Reading Recommendations for a Fellow Anarchist

481 posts / 0 new
Last post
ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 20:36
radicalgraffiti wrote:
trade doesn't happen in a vacuum, it requires and produces certain social relationships, free trade requires that if someone owns something, regardless of how much they may need it or how much another needs it, it is there's, and they are not required to take in to account the needs of others in deciding to dispose of it, it produces a separation between people who need to cooperate and puts them at odds with each other, it imposes competition where there needs to be none.

Most people like the social relationships that exist because of trade - these are peaceful cooperative relationships. I'll give you this, you'll give me that, and we're both happier because we didn't have those things before we traded.
Also, anarchy is competition. Let me quote Benjamin Tucker:
"When universal and unrestricted, competition means the most perfect peace and the truest cooperation; for then it becomes simply a test of forces resulting in their most advantageous utilization [...] it is for the interest of all (including his immediate competitors) that the best man should win; which is another way of saying that, where freedom prevails, competition and cooperation are identical." - Benjamin Tucker, Does Competition Mean War?

radicalgraffiti wrote:
if someone owns a warehouse full of food during a faming they can keep it locked up

Well this is just a silly argument that because something can be abused, it should be banned. Just because I can misuse the products of my labor doesn't mean I'm not entitled to them. Just because I can use a fork to kill you, doesn't mean we need to outlaw ownership and use of forks in restaurants.

sabot's picture
sabot
Offline
Joined: 21-06-08
Aug 15 2012 20:43

Passing this along in case you haven't read it: http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-structurelessness-jo-freeman

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 21:09
sabot wrote:
Passing this along in case you haven't read it: http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-structurelessness-jo-freeman

Hey thanks, this article is very interesting. Not quite my cup of tea of course, but at least the author attempts to critique structurelessness from a pragmatic standpoint. The problem is that most individualists don't want to be structureless, they just want to be free to enter into and withdraw from any social structures at will. I can run a store along with another guy on some prearranged conditions, but I want to be able to quit working there and put my capital into something else if necessary. I don't think I ever said cooperation is impossible once the state is dissolved. I expect that communes and such other organizations would spring up, but between them there would be "free territories" of all kinds. In these free territories people would organize through the market mechanism, which works very well in creating codependency and interdependency of all sorts based on trade and production.
People don't need leaders or rulers or representative "political structures" in order to work together. Where there's a will, there's a way.

As Emile Armand wrote, the individualist anarchist demands the full and unrestricted right to determine and change the value or price of any goods, either one's own products or consumer goods, of whatever kind, according to one's own discretion. Likewise untouchable is the right to negotiate in this respect, to use an arbitrator or to do without any determination of values.

So communists can do their thing in the commune and individualists can do their thing outside the commune. I don't see any problem with that.

Book O'Dead's picture
Book O'Dead
Offline
Joined: 31-07-12
Aug 15 2012 21:21
ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...]
So communists can do their thing in the commune and individualists can do their thing outside the commune. I don't see any problem with that.

You've eluded any attempt at discussion of the class struggle. In fact, with your insistence on claiming for yourself an inalienable right to own property and to exclude others from sharing it you have demonstrated that all you really want is to preserve that which creates classes and class antagonism.

You are no anarchist; you're a just a selfish twit. You're a disciple of Ayn Rand.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 21:33
Book O'Dead wrote:
You are no anarchist; you're a just a selfish twit. You're a disciple of Ayn Rand.

Sure, calling people names really is an effective way to prove your point right? Let me again answer your class struggle question with the simple dictum which Ernest Lesigne used to distinguish between the communists and the anarchists:

"One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires."

This is in fact true. Anarchists do not want any class division to exist. The class struggle is effectively over once the state disappears and voluntary institutions take its place. Because what kind of classes can you have if there is no possibility of coercion and exploitation? You only have free people living in whatever arrangements they desire.

I guess you are one of those communists who think they have a monopoly on the word "anarchist" and if someone does not agree with your gospel commandment "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" all you can do is hiss and start calling names.
News for you: it is perfectly possible to be an anarchist without being a communist. The two can go together, but don't have to.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Aug 15 2012 21:48

Please could you address my post? Thank you.

http://libcom.org/forums/general/reading-recommendations-fellow-anarchist-12082012?page=2#comment-491385

Book O'Dead's picture
Book O'Dead
Offline
Joined: 31-07-12
Aug 15 2012 21:58
ComradeAppleton wrote:
[...]
I guess you are one of those communists who think they have a monopoly on the word "anarchist" and if someone does not agree with your gospel commandment "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" all you can do is hiss and start calling names.
News for you: it is perfectly possible to be an anarchist without being a communist. The two can go together, but don't have to.

