How will an anarcho-communist society ensure environmental protection?

[timekept]

I'm assuming since clean energy technology is here & ready to use, an ancom society wouldn't have any particular reason to be fracking or drilling for oil, so don't worry, this isn't about that. I'm wondering about grazing lands for livestock--too many cows grazing in a singular area causes damage to the pasture/grassland in question. With the elimination of private property & federal regulations, how can we ensure protection against over-grazing? (this question was brought on by a discussion with a relative about the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, for context)

[(A)]

That is a good question. I have read that Anarco-Communists believe in free-use over social ownership of the land so that may be a legitimate problem assuming people are stupid enough to let it happen... so it will probably happen.
In other libertarian socialist systems (possibly pre-anarco-communist) the social ownership of the land would ensure environmental protection threw democratic land management.

Then again Anarchism does not mean their are no laws; just no rulers. It may be a law that you can't permanently damage the land? I dont know because the laws are supposed to be natural laws and that sounds like a law by decree.
If you had social ownership then it is logical to create a law to protect the land from damage as it is not your land to damage but everyone's.

[Moggallana]

Since the land will not be in the hands of private interests at that point, a variety of possibilities arise. I'm going to outline one pretty common solution which will hopefully be illustrative. The land gets collectivized and is placed at the discretion of the regional organizations/councils/unions/soviets/whateveryouwanttocallit. If agricultural land, for example, were to be utilized in the most effective way, taking care of the land and the environment is the other side of the same coin, and is to be taken up and sustained as both necessary and beneficial to all. The farmers/growers/workers, knowledgeable in their field (mind the pun), would hopefully know what is best for their land and enviornment. You would also get fresh graduates from agricultural/environmental institutions of learning to supplement the knowledge-and-innovation component of the whole thing. The dialogue and sharing of information and skills between the farmers/workers and the environmentalists/technologists could result in huge increases in agricultural productivity, environmental protection and cleaning (think about that new technology getting tested to clean the oceans of trash but on steroids), and meeting the needs of those communities through revolutionary grassroots organizations which don't exclude wider/different regional/provincial organizations either, allowing for such a solution to thrive in a variety of situations.

[ckaihatsu]

That is a good question. I have read that Anarco-Communists believe in free-use over social ownership of the land so that may be a legitimate problem assuming people are stupid enough to let it happen... so it will probably happen.

Jesus -- you don't even think that your own political ideology will be effective...(!)

[(A)]

Jesus -- you don't even think that your own political ideology will be effective...(!)

I am Not an Anarco-Communist. As it stands I dont believe humanity will last long enough to reach a state of communism.

I am all about that first step. libertarian socialism. Minimal state that protects the manages the Means of Production and land would still exist in most forms of libertarian socialism.

[Heretek]

I am Not an Anarco-Communist. As it stands I dont believe humanity will last long enough to reach a state of communism.

I am all about that first step. libertarian socialism. Minimal state that protects the manages the Means of Production and land would still exist in most forms of libertarian socialism.

What is the point of being here then. What you describe is neither revolutionary or communist/anarchist. If humanity will not survive, then why bother? Nihilists and pessimists are not necessarily anti-left, but why would they care if it's a) all pointless or b) doomed to failure.

But then again, that's an argument the right likes to regurgitate sometimes. Why care about the environment if we're all just gonna die? Kick that can down the road, and if we live that long, give ourselves a pat on the back? Defeatism helps no one

[(A)]

What is the point of being here then. What you describe is neither revolutionary or communist/anarchist. If humanity will not survive, then why bother? Nihilists and pessimists are not necessarily anti-left, but why would they care if it's a) all pointless or b) doomed to failure.

But then again, that's an argument the right likes to regurgitate sometimes. Why care about the environment if we're all just gonna die? Kick that can down the road, and if we live that long, give ourselves a pat on the back? Defeatism helps no one

Because I choose to be here; I choose to fight. Regardless of the futility of our actions we do what we do because we decide to do it.
We are all going to die; why not just kill ourselves? because we decide that while we can we should live.

[ckaihatsu]

I am Not an Anarco-Communist. As it stands I dont believe humanity will last long enough to reach a state of communism.

I am all about that first step. libertarian socialism. Minimal state that protects the manages the Means of Production and land would still exist in most forms of libertarian socialism.

Your expressed support for a state, multiple locality-based currencies, markets, use of labor as a commodity, and overall commodity production means that you're *not* for socialism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the thing is that "free use" isn't the same as "unaccountable use" - ie subject too democratic community decision making by people who are effected. And the fact is, most communities aren't willing to poison their own air/water, leave next to toxic waste dumps, etc. Therefore, absent carrots and sticks in the hands of the capitalist class, I think it's safe to expect that people will be much more conscious of their ecological circumstances.

