Free Market Anarcho-Communism?

206 posts / 0 new
Last post
LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 01:40

I'm ok with my idea being a silly one. I'm not ok with people insinuating that I somehow believe in it or endorse it.

I never fucking did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 01:43

Anarchist: "Maybe this would be possible... might even have some use. Probably a dangerous idea though".

Marxist: "The crazy anarchist said that he believes its good idea and he wants to make it happen.... Lets get him!!!!"

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 01:45

Anrchist anarcjist: "The revolution belongs to no one"

Marxist anarchist: "Bullshit the revolution is ours"

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 01:46

Anarchist: "I was just thinking..."

Marxist: "Drop the thought or I'll shoot".

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Feb 6 2012 01:51

Hey man. Calm down, it's not a big deal. When you say, "hey this could work," my thought was that you thought it could work. I've been trying to see what you mean.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 6 2012 01:54
LaForce wrote:
no.25 wrote:
I probably should have read it somewhat more attentively. I actually addressed why Anarcho-Capitalism would collapse in an overall communist society recently, but Railyon is much more capable of demonstrating why exactly it would collapse than I am.

I do appreciate people reading my posts before commenting but I understand the urge not to take the time. Especially if you suspect that someone isn't worth listening to, although that can be a hard conclusion to come to legitimately without having taken the time to listen to them. Either way if you had have read more, somewhere else I mentioned that I also suspected it (capitalism) would eventually collapse or attempt to supercede the collective in the simulated environment I raised. Just not as devastatingly as it is doing now haha.

As far as violence is concerned I am stupid enough to believe the possibility that the entire production workforce could organise globally to "hijack" the entire production line simultaneously and broadcast the extent of it to the military before violence would break out... and that it wouldn't. In lieu of that then violence by all means be my guest hahaha.

I might add that nowhere did I or have I defended capitalism. I just suggested a slightly different historical interpretation of its development (albeit very simplistically as Railyon pointed out). I am genuinely opposed to it and as a 30 year old have been an active anti-capitalist and anarchist agitator for at least 15 years (young compared to many here I am sure)

Not really. It most generally isn't worth expending the effort to debate individuals that support notions such as 'anarcho-capitalism.' If and when revolution manifests itself in response to the decline of capitalism on part of its unsustainability, they'll be forced into the revolution, or be consumed by it.

And yes, the belief that the State wont use violence against us, regardless of how much private property we expropriate, is pretty idealistic.

I bestow upon thee the highest honors in my capability; street credential, and my utmost admiration.

Welcome to Libcom.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Feb 6 2012 02:18
LaForce wrote:
The thought police always come out at the marxist picnic. Claiming to be anarchists but incapable of sensible discussion.

I haven't claimed to be an anarchist in well over a decade now. I suppose in the broad sense I am an anarchist in that I am opposed to the state but in regards to the actually existing anarchist traditions I find them inadequate at best.

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 03:32
Birthday Pony wrote:
Hey man. Calm down, it's not a big deal. When you say, "hey this could work," my thought was that you thought it could work. I've been trying to see what you mean.

I get that haha.

The reason I have responded they way I have is because some people have suggested that my saying "this could work" to me saying "I desire this to work".

This is complete bullshit and highly disrespectful and has at times appeared to me to be pruposefully so. At times it has appeared as if people either didn't read everything I said or deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented me for what purpose I can't guess beyond some twisted psychological need to be domineering.

Nuclear power is a good analogy:

I say: "I can conceive that it 'might' be possible to harness and direct nuclear energy safely, it may even have some benefits, although it would in all probability be a dangerous experiment, despite the fact that some might find it alluring"

Reactionaries without the patience or wherewithal to digest the whole communication hear: "He wants to build nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons and believes they are a great idea"!!!

Maybe some of my ideas are bizarre. But some peoples inability to separate a speculation from a proposal is down right psychotic.

I don't think there is really any point in me saying much more on the matter.

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 03:48
Birthday Pony wrote:
Hey man. Calm down, it's not a big deal. When you say, "hey this could work," my thought was that you thought it could work. I've been trying to see what you mean.

I get that haha.