You're goddamned right about that! I will not accept your spurious claim on the anarchist label because everything you've written here proves that you are nothing more than an obstinately ignorant propertarian whose objection to communism is motivated by your own narrow selfishness; your worship of sacrosanct property.

Your libcom handle "ComradeAppleton" is deceitful as you consider yourself too good to be anyone's comrade. The title of this post is deceitful as you begin by professing that we here are your "fellow anarchist"; Your claim of being anti-authoritarian is a false one because you insist on affirming your illusory property rights, your authority, over and above the needs and wishes of those around you; your individualism is nothing more than an expression of your bloated sense of self-importance because your personal stash is sacred and God help anyone who presumes to use it without first obtaining a "contract", presumably redacted by you and with all the necessary clauses that give you the upper hand.

You are no anarchist in the true sense of that esteemed label; you are a pro-capitalist, petty bourgeois-minded libertarian of the Ayn Rand ilk.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 22:07

First, I don't think it is irrational to adhere to the division of labor. I will let Proudhon speak for me:
Without division of labor, the use of machines would not have gone beyond the most ancient and most common utensils: the miracles of machinery and of steam would never have been revealed to us; progress would have been closed to society; the French Revolution itself, lacking an outlet, would have been but a sterile revolt; it could have accomplished nothing.
And also:
I do not consider as falling within the logical class of division of labor nor of collective force the innumerable small shops which are found in all trades, and which seem to me the effect of the preference of the individuals who conduct them, rather than the organic result of a combination of forces. Anybody who is capable of cutting out and sewing up a pair of shoes can get a license, open a shop, and hang out a sign, “So-and-So, Manufacturing Shoe Merchant,” although there may be only himself behind his counter. If a companion, who prefers journeyman’s wages to running the risk of starting in business, joins with the first, one will call himself the employer, the other, the hired man; in fact, they are completely equal and completely free…

So individualist enterprises are perfectly normal legitimate producers, while larger industries necessarily employ the division of labor and can do so through cooperation. In fact, like I said, without the division of labor we would all be living in stone-age or at best medieval material conditions right now.
Furthermore, it is impossible to assure that just because something exists it will never be corrupted. This is an impossibility. Knives exist to cut things, but how can you assure that "corrupt" people will not use knives to kill others? Music exists for enjoyment, but how can you ensure that "corrupt" people will not use it to unsettle their neighbors by blasting it loudly in the middle of the night? But are these good reasons to ban knives and music? I could viciously kick someone right now. Is that a reason for you to permanently bind my feet together?
The division of labor is a natural outgrowth of the industrializing economy and it is in fact necessary for industrial production to exist.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 22:11
Book O'Dead wrote:
You're goddamned right about that! I will not accept your spurious claim on the anarchist label because everything you've written here proves that you are nothing more than an obstinately ignorant propertarian whose objection to communism is motivated by your own narrow selfishness; your worship of sacrosanct property.

I guess you also consider Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to be a "petty bourgeois-minded libertarian of the Ayn Rand ilk"? And how about Max Stirner, or the socialist egoists like Benjamin Tucker? Or the individualists like Emile Armand?

They are all just Randians! Wow, who knew!

Book O'Dead's picture
Book O'Dead
Offline
Joined: 31-07-12
Aug 15 2012 22:18
ComradeAppleton wrote:
Book O'Dead wrote:
You're goddamned right about that! I will not accept your spurious claim on the anarchist label because everything you've written here proves that you are nothing more than an obstinately ignorant propertarian whose objection to communism is motivated by your own narrow selfishness; your worship of sacrosanct property.

I guess you also consider Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to be a "petty bourgeois-minded libertarian of the Ayn Rand ilk"? And how about Max Stirner, or the socialist egoists like Benjamin Tucker? Or the individualists like Emile Armand?

They are all just Randians! Wow, who knew!

Don't hide behind those guys; I'm talking about you, propertarian.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Aug 15 2012 22:19
ComradeAppleton wrote:

Calling me a "Compassionate Conservative" is not a challenge, it's name-calling.

Sure, calling people names really is an effective way to prove your point right?

No, of course not and your judgement would carry more weight if only you weren't so fond of using labels as slurs yourself.