[Moggallana]

Defeatism helps no one

Very true. From my observations, defeatism is a symptom that arises towards the beginning and at the end of the cycle of a revolutionary. The first time around, it often takes root when one who is fresh (or new or not well-grounded in theory and understanding) sees the uphill battle that the revolutionary movement is struggling against. It can be disheartening for a naive person to all-of-a-sudden see the Everest of communism, and so, they might think "there's no way we're ever going to reach that peak". This can lead to a few outcomes: one might give up on the revolutionary movement by returning to a householder life (so to speak), one might become so distraught as to bring about an anger that pushes them to the right and to become reactionary, or one might continue fighting even though they don't think that the goal will be reached (like the chap perhaps inaptly named Democracy), which might lead to lukewarmness and half-assing. The second time around, defeatism occurs in seasoned revolutionaries, and the reasons for the symptom are more subtle and specific.

Defeatism, like all negative symptoms that can arise in us, should be understood, so that they can be eliminated. It is something that can and needs to be addressed, but it has to be addressed on an individual level. The defeatism that happens in newbies can usually be easily combatted. The simplest way (that I can think of), and what I'm going to recommend to Democracy is: read more, and keep reading. Learning loosens the grip of defeatism and it helps to build conviction and strengthen resolve. But sometimes, no matter what happens, defeatism succeeds in removing the revolutionary potential in individuals. And while Heretek said that defeatism helps no one, there is the instance where it can help revolutionaries weed out and separate the toxic defeatists from their fold.

Your expressed support for a state, multiple locality-based currencies, markets, use of labor as a commodity, and overall commodity production means that you're *not* for socialism.

That's both bad news and good news. The bad news is that this person holds ideas that are both reactionary and status-quo. The good news is that these ideas, coupled with the defeatism (among other things that they've stated), point to the possibility that this person's revolutionary political education is still premature and budding. I would urge Democracy to read more. Ask more questions. The amount of questions you pose should exceed the amount of statements you make, until you know enough where you actually can make statements of worth/substance.

And the fact is, most communities aren't willing to poison their own air/water, leave next to toxic waste dumps, etc. [...] I think it's safe to expect that people will be much more conscious of their ecological circumstances.

Indeed. A lot of people (especially in cities) seem to be reduced to impotence by thinking that they're so insignificant that nothing they do can positively affect the environment. Even right now, if only they knew how much power they possess, they could make incremental changes. But the real change will only occur in a post-capitalist world, as capitalism will not stop pillaging the environment so long as the profits still roll in. Truly democratic, well-educated communities could potentially heal the environmental scars, but to heal the whole globe...

You can end fracking in one country but the frackers will go to five poor countries and set up shop. You can reduce the consumption of coal here while the rest of the world burns theirs. You can ban overfishing off the coast but the overfishing everywhere else will still occur. Chasing capitalists from country to country is unsatisfactory and will never end except with the end of capitalism itself, and that's why communism needs to be global (with respect to the topic). If this communism is not global, we risk falling into "Environmental Stalinism", with its ideology "environmentalism in one country". Comrades! We must all recycle in our country! That way, we will influence recycling revolutions worldwide! If you don't recycle, you will be sent to the gulag where you will sort cans from bottles for the rest of your life!

[(A)]

Your expressed support for a state, multiple locality-based currencies, markets, use of labor as a commodity, and overall commodity production means that you're *not* for socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual...onomic_theory)

I as stated many times am a libertarian socialist. I support market socialism and the social ownership of the means of production
Is this not socialism? Is libertarian socialism not socialism? Is market socialism not socialism? Is the social ownership of the means of production not socialism?
I must really be new to this cuss for the past 7 years I thought socialism was socialism. Wow I have a lot to learn.

As for my apparent defeatism. I am only stating that Humanity is close to an ecological end date that would render most of this moot. I am not giving up any struggle for progress or against tyranny; Simply aware that capitalism
has damaged our planet and that some scientists suggest that Humanity will be facing extinction within 1000 years. My acknowledgement of this possibility has nothing to do with how many years I have been a socialist.

[ckaihatsu]

Your expressed support for a state, multiple locality-based currencies, markets, use of labor as a commodity, and overall commodity production means that you're *not* for socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual...onomic_theory)

I as stated many times am a libertarian socialist. I support market socialism and the social ownership of the means of production
Is this not socialism? Is libertarian socialism not socialism? Is market socialism not socialism? Is the social ownership of the means of production not socialism?
I must really be new to this cuss for the past 7 years I thought socialism was socialism. Wow I have a lot to learn.

Why are you unable / unwilling to address my points -- ?

You can state all you want, but when it comes to the *particulars* that your position includes / implies, you're silent.

My argument is that as long as a system of *exchange values* is retained, as in inter-communal barter, then *commodification* is occurring, which then is not really collectivist production -- 'collectivist' in the sense of the *whole world* being truly collective as a single system, *without* various, differing local interests, by commune, over exchange values from trade.