The reason I have responded they way I have is because some people have equated my saying "this could work" to me saying "I desire this to work".

This is complete bullshit and highly disrespectful and has at times appeared to me to be pruposefully so. At times it has appeared as if people either didn't read everything I said or deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented me for what purpose I can't guess beyond some twisted psychological need to be domineering.

Nuclear power is a good analogy:

I say: "I can conceive that it 'might' be possible to harness and direct nuclear energy safely, it may even have some benefits, although it would in all probability be a dangerous experiment, despite the fact that some might find it alluring"

Reactionaries without the patience or wherewithal to digest the whole communication hear: "He wants to build nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons and believes they are a great idea"!!!

Maybe some of my ideas are bizarre. But some peoples inability to separate a speculation from a proposal is down right psychotic.

I don't think there is really any point in me saying much more on the matter.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 6 2012 06:53
LaForce wrote:
Reactionaries without the patience or wherewithal to digest the whole communication hear: "He wants to build nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons and believes they are a great idea"!!!

Reactionary like Anarcho-Capitalism?

LaForce wrote:
I don't think there is really any point in me saying much more on the matter.

Yeah, let's just put it behind us.

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 07:30

As long as the authority remains where it belongs I'm happy,

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 6 2012 09:57
LaForce wrote:
As long as the authority remains where it belongs I'm happy,

Unless you don't want to? I'm trying to be friendly, I admit that I was a dick. Calling us reactionaries because we were suspicious of your proposal, and your alternative perspective of capitalism doesn't help matters much. That was the first encounter I ever had with a class struggle anarchist that asserted that capitalism wasn't wrought by violence, and doesn't explicitly maintain itself by threat or direct use of violence, before the majority of laborers were probably even conscious of the extraction of surplus-value.

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 12:05

Double post... Unnecessary intro. I qoute myself in the post below. Its pretty meta. Yeah!!!

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 6 2012 11:55
LaForce wrote:
I am happy to put it behind me/us haha. But I'd like to do so in a respectful manner without any last minute jibes or "last say's".

I understand that I am new here and I suspect that this place probably suffers from all sorts of armchair anarchists, internet trolls, and attempts from statist operatives etc at destabilisation. I can imagine these coupled with the passion that I am sure many possess (a passion that I share); it becomes a lot easier to be on the defensive and also on the attack when "newbies" arrive and appear to be spouting crap. I also admit that my original hypothesis might by and large be mostly crap. Probably more of a waste of energy despite any possible legitimacy it has or has not as a philosophical curiosity.

All I am asking though is that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I am a good baby. Neither am I an armchair activist, a troll, a statist operative, or a capitalist sympathiser. I am a committed and active social and political activist (I am one of those semanticists who does not like too much self definition but if forced to i would describe my political beliefs as anarchist with a largely collectivist bent). I work across many fronts and would like the opportunity to become a respected and active member of this forum with an eye to improving the work I already do.

I would hate that opportunity to be compromised by misinterpretation and misinformation and become ostracised before I have really been given a chance to participate.

That would be a real shame.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 6 2012 18:23
LaForce wrote:
Double post... Unnecessary intro. I qoute myself in the post below. Its pretty meta. Yeah!!!

What does meta mean in this case?

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Feb 6 2012 22:28

LaForce, please just stop replying to this thread, its gotten pretty de railed with this already. You keep on repeating yourself, I said X is possible not that I want it, blah blah blah, im not an anarcho capitalist, blah blah blah, un neccessary numerous posts in quick succession, blah blah blah

LefterThanThou
Offline
Joined: 13-05-10
Feb 6 2012 22:56
Birthday Pony wrote:
I mean LTV generally, not just Marx's.

As did Proudhon, but you have the order reversed. LTV was mutualism's justification, not its aim. Perhaps because mutualism effectively met its demise before LTV did and for other reasons, some fail to appreciate how reliant mutualism, relative to other socialist schools, was on LTV. But that reliance certainly isn't lost on mutualism's theorists, in which class there is, for example, no correlary to the Analytic Marxists. Instead, those mutualists who admit to the various values of individuals' unearned possessions get around it by arguing unconvincingly that such possessions are equivalent to unearned skills and that to redistribute either one (or their produce) would be "positive", i.e. in violation of everyone's right to live how Proudhon imagined they did in nature, and therefore impermissible.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Feb 7 2012 02:19

@LaForce

Why not lurk for a while and get a feel for the nature of discussion in the different forum sections before diving in head first and alienating yourself?