Quote:
"Can you please tell me what the difference is between you and a normal run-of-the-mill social democrat? I mean you talk just like one"

"This is a deeply immoral position. It is the statist position."

http://libcom.org/forums/north-america/ron-paul-24022012?page=3#comment-491275"

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 15 2012 23:44

i don't see how proudhon was an anarchist? max stirner was not and knew it, i don't know enough about tucker or emile to comment, but really what do you hope to accomplish by quoting the people at us or mentioning their names? anarchism is not anyoneism, its not defined by great leaders or founding fartheres, its a continuous practices and constant developing theory, "proudhon said " is not an argument.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 22:38
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i don't see how proudhon was an anarchsit? max stirner was not and knew it, i don't know engough about tucker or emile to comement, but really what do you hope to acouplish by quoting the people at us or metioning ther names? anarchism is anyoen ism, its not defined by gret leaders or founding farthers, its a contiuse pratices and constanly devoloping theory, proudhon said is not an argument.

Apart from the typos if I understood you correctly then I agree with you. Anarchism is not defined by any particular theory or any particular thinkers, and I was not saying that it is. I was simply responding to being labeled as not an anarchist. So, if anarchism is "anyone-ism" then I certainly am an anarchist.

Book O'Dead wrote:
Don't hide behind those guys; I'm talking about you, propertarian.

Maybe next you'll tell me that Bakunin was not an anarchist because he didn't believe your communist mantra. I wonder how far you are willing to go with this.
The fact of the matter is that having your own means of production does not contradict anarchism. That much is clear to me now, after I was directed to this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html

Book O'Dead's picture
Book O'Dead
Offline
Joined: 31-07-12
Aug 15 2012 23:00
ComradeAppleton wrote:
Book O'Dead wrote:
Don't hide behind those guys; I'm talking about you, propertarian.

Maybe next you'll tell me that Bakunin was not an anarchist because he didn't believe your communist mantra. I wonder how far you are willing to go with this.
The fact of the matter is that having your own means of production does not contradict anarchism. That much is clear to me now, after I was directed to this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html

Your insistence in comparing yourself to those historical figures is a clear sign of egocentrism.

In defense of your perverse views of private property you presume to invoke Proudhoun, for example, while ignoring his most famous maxim: "Property is theft!"

How do you reconcile that with your childish awe of property?

As to Bakunin, I can only refer you to Marx's summation of his method:

"To address the workingman without a strictly scientific idea and a positive doctrine amounts to playing an empty and dishonest preaching game in which it is assumed, on the one hand, an inspired prophet and on the other nothing but asses listening to him with gaping mouths."

Which are you, propertarian, the prophet or the ass?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 15 2012 23:07
ComradeAppleton wrote:
I could viciously kick someone right now. Is that a reason for you to permanently bind my feet together?

I (along with the other chumrades) would bind your feet together, just to watch you fall over and thrash across the floor in anger, then slow down and eventually, despairingly, stop (sort of like how i see this thread going). Then we would all have a big red fascist stalinoid chortle.

I joke. groucho

In all seriousness, if this is a thread about reading, I would suggest Marx. I found Capital pretty helpful, though the first part of the second volume really solidified things for me. As others have already pointed out (Rai for instance) 'capital' has a very specific meaning (as a system of exploitation and the production of surplus value*). It seems to me ComradeA that you throw around too many disparate terms (property, possession, capital) as if they are the same thing. They arn't. You say you despise capitalism yet you support an individuals right to 'own' capital (or, rather, accumulate capital [for the inherent violent birth mark of this accumulation see Marx on original/'primitive' accumulation]).

It seems to me that ComradeA has fallen into an odd trapping that many (especially in america, hence 'anarcho-capitalism'** or whatever) have fallen victim too. Thinking anarchism as a 'theory' of the individual*** rather than a set of ideas that arise from social and political movements (in Spain, in Italy, in the historic splits in the IWMA etc, etc). A large part of anarchist theory and practice is historically (please don't confuse this with a weak attempt at appealing to tradition) rooted in socialist movements.

* Roughly defined, Marxists of course have been falling over one and other for over a century now to piss on the others faces and tell them how wrong they are ('individualism').

** Although I get the feeling people only call themselves anarcho-capitalist to make their shite politics look a bit cooler. OoooOOOoooOOOOoo, ANARKY!