[(A)]

You did not address my questions either.

Collectivism is "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." I would suggest as a libertarian that a rejection of collectivism over the individual is hierarchical and unjust.

"Many socialists, particularly libertarian socialists, individualist anarchists, and De Leonists criticize the concept of collectivism. Some anti-collectivists often argue that all authoritarian and totalitarian societies are (vertically) collectivist in nature. Socialists argue that modern capitalism and private property, which is based on joint-stock or corporate ownership structures, is a form of organic collectivism that sharply contrasts with the perception that capitalism is a system of free individuals exchanging commodities. Socialists sometimes argue that true individualism can only exist when individuals are free from coercive social structures to pursue their own interests, which can only be accomplished by common ownership of socialized, productive assets and free access to the means of life (production) so that no individual has coercive power over other individuals"

Your argument for collectivist production is hierarchical at best totalitarian at worst.
Do You want a single state across the entire planet that "democratically" dictates how the means of production operates and is used? Because I will not stand for that.

ALL i want is the return of the The instruments of labor to the hands of those who built them (the society),
The return of the lands to the community's that reside in them and the rejection of the state and the capitalist as unjust and unjustifiable.

I Dont want A state acting as capitalist; determining 'what is to be done' with the Instruments of labor that is not theirs to wield
I Dont want the individual to be able to steal the subject of another labor as that is not theirs to take

That is it. I dont care to speculate much on economics as I am not an economist and would not be able to back up any erroneous claims.

I support any system that leads to the end of the state and the end of the capitalist and reject any system that does not.

[ckaihatsu]

You did not address my questions either.

Okay, I'll be glad to address any questions you specify, if you like, if you'll address my point at post #12.

Collectivism is "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." I would suggest as a libertarian that a rejection of collectivism over the individual is hierarchical and unjust.

You keep invoking a 'collectivism over the individual' as though it's a foregone conclusion or real threat -- the result is you're sounding *fatalistic*, as though any collectivist planning above the scale of the individual is bound to fail. This is counterproductive from the revolutionary standpoint because coordination over production is *synonymous* with a 'collectivism', to some degree -- which is okay -- because people have *needs in common*, such as for food. So 'giving a group priority over each individual in it' yields perfectly *acceptable* results, such as 'food for all', above prioritizing any given individual for the receipt of food.

Your argument for collectivist production is hierarchical at best totalitarian at worst.

And you continue to *diss* hierarchy as though all hierarchies are the same -- a *logistical* hierarchy, as was covered at the other thread, would enable centralized planning, potentially over the whole world, without directing *anyone* to do exactly this-or-that, against their own inclinations:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar.../authority.htm

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

I'll just note that this kind of authority / hierarchy referred to by Marx has to do with the *logistics* of organization for any given productive process, and shouldn't be taken as the practice of *commanding specific individuals* into place, since that would negate the 'self-determination' on-the-ground -- the organic voluntarism / liberation that the individual is supposed to be able to enjoy as a result of capitalism being overthrown.

(I also don't see any objective need for inherently-substitutionist 'delegates', or political representatives of any sort, being necessary any longer, thanks to the communication technologies of the Internet.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/16...67#post2873867

Also:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

---

Do You want a single state across the entire planet that "democratically" dictates how the means of production operates and is used? Because I will not stand for that.

No.

No state -- just a mass-coordination by all, for demands-in-common, that willing liberated-laborers can respond to as they so choose.

I'll include here some relevant excerpts from the model I developed for a post-capitalist social order, especially pertaining to a collectivist production:

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily[/quote]

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

ALL i want is the return of the The instruments of labor to the hands of those who built them (the society),

No prob, but maybe here you realize that such would necessarily involve a process of *collectivization* (generalization)(commonization) for such.

The return of the lands to the community's that reside in them

The use of 'community' as the basic post-capitalist social unit is too problematic -- it's ill-defined and is not premised on liberated-labor-effort (actual work potential).

Such communities could exist on an *informal* level, but not for the purposes of a regular communism and its functioning.

and the rejection of the state and the capitalist as unjust and unjustifiable.

No prob. (Although you *do* call for the use of a 'state' of some kind, elsewhere, which *contradicts* your words here.)

I Dont want A state acting as capitalist;

Okay, no 'states' now. (grin)

determining 'what is to be done' with the Instruments of labor that is not theirs to wield

Okay, agreed.

I Dont want the individual to be able to steal the subject of another labor as that is not theirs to take

Check.

That is it. I dont care to speculate much on economics as I am not an economist and would not be able to back up any erroneous claims.

I support any system that leads to the end of the state and the end of the capitalist and reject any system that does not.