There are many clued up people here who are worth paying attention to. Certainly, if you post ideas that run counter to hard-won understandings, you should have good reasons and be prepared to stand up for them when people call you out for bullshit. (or stop whining!)

Your words here are all people have to go on. Don't take an attack on your words personally wink Because sometimes you will put words out that you might later want nothing to do with.

For what it's worth, it's often interesting to see daft ideas being ripped to shreds. Can you see that that's what happened? Your claim that capitalism does not depend on force or violence is particularly bizarre, for an anarchist. If there is no force keeping me oppressed, why don't I just throw off my chains? Answer: I'll get locked up, thanks to private property laws. I have material needs that I must meet for my survival and if I don't get to work I will only be able to meet them by breaking the law (or by winning the lottery etc but let's stick to what is generally applicable).

To come to this view you must understand "capitalism" to be a word which symbolises a description of the real world and not about some imagined world no-one cares about. No-one cares to talk about things no-one cares about wink I think there is a limit as to how theoretical people want to get here, being that as anarchists, communists, however we label ourselves, our main common cause is our dislike for the real world material positions we and our fellow workers are placed in by real world capitalism.

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 7 2012 02:39

Im going to post a response to this with an excerpt from a private message conversation between myself and no.25.

I don't think he/she will mind...

LaForce wrote:
Just to clarify wasn't suggesting that "capitalism wasn't wrought by violence, and doesn't explicitly maintain itself by threat or direct use of violence".

I never inferred that capitalism hasn't, dsoesn't or won't continue to threaten and use violence. I just see capitalism as dynamic not as static. A process that can evolve over time. I suggesed that capitalism has existed in areas of time without violence and maintained itsef through deception alone for albeit relatively small periods (there a few examples of colonialism which appear to evolve this way). I acknowledged that these have invariably degenerated into violence though. That is the peak of the capitalist process.

I never suggested it always starts this way either. I am aware that in the vast majority of historical cases capitalism has been violent from the outset. There have been some rare cases where it has been purely deceptive before degenratng into violence (I have never suggested nor do I believe that this makes capitalism in an way ok or defensible). Inequality through deception is in no way more "fair" than inquality gained trough violence hahaha... I'm no dummy. You and I both know this doesn't make any fucking sense.

I just wanted to point out that my own understanding of capitalism and the mechanics of it do not run counter to your own. Its just that mine appears to be a little broader, which you and others may interpret as being more forgiving. I can assure you though that my desire to destroy it is in no way smaller because of it.

Respectfully,

LaForce

It seems silly to keep illustrating this point, and I wanted to keep from distracting this thread further (which is why I continued my conversation with no.25 privately); but I'll repeat it one last time:

I wasn't and wouldn't take offence to people critiquing something I have said if they represent accurately what I did say. The reason this turned into such a big thing is because some people misinterpreted and misrepresented what I had said and therefore their critiques were offensive. They were inferring something from what I said that just wasn't there, and based on that implying something about me personally that just isn't true.

Obviously as someone new to this forum I would not want people getting the wrong idea based on a misinterpretation as I would like to participate in this forum without people not even bothering to read my posts and thinking "fuck reading this, this is that crazy dude who defended capitalism in his first post".

Like you said its silly identifying too much with what you say sometimes because sometimes you regret what you say. In this case I think it would be pretty egotistical and whack of me not too, despite the fact that most of it was misinterpreted.

I do hahaha. I regret the whole sordid affair. The funny thing is I am a very active anarchist in the present real world and one of my biggest concerns is how to get people to focus on this.

Anyway I'm going to put it down to a teething issue... I hope others will forgive me and do so too.

Now enough about me.

Lets get back to my awesome idea about how capitalism is non-violent and awesome and how we should all get jobs in marketing today!!!