*** this 'theory' is often accompanied with a duff etymology of 'anarchism' where, no leaders, miraculously becomes the supreme 'right' of the 'individual' above all else.

red n black star

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 15 2012 23:10

Oh one last thing. I have only mentioned Marx, but I don't consider ol' Carl some sort of God figure. He has some very VERY astute things to say about the nature of capitalism, etc, etc, but he is not the be all and end all. The debates (and eventual split) he had with Bakunin are also hugely important.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 15 2012 23:29
Book O'Dead wrote:
Your insistence in comparing yourself to those historical figures is a clear sign of egocentrism.

I do not compare myself to these people, I only say that you don't consider any of them anarchists. So you have a very narrow definition of anarchism and for this reason you don't think I'm an anarchist. For some reason you think only communists can be anarchists, whereas it is well known that individualist anarchists rejected Marxism in favor of mutualist economics (which does not mean they are not anarchists).

Book O'Dead wrote:
In defense of your perverse views of private property you presume to invoke
Proudhoun, for example, while ignoring his most famous maxim: "Property is theft!"

"Property" is theft, but possessing your own means of production and free trade among individuals is legitimate. I guess this is what I meant by ownership. If my vocabulary is misused I apologize for my naivete in assuming you will understand what I mean.
Individualist anarchists refer as "property" to what Proudhon referred to as "possession" (legitimate ownership).

So let me restate my case just to be clear and understood:

Every single human being has the right to possess their own unique means of production, has the right to the full product of his/her labor, and has a right to dispose of that product as he/she sees fit. This includes, but is not limited to, commerce, gift-giving, or simply saving and accumulating. Every human being may enter into voluntary arrangements with others to trade, establish banks, currency, or cooperatives in industry.
None of that contradicts anarchism. So please stop endlessly distorting my position.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 15 2012 23:50
ComradeAppleton wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i don't see how proudhon was an anarchsit? max stirner was not and knew it, i don't know engough about tucker or emile to comement, but really what do you hope to acouplish by quoting the people at us or metioning ther names? anarchism is anyoen ism, its not defined by gret leaders or founding farthers, its a contiuse pratices and constanly devoloping theory, proudhon said is not an argument.

Apart from the typos if I understood you correctly then I agree with you. Anarchism is not defined by any particular theory or any particular thinkers, and I was not saying that it is. I was simply responding to being labeled as not an anarchist. So, if anarchism is "anyone-ism" then I certainly am an anarchist.

ah sorry my speling is shit espechalis when i'm drunk, i ment to say anarchsim is not anyone ism, its not prodhon ism its not bakuninsm, or kropotkinism.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 15 2012 23:57

i'm not a marxist btw, i think marsim is stupid, it doesn't mean marx didn't have good thigs to say or that he didn't have a great anaisliy of capitalism, but, to call your self a marxist? thats just fucked up hero worship, its totalys unscientiffic people shoudl be ashamed to follow one person in that way.

i am how ever a communist and i do think that the idea of a non communist anarchism is ridiculous, like and anarchism that isn't democratic or equaliterian

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 16 2012 00:06
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i'm not a marxist btw, i think marsim is stupid, it doesn't mean marx didn't have good thigs to say or that he didn't have a great anaisliy of capitalism, but, to call your self a marxist? thats just fucked up hero worship, its totalys unscientiffic people shoudl be ashamed to follow one person in that way.

i am how ever a communist and i do think that the idea of a non communist anarchism is ridiculous, like and anarchism that isn't democratic or equaliterian

But hopefully you would agree that Bakunin was an anarchist despite not being a communist smile After all, the famous slogan of Bakunin was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution (or work)"
So communists and collectivists don't have a monopoly on anarchism. There are many kinds of anarchists.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 16 2012 00:06

While currently sober i support RG's right to apologise to terrible spelling with another terribly spelt post. I am a serious proponent of drunk posting on libcom. twisted . If the commune won't allow that then it is not my revolution.

Melancholy of Resistance's picture
Melancholy of R...
Offline
Joined: 2-11-11
Aug 16 2012 00:18
ComradeAppleton wrote:
But hopefully you would agree that Bakunin was an anarchist despite not being a communist smile After all, the famous slogan of Bakunin was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution (or work)".

Stop making stuff up. The quote is "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs."

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 16 2012 00:23

'Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice, socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality'. This was....was Stalin right?

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 16 2012 00:35
Melancholy of Resistance wrote:
ComradeAppleton wrote:
But hopefully you would agree that Bakunin was an anarchist despite not being a communist smile After all, the famous slogan of Bakunin was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution (or work)".

Stop making stuff up. The quote is "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs."

Let the Anarchist FAQ answer you:

The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, "[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed.

