Indeed in a communist society, the worker still wouldn't receive the full product of his/her labour. Some would need to be ploughed back into productive resources. Some would be made availbale for those able to do/produce less - the list is endless. As Darren implies, it's about social control, not individual ownership.
Aims and principles
Actually, I agree with everything that's been said. However, the aims and principles were intended to be a very simple outline of what we believe, not a full critique of capitalist economics.You mention that they were a little vague, which is what they were meant to be. The final aims and principles that appear on our website were intended to be a simplified version of what another member wrote.
Also, on the use of the term 'middle class', I agree that it's a very ambiguous term (and, in my view, essentially meaningless). The word was only included in the aims and principles, because at the time, two of our members were also members of Class War, who have a three class analysis. The phrase was mainly included for their benefit.
To be completely honest, our aims and principles are fairly irrelevent to the group. They were written a couple of years ago, when the group was going through some internal conflicts, which have now been resolved. I'm pretty sure that some of our newer members haven't even read them.
Quote:
To be completely honest, our aims and principles are fairly irrelevent to the group. [..] . I'm pretty sure that some of our newer members haven't even read them
This is almost comical! Is a vague sympathy to the label "anarchist" all that is needed to be in the group? If no-one has read your aims how can you take collective action? Decideding the best thing to do isn't "a bit like trying to find the meaning of life" as another member suggested but a matter of having a clear position and understanding..
It's not my intention to mock, I still want to get involved but "no more useless leniency"
All of our members have more than 'a vague sympathy to the label anarchist'. Most people come to the group with an already developed understanding of anarchism as a theory. The group is currently made up of a handful individuals who, despite some differences, have more or less the same take on anarchism.
As they are, the aims and principles are so vague that almost anyone who calls themself an anarchist is going to agree with them anyway.
Read your aims and principles some parts a little vague but agreed with most of it...
“Under the current capitalist system, the working and middle classes do not receive the full products of our labour.” problematic issues of not defining what you mean by “middle class” aside:
It is not that the workers don't receive the full product of their labour – in fact in some branches, workers co-ops and self-employed, the worker does (minus running costs, etc.). The problem is one of alienated labour, the fact that the workers is compelled to sell themselves because they have no their means of substinence (other than living in poverty off state benefits). The problem is the social relation capital as it transforms all relations into market relations. A society of self-managed enterprises existing within a market economy is still a capitalist society.
It is a matter of transforming the exchange economy into a use economy with communization taking place in distribution as well as production.
Agree?
Had some other points but they can wait...