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Feb 7 2012 09:12

Apolagising for repeating yourself, then repeat yourself again saying exactly the same thing with a new addition of slightly stronger activism elitism, with the whole "im really active in real life so my mistakes on here dont matter" attitude.

And seeing as you dont mind publicly posting PM's with other users in this thread, about this thread, which rather defeats the point, Id figure it would only be right for me to share with everyone the message you sent me as well.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Feb 7 2012 09:14

LaForce
6-02-12 23:51 "LaForce, please just stop replying to this thread, its gotten pretty de railed with this already. You keep on repeating yourself, I said X is possible not that I want it, blah blah blah, im not an anarcho capitalist, blah blah blah, un neccessary numerous posts in quick succession, blah blah blah "

Yeah I apologise for contributing to the derailment of the thread. Although "I" didn't detail it, "we" did. Anyway I think we are well and truly past that now.

I have had some input to adressing the OP's question though. All you have done is make dismissive and self congratulating swipes at other peoples genuine attempts to have a healthy discussion. I'd say for the sake of a decent conversation, unless you have something to say adressing the OP's enquiry, then the thread would be far better served by you yourself not posting further.

I realise that the attraction to making yourself sound witty and cool on the internet can be overwhelming for young men.

But some of us actually want to get shit done; and aren't afraid to look a little uncool doing so.

I look forward to having sensible, on topic discussions with you in future.

Cheers

LaForce
7-02-12 00:51 Hahahahahaahahahahahah Its particularly hypocritical when you post threads complaining about people posting rude and disrespectful posts when they are drunk.

the croydonian ...
7-02-12 08:46 You took the time to PM me about this. Please, spare me with your patronising mentions of the word "cool" etc

Goti123's picture
Goti123
Offline
Joined: 5-12-10
Feb 7 2012 10:34
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Birthday Pony wrote:
Railyon wrote:
Pure as in FULL COMMUNISM?

No, I mean things like, "well, that's not pure communism. In pure communism things always work like this and that because, etc., etc., etc."

There's a divide between ideas and reality, and the communism we have any hope of seeing is probably somewhere between the two. Most people I talk to more or less understand this.

I don't think i've ever seen a communist use the phrase "pure communism"

I use "pure communism" whenever I'm talking about stateless communism which is either achieved by anarchy or Marxism.

Pure communism is not an idealist word to describe perfect communism, but a synonym for stateless communism used by some Marxists.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 7 2012 11:09
Goti123 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Birthday Pony wrote:
Railyon wrote:
Pure as in FULL COMMUNISM?

No, I mean things like, "well, that's not pure communism. In pure communism things always work like this and that because, etc., etc., etc."

There's a divide between ideas and reality, and the communism we have any hope of seeing is probably somewhere between the two. Most people I talk to more or less understand this.

I don't think i've ever seen a communist use the phrase "pure communism"

I use "pure communism" whenever I'm talking about stateless communism which is either achieved by anarchy or Marxism.

Pure communism is not an idealist word to describe perfect communism, but a synonym for stateless communism used by some Marxists.

thats interesting, ive only seen it before when used by people attacking communism, they tend to bring up the soviet union or some such "communist" state, and then when communists point out its not communist complain about communist dismissing examples of communism because they are not "pure communism".

i often use anarchism and communism interchangeable, i don't think there is such a thing as statist communism

LaForce's picture
LaForce
Offline
Joined: 3-02-12
Feb 7 2012 12:02
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
LaForce
6-02-12 23:51 "LaForce, please just stop replying to this thread, its gotten pretty de railed with this already. You keep on repeating yourself, I said X is possible not that I want it, blah blah blah, im not an anarcho capitalist, blah blah blah, un neccessary numerous posts in quick succession, blah blah blah "

Yeah I apologise for contributing to the derailment of the thread. Although "I" didn't detail it, "we" did. Anyway I think we are well and truly past that now.

I have had some input to adressing the OP's question though. All you have done is make dismissive and self congratulating swipes at other peoples genuine attempts to have a healthy discussion. I'd say for the sake of a decent conversation, unless you have something to say adressing the OP's enquiry, then the thread would be far better served by you yourself not posting further.

I realise that the attraction to making yourself sound witty and cool on the internet can be overwhelming for young men.

