Is LibCom voluntary?

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 14:11

If you don't care about being able to explain or argument your views why are you here writing? Go drink tea and eat toast.

Webby
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 7 2013 15:25
Quote:
Also, if you don't know much about communism what are you doing at a forum called libertarian communism

Er, learning about it. If that's ok with you?

Others on here have told me that this isn't about good guys and bad guys so what's with the 'rich bastards' whos live's are 'worthless'. If you have a prejudice against rich people fair enough but don't kid yourself that it serves any purpose or that it's part of communist ideology.
You imply that the rich are lazy which shows that you know fuck all about the rich. My company's clients are very rich and they all seem to work themselves into the ground. They do far more hours than I do. Why, I couldn't tell you - if I had enough money to live a life of luxury ten times over I sure as hell wouldn't be doing it!
Maybe you mean manual work? Well what's so worthy about manual work? One of the things that makes communism attractive to me is the fact that there will be LESS WORK to do.

As for the student comment - I could say I was drawing parallels between the lack of 'real work' carried out by capitalists, managers etc and students, but the truth is, in the interests of maintaining the balance of the universe I thought I would be a wanker as well.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 7 2013 17:53
flaneur wrote:
There's far better things to do than argue with someone over the internet, like make a cup of tea or have some toast. Especially when they are the most esoteric of already esoteric arguments. I dunno if the Anarchist FAQs has this big bit, but anarchism won't come about due to eloquent arguments but through struggle in the real world made by people who aren't loons quoting Spooner.

Yes, these were exactly the words I were looking for. All of this is so damn weird.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 7 2013 20:14

Yeah, this argument is a bit weird, but let's keep it civil.

Webby, I think they meant lazy as in not productive/wanting to live off the labour of others.

"Lazy" may be sloppy terminology, but we all accept that capitalists can work long hours. It's just that the work they do is fundamentally based on making profit and enforcing labour discipline. As always, this is not always conscious or intentionally, but it's how capitalist functions.

All that said, give me a chance to stick some of my ex-bosses on boat and I am totally fucking up for it.

Webby
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 7 2013 20:39
Quote:
All that said, give me a chance to stick some of my ex-bosses on boat and I am totally fucking up for it.

And I dare say they deserve it! They may also be worthy of the title 'rich bastards'. The problem is the generalisations posted by jumped up know alls that seem to totally lack the spirit of inclusiveness that I get from other posters including your good self. Not enough humanity and too many chips on shoulders about sums it up.
Fucking hell, with people like that around, after the revolution there won't be room to swing a cat in 'the wilderness' - every fucker will be there trying to avoid the boorish bossy bootses on this site that are ready for a verbal punch as soon as anyone says anything that they don't like the sound of!

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 7 2013 20:53

Most capitalist owners don't even engage in disciplining labour; rather they have hired managers and supervisors.

I think this thread has become increasingly awful considering the explicitly sympathetic views towards the bourgeoisie being expressed in post #33. And this greenjuice fellow have no arguments other than the shit he pulls out of his ASSFAQ.

I suppose if he goes on to form a community with others like himself, it would probably look like this:

comrade appleton- capitalist
anarchomedia- manager
greenjuice- worker
webby- unemployed

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 7 2013 20:56

Again, let's keep it civil. I don't agree with a lot of what Greenjuice has said. With Webby, well there's issues of terminology and politics. However, I don't think either of them are here in bad faith and I think we should respect that.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 21:07
Quote:
And this greenjuice fellow have no arguments other than the shit he pulls out of his ASSFAQ.

"Assfaq". Wow. And I have no arguments. That's great.

Anyways, no one has still answered if there is not to be compulsory communism, what other types of organization will be toletared. Also people who wouldn't tolerate anarcho-individualist and anarcho-mutualism haven't explained how are commodity production and money exploitative. Is anyone going to give some explanations of their views or not?

Webby
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 7 2013 21:08

I underestimated you, at least you have a sense of humour - me at the bottom of the pile too. That's fine, I know my place! Tell you what though, you'd make an excellent boss, all the traits are there. Just think how much opportunity you'd have to make a misery of the lives of anyone that didn't agree with you - you'd love it.
As for 'sympathy', what the fuck are you on about?The only way that post 33 could be looked at as sympathetic is if you were totally blinded by bigotry.

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 7 2013 21:09
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
And this greenjuice fellow have no arguments other than the shit he pulls out of his ASSFAQ.

"Assfaq". Wow. And I have no arguments. That's great.

Anyways, no one has still answered if there is not to be compulsory communism, what other types of organization will be toletared. Also people who wouldn't tolerate anarcho-individualist and anarcho-mutualism haven't explained how are commodity production and money exploitative. Is anyone going to give some explanations of their views or not?

Obviously, you haven't read anything we previously wrote, which is a typical practice by ancaps.

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 7 2013 21:11
Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Service rendered to society, be it labor in factory or field, or moral service, cannot be valued in monetary units. There cannot be an exact measure of its value, either of what has been improperly called its “value in exchange” or of its value in use. If we see two individuals, both working for years, for five hours daily, for the community, at two different occupations equally pleasing to them, we can say that, taken all in all, their labors are roughly equivalent. But their work could not be broken up into fractions, so that the product of each day, each hour or each minute of the labor of one should be worth the produce of each minute and each hour of that of the other.
infektfm
Offline
Joined: 26-02-11
Feb 8 2013 04:30
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Service rendered to society, be it labor in factory or field, or moral service, cannot be valued in monetary units. There cannot be an exact measure of its value, either of what has been improperly called its “value in exchange” or of its value in use. If we see two individuals, both working for years, for five hours daily, for the community, at two different occupations equally pleasing to them, we can say that, taken all in all, their labors are roughly equivalent. But their work could not be broken up into fractions, so that the product of each day, each hour or each minute of the labor of one should be worth the produce of each minute and each hour of that of the other.

This.

And read Capital. Particularly, the first chapter on value.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 8 2013 08:09
GJ wrote:
explained how are commodity production and money exploitative. Is anyone going to give some explanations of their views or not?

http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-introduction

Furthermore, for money to make more money, more and more things have to be exchangeable for money. Thus the tendency is for everything from everyday items to DNA sequences to carbon dioxide emissions – and, crucially, our ability to work - to become commodified.

And it is this last point - the commodification of our creative and productive capacities, our ability to work - which holds the secret to capital accumulation. Money does not turn into more money by magic, but by the work we do every day.

In a world where everything is for sale, we all need something to sell in order to buy the things we need. Those of us with nothing to sell except our ability to work have to sell this ability to those who own the factories, offices, etc. And of course, the things we produce at work aren't ours, they belong to our bosses.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 8 2013 11:07
radicalgraffiti wrote:
The dominant economic system is never voluntary, what matter is if it is under the control of the people and how well it enables them to satisfy they needs.

THIS

Greenjuice, since you like Locke, you'd probably appreciate an arguement that resembles Lockes social contract argument as is used to justify political obligation to the present state of affairs - only being substituted towards the post revolutionary situation. It would probably go along like this: - a system like post-revolutionary libcom would be justified according to the historical fact of a revolution taking place. So in essence you could substitute the Lockean notions of a mythological social contract by the historical fact of a revolution. The very fact that society would be directed via every persons equal input would be much superior (don't you think?) than Lockean justfications for the present state of affairs via "tacit consent".

But yeah the fact of the matter is, a situation like Libertarian communism could probably not co-exist with societies founded on simple commodity production which as others have said create the conditions where accumulation could take place (primative or otherwise) which would transform the C-M-C (simple commodity production) way of doing things towards the M-C-M one whereby the social relations of capitalist and proletarian would come into being once more. And then factoring in the need for more value, iron laws of competion and what not, it wouldnt be long till those on the individualist island (well the capitalists anyway)would be like 'those hippy libcom folks over yonder is a massive fucking market, we need to get in on the action" all of a sudden begetting a new market for weapons and what not, and before you know it - hey presto we are back to square one.

Ultimately, greenjuice though, you are kinda half right - markets existed long before capitalism and therefore one can probably construct an argument around that historical fact that they neednot be inherantly about exploitation. But even historically such as feudal times markets were there to trade surpluses, so you can see that they are very susceptable towards accumulation hence the rather close relationship between C-M-C and M-C-M (and the social relations that MCM entails).

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 8 2013 13:50
Quote:
agent of the fi...

Peter Kropotkin:
Service rendered to society, be it labor in factory or field, or moral service, cannot be valued in monetary units. There cannot be an exact measure of its value, either of what has been improperly called its “value in exchange” or of its value in use. If we see two individuals, both working for years, for five hours daily, for the community, at two different occupations equally pleasing to them, we can say that, taken all in all, their labors are roughly equivalent. But their work could not be broken up into fractions, so that the product of each day, each hour or each minute of the labor of one should be worth the produce of each minute and each hour of that of the other.

Have I said I support a communistic organization? Yes, like, about five times. I don't like markets- prices obscure the value, competition creates business cycles, I don't like arkets- calculation in natura is about 100 times simpler and a 100 times less time consuming both for production/ consumption and for labor. That is why I didn't ask "Why is communistic organization good?", I asked contrete questions to which I am still waiting concrete answers. Which types of organization do you think should be tolerated except the communistic one; and if you think Anarcho-Individualism and Anarcho-Mutualism are exploitative- explain how.

Quote:
chilli sauce

Furthermore, for money to make more money, more and more things have to be exchangeable for money. Thus the tendency is for everything from everyday items to DNA sequences to carbon dioxide emissions – and, crucially, our ability to work - to become commodified.

One of the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in a while. I'm pretty sure that Anarcho-Individualist and Anarcho-Mutualist are for there existing regulations/ laws/ norms about harm to other people being prohibited, and include any trade of people or their parts and pollution there. You guys here seem to have an awfully naive and bigoted views of mutualists and individualists.

And it is this last point - the commodification of our creative and productive capacities, our ability to work - which holds the secret to capital accumulation.

And which is why it is abolished in AnInd and AnMut, otherwise they couldn't be called anarchisms.

Those of us with nothing to sell except our ability to work have to sell this ability to those who own the factories, offices, etc

In both AnInd and AnMut, land could be only occupied-and-used, and mutual banking would be available to all, so in the improbable situation that you appear from thin air in a Anarcho-Individualist or Anarcho-Mutualist economy with "nothing to sell" you could take a interest-free loan, buy means of production, and make something to sell (e.g. buy a tractor and seeds and go agriculture, or virtually anything else); not to mention and in AnInd and AnMut, being that they are anarchist (LibSoc) economies, selling work (becoming an employee) would be banned, and you could only join a worker coop, where you would be jointly self-employed with there being no exploitation.

And of course, the things we produce at work aren't ours, they belong to our bosses.

There would be no employee/employer relation or any other type of exploitation, if such a thing appears, that's not Anarcho-Individualism/ Anarcho-Mutualism any more.

Quote:
xslavearcx

THIS

So, you support stalinist-like forced collectivization? Of cource, it wouldn't be stalinist, it would be "LibCom", that's what would make it ok.

The Locke stuff you wrote is nonsense, Locke insisted on natural rights he basically only mentioned social contract, second thing- social contract theory is total nonsence because it justifies oppressive systems, like "LibCom" you guys would like to see established, with people NOT having the option to disent, even thou they don't oppress or exploit anyone.

But yeah the fact of the matter is, a situation like