.

And you call me the idealist?

But I will tell you that you misunderstand anarchism in just about every way possible.

[cyu]

Let me first say I have nothing against markets as long as everyone has relative equal amounts of spending power. Each dollar spent is like a vote in an economic democracy that helps determine what is produced. The market is only a problem under capitalism because some people have much more spending power than everyone else. This causes a lot of "votes" to produce things for the wealthy, leaving less emphasis on producing things the general public can use. If spending power was relatively equal, a market economy would function fine in providing the average person with an abundance of services.


How (in theory) does an Anarchist abolish the extraction or appropriation of surplus value in such a system?

If the employees of a company control the pay structure democratically, then the surplus value won't be going anywhere except back to the employees.


So how exactly would abolishing private property also abolish class relations? Do you sign a law? Who goes in and takes away this property from all the people who think they still own it?

Well, a person wouldn't have a right to own the means of production without using it himself. Instead, people would have the right to assume ownership of the means of production that they are using. (If the means of production are used by many people, as in a company, then it's controlled democratically.) Just as people would band together to defend the lives of people who are threatened by murderers, in anarchist society, people would also band together to protect the right of employees to assume democratic control over their companies.


The other option is collectivization. Who's going to organize that, and how are you going to get people who have spent their entire lives working the family farm to work something collectively?

People will collectivize if they choose to. If a family farmer doesn't want to, he is free to continue to farm the land he already owns and uses. If he one day decides that his output isn't as great as the collectivized farms, causing him to spend a lot of effort on little results, then he can join a collective if he so chooses. If he joins a local collective, then his land is merged with the collective. If he wants to join a collective far away, which prevents him from farming his old land, then he'll have to give up ownership of his land to the new person who is going to farm it. He'll become a part owner (at least in the "democratic control" sense of ownership) of the new collective he joins.