Fair enough -- I'll welcome you, again, to take a look at my own model / proposal, at post #6 of this thread:


Market Anarcho-Syndicalism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...ho-Syndicalism

[(A)]

You keep invoking a 'collectivism over the individual' as though it's a foregone conclusion or real threat -- the result is you're sounding *fatalistic*, as though any collectivist planning above the scale of the individual is bound to fail. This is counterproductive from the revolutionary standpoint because coordination over production is *synonymous* with a 'collectivism', to some degree -- which is okay -- because people have *needs in common*, such as for food. So 'giving a group priority over each individual in it' yields perfectly *acceptable* results, such as 'food for all', above prioritizing any given individual for the receipt of food.

Yes but collectivism of the means of production by a society of individuals.
Collectivized control over production VS the Means of production is the issue.

We both agree that society should control the means of production (physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value)
I dont agree that society should control the whole of production as that also includes the individuals labor.

You cant control production without control over labor.
You cant control labor without control over the individual.

We are having this same debate over 4 threads that are not ours in the first place. We have already taken over several peoples threads and are not limiting our discussion to the goal of the threads.

I am sorry Timekept for hijacking your thread.

[ckaihatsu]

You keep invoking a 'collectivism over the individual' as though it's a foregone conclusion or real threat -- the result is you're sounding *fatalistic*, as though any collectivist planning above the scale of the individual is bound to fail. This is counterproductive from the revolutionary standpoint because coordination over production is *synonymous* with a 'collectivism', to some degree -- which is okay -- because people have *needs in common*, such as for food. So 'giving a group priority over each individual in it' yields perfectly *acceptable* results, such as 'food for all', above prioritizing any given individual for the receipt of food.

Yes but collectivism of the means of production by a society of individuals.

I see this as being a mass-populist-demands-versus-liberated-laborers-volunteerism kind of thing.

Many people could be self-coordinated, demanding 'food' for an extended geographical area somewhere, but maybe they're not doing anything about the situation themselves because they're used to living in cities, with zero farm experience or expertise.

As a group of individuals they have nearly-identical 'needs', and as individuals in this post-capitalist collectivist society, they each have *nominal* proportionate claims to the use of the means of production.

They all *could* potentially get their hands on some land and tools, etc., to produce food for themselves, *or* they could come to some kind of terms with those who have the experience / expertise / willingness *to produce food* for as many people as necessary. (Maybe the city people could return the favor of labor-effort to the rural people by *their own* labors at producing goods and services from the *urban* setting that would be seen as roughly equivalent by all in the two different groups.)

Collectivized control over production VS the Means of production is the issue.

We both agree that society should control the means of production (physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value)

I dont agree that society should control the whole of production as that also includes the individuals labor.

You're simply reiterating that there should be no standing-institution, dictatorial-type of commanding power over how people labor -- I agree, and the dynamic of bottom-up *self-determination* cuts against any such 'top-down' threat.

But *could* a society potentially use *centralized planning* that mobilizes liberated-labor and resources worldwide at once -- ? I say yes.

You cant control production without control over labor.

I *disagree* in the sense of 'marionette-strings' -- people wouldn't have to be *puppets* according to some grand global blueprint for activating labor. But the use of a logistical hierarchy *could* indicate that 'Project A' needs to have 10,000 work-roles / people from 'Locality Z', and 10,000 work roles / people from 'Locality Y'. Either this happens, or it doesn't. Maybe 'Project A' would have to give-way to 'Project A-2' which finds a way to only use 5,000 + 5,000 work roles, for the same results, which is actually *doable* for certain volunteers from both Localities 'Z' and 'Y'.

You cant control labor without control over the individual.

No, this is *incorrect* because the higher-level requirements are for *work roles* (to be filled and completed), and *not* for specific individuals -- 'control' *isn't* necessary because what *is* necessary is adequate numbers of willing personnel (liberated laborers) who are available for whatever it is is said to be socially necessary to be produced.

Another way of putting this -- from past posts of mine -- is that the only thing that could *conceivably* be scarce in a post-capitalist post-scarcity societal context would be *liberated labor* itself.

This brings us back to your 'toilet paper' scenario from before, which I see as being entirely valid and realistic -- if you'd like to return to it.

We are having this same debate over 4 threads that are not ours in the first place. We have already taken over several peoples threads and are not limiting our discussion to the goal of the threads.

'Taken over' -- ?

That's a bit *overstated*, isn't it, considering that any RLers could easily *ignore* our posts and continue-on posting in the same threads for their own conversations.

I'd say don't worry about it -- that's what the discussion-board format is able to do.

I am sorry Timekept for hijacking your thread.

[pepezefrog]

anarcho-communists doesnt support hierarchy, but they dont oppose to a direct democratic government, as long as each and everyones got a say in making decisions, so i suspect they can discuss about environmental harm and work upon it.