But some of us actually want to get shit done; and aren't afraid to look a little uncool doing so.

I look forward to having sensible, on topic discussions with you in future.

Cheers

LaForce
7-02-12 00:51 Hahahahahaahahahahahah Its particularly hypocritical when you post threads complaining about people posting rude and disrespectful posts when they are drunk.

the croydonian ...
7-02-12 08:46 You took the time to PM me about this. Please, spare me with your patronising mentions of the word "cool" etc

Sorry mate. I was drunk when I sent you that hahahahah.

Derek
Offline
Joined: 19-02-12
Mar 2 2012 17:20

"Maybe I can help clear some things up. The property/possession distinction is something Proudhon made clear in the early pages of What is Property? Possession is a matter of fact, while property exists in the realm of rights; and the distinction applied to land. So a tenant farmer would possess the land they worked, but would not, under the land tenure regimes we find in capitalism, be a proprietor. Proudhon's consistent position, expressed in the claim that "property is theft," was that occupying and working the land could not establish property (in the form of a self-evident right to "use and abuse") by any of the mechanisms or logics appealed to be propertarians. He gradually came around to a position advocating fairly strong property rights for those actually occupying and using land, on consequentialist grounds, since it appeared to him that what we might now think of as "human scale" property in land better guaranteed individual freedom. In his later works, property in land, limited to the scale and term of occupancy and use, appeared as a counterforce to the collective institutions that he also endorsed. It is not particularly accurate to call the occupancy-based property "possession," but lots of anarchists have done so since Proudhon's time. Anyway, whatever you call it, the sort of land tenure Proudhon eventually embraced differs from capitalist forms in all the important ways: land can't be appropriated beyond the scope of individual/family/collective use; the capitalist "right of increase" is denied, since those who actually labor on the land would have as good a claim as a boss or landlord; and only improvements or established use-rights could be exchanged. It's not communism, and logically applies primarily to homes and small-holdings of various sorts, but it's also not the land tenure system on which capitalism depends, since it places strong limitations on accumulation and increase.

Proudhon treated the disposition of the products of labor as a different sort of question. In general, labor was to dispose of its products, and collective labor to do so collectively—and I think many communists and collectivists are simply unaware how much of Proudhon's analysis was directed towards "collective force." He was certainly not opposed to exchange, or to the use of currency as compensation, but he saw both exchange in general and the use of currency as conventional operations, ultimately subject to justice as worked out by the traders themselves. In the absence of large capital accumulations and the "right of increase," trade would be equal in the long run, and ideally occur at cost-price. It seems to me that there are two sorts of communist criticisms of this sort of "equal exchange" model: theoretical ones, which lean on the idea of commodity fetishism and the related critique of currency to simply banish exchange; and practical ones which suggest that non-capitalism exchange either wouldn't work or couldn't compete with capitalism. I'm not sure that the argument from commodity fetishism is particularly decisive. As I mentioned, Proudhon's approach to both commodity exchange and money pulls very much in the direction of demystifying both. He insisted precisely that an exchange of values could only be a matter of human-all-too-human agreement. There wasn't much room for any kind of fetishism in Proudhon's thought. The practical objections are stronger, but only because the logics of the capitalist market are pretty deeply engrained, even in radicals, and taking up alternative models of exchange probably requires a little different kind of adaptation than simply chucking the whole notion of exchange and trying something else. But I would have to be convinced that my libertarian communist comrades have more practical plans before I would be too inclined to chuck mutualism.

In terms of mutualism and "the revolution," I think a lot of the question of whether the existence of mutualists helps or hurts the general anti-capitalist cause, or the libertarian communist cause in particular, depends a lot on the communists. If your response to everything that is not communism is that it is essentially the same old capitalist sh#t, then I think you 1) potentially undermine your position with those a little more accustomed to see details; and 2) give the impression that capitalism is a lot more powerful and pervasive than it actually is. Capitalism is tough enough, and the struggle is tough enough, without adding to the difficulties.

Anyway, I hope some of that was clarifying."

Shawn basically made a good point, mutualism isn't all what Marx made it out to be and I think some of you may need to look at it again.