So in collectivist anarchist arrangements, of which Bakunin was a proponent, the products are distributed according to the amount of labor everyone put in, not according to needs.

But I think this is all academic because the whole point I was trying to make, was to prove that anarchists don't have to me communists. This still hasn't gotten through to some people so I was giving examples of individuals who are accepted as anarchists, but are not communists (like Bakunin, Proudhon, and Stirner). My point is not to say I support any one of these people or subscribe to their ideas, but to show that non-communists can also be anarchists.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 16 2012 00:41
ComradeAppleton wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i'm not a marxist btw, i think marsim is stupid, it doesn't mean marx didn't have good thigs to say or that he didn't have a great anaisliy of capitalism, but, to call your self a marxist? thats just fucked up hero worship, its totalys unscientiffic people shoudl be ashamed to follow one person in that way.

i am how ever a communist and i do think that the idea of a non communist anarchism is ridiculous, like and anarchism that isn't democratic or equaliterian

But hopefully you would agree that Bakunin was an anarchist despite not being a communist smile

bakunin was an anarchist, but now things have moved on, things have changed since bukunins time and ideas have been tested

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 16 2012 00:56
radicalgraffiti wrote:
bakunin was an anarchist, but now things have moved on, things have changed since bukunins time and ideas have been tested

I think by that you mean that even the ideology has become dependent on a democratic vote. If the majority of anarchists are communists, then they get to vote and decide that all non-communists can't be anarchists anymore! How nice! Maybe mutualists should have done the same to communists in the mid-19th century when anarcho-communism was just starting...

Otherwise I don't know what the heck you could mean by "ideas have been tested". None of these ideas have been tested. We're still living under the same system. Maybe the government has become a bit less oppressive in terms of freedom of speech so we don't have to throw bombs to be heard anymore, but otherwise it's all same old, same old. What exactly has been tested and where did these tests take place? The statists wouldn't let people test anarchy because too many might realize that living with the state is a curse.

When the state is finally eliminated the we will test. We'll have communes, collectives, syndicates, associations, and all kinds of other voluntary arrangements (also including "free territories" where individualists can set themselves up and not join any associations). Then after that experiment we will know which systems work best. Right now we're all in the dark.

qbbmvrjsssdd's picture
qbbmvrjsssdd
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Aug 16 2012 05:22

Well, this is my understanding of it. It may be incomplete but it's what I can offer to you for discussion. The communist movement is the struggle against capitalist exploitation and the centralized control over property, which is already collectively operated by the workers but monopolized by capitalist elites and secured in that monopoly by governments. Communism is the expropriation and takeover of these productive enterprises and the concomitant association of these enterprises into voluntary federations. This also means the abolition of the state as a guarantor of bourgeois property and the deconstruction of state power into decentralized democratic organs of self-government. Mutual aid would be a revolutionary practice to cement the establishment of universal communism but it could not be enforced given the autonomy of each associative organization. However working class cooperation, solidarity and mutual giving would be essential to ensure the entire supplanting of the capitalist social structure, in order for everyone to be in control over the fruits of their labor. Building a collective society would lay the foundation for individual fulfillment and fruition, allowing everyone access to the means of creating their lives as they wish.

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 16 2012 06:15

I think I too would advocate a lot of what you wrote above and I certainly share those ends, if not the means themselves (I would not "expropriate" anybody except for the state and corporations - why not leave to most people their homes and small businesses?). The state has to be abolished because it is just one giant mechanism of theft and redistribution. It deprives all people of the product of their labor.
Especially two things that you wrote really seem sensible and agreeable to me:

qbbmvrjsssdd wrote:
it [universal communism and mutual aid] could not be enforced given the autonomy of each associative organization

and

qbbmvrjsssdd wrote:
everyone to be in control over the fruits of their labor

I totally agree with these two points, except they seem to be in direct contradiction with what some of the other comrades have written to me above. Some have claimed that I have no right to possess my own means of production (so presumably they want to enforce their universal communism on me) and others have said that I can't have control over the fruits of my labor (because society is to be organized on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").
Hopefully your position is the true one and we can all support one revolution together to destroy the current predatory system.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Aug 16 2012 11:51

I found this thread too long to quote or react on specific lines and thoughts, so I try to put forward my thoughts came during the reading of this debate.

I've already already expressed my issue with morality and morality based politics, ComradeAppleton. It seems to me that as the debate went ahead, you insist on certain base line truths, beliefs that you do not reconsider in the light of history, present social issues, and the objections of "your fellow anarchists".
The interesting thing is that I don't see you even try to get some justification for your principles, you just simply assert them, and expect the others to accept them. Propery/possessing, individual rights, good honest small businesses so on. Most of the anarchists I know came from an angle of issues with society, with life in general, and there's a search for solution, there's a search for a critical approach that gives the key to understand the present society and the processes shaping our present because once you understand the flow of society you have the chance to change it in order to eliminate the issues you encountered in the first place.

I would like to bring you down from your philosophical anarchism, from the politics of principles in to our real world where well considered actions decide how the world goes ahead, not frozen principles.

Communists like me, consider the following:
1) Personal experience: Most of us are wage workers with no control over our productive labour. Our everyday life revolves around the strict necessity to keep our jobs, to subordinate our will to our bosses, and making a stretch from the pay check to live until the next is coming. We experience the lack of control, the lack of healthy living conditions, we experience profit induced competition between fellow workers. Apart from the strictly work related things, we experience racism, sexism, all sorts of divisive and oppressive forces, making us vulnerable, a victim.
2) Social experience: We see the world around us. We see our friends, our families, our neighbours, people who we generally identify with, suffer similar experiences, and we know that because we exchange these experiences. We see how the individual issues at work are not isolated but widely spread problems, we see the number of poor, miserable life around us. We see people who aren't even capable of being in control of their life because they are in such a misery, such biological condition when their energy is drained by the struggle for simply to be alive.
3) Historical experience: We see that this condition did not arise from a single policy, a bad decision, or from the action of an evil individual or small social group. These conditions are the product of hundred of years of exploitation and power concentration, these conditions reflect the entire organisation of the human race. We could see that our individual will in the face of the huge machinery of society means nothing. We see empires, modes of productions emerge from the activity of large masses, subordinated to the mechanisms of social reproduction.

From these experiences communists concluded a few things:
* Society isn't just simply a bunch of individuals, but an organic entity that forms the life of each individual member.
* Human activity makes up the tissue of society, it is the decisive aspect therefore how society is functioning.
* Human activity today is frozen in to property that is, the way how the productive forces can be concentrated in the hand of small minorities, individuals while the rest of the active human race are subordinated simply because of the lack of property. Property is the politics of exclusion, the politics of misery that is imposed by social control and violence. This has nothing to do of the possession of your underpants, but the idea that you have the [bold]right[/bold] to use whatever productive force is at your disposal to your individual liking. This right must be enforced, either by the state, rent-a-mobs, or by your own violence. Property therefore is the major obstacle of a cooperating, self-controlling, indeed, progressing human race, where each individual has given the chance to grow and flourish the best way we can ensure.
* No changes in society can be facilitated without acting on the social level. What that means, is that individual moral, principles, individual actions, like killing the boss, the prime minister or blowing up the factory does not help on the issues we encountered on the whole stack of layers of our experiences. It must be the re-organisation of society. It must be accepted and actively pursued by the class that lacks any control in this society.

Will be continued...

ComradeAppleton's picture
ComradeAppleton
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Aug 16 2012 16:45

Believe it or not I actually agree with the observations named above - all 3 of them. But my solution is not to institute "universal robbery" (universally depriving everyone of the product of his/labor) but a universal ban on robbery (where everyone receives full product for his/her labor). As Benjamin Tucker said, theft is also government. Because every man who would take the product of another man's labor without his permission is governing him. I'm not, as you claim, some kind of ivory tower anarchist. On the contrary I simply look at practical solutions and I think there are some solutions which can be implemented much faster than by converting the entire working class to communism (which might never happen).
I think the individualist solution is much more practical. Simply remove the special protections exploiters have and they will have to fall. Let them be destroyed by their own powerlessness and competition from people like you and me.
There is no justification which would allow someone to deprive a peaceful man of his means of production or the product thereof. That would be theft - taking his rightful possession away from him. When Proudhon wrote that "property is theft" this is exactly what he meant, he meant that property is the product of the laborer claimed by the capitalist. In a society where only workers possess capital, such a scenario is impossible.

soc wrote:
The interesting thing is that I don't see you even try to get some justification for your principles, you just simply assert them, and expect the others to accept them.

The above is an attempted justification. I hope it is not too concise. If you consider it an "assertion" that each has the right to the product of his/her labor, I will tell you that saying otherwise is also just an assertion. But that is fine because anarchists do not need one overarching moral code - we are all different. So the definition of anarchy remains that I look to my business and let you take care of yours, without interference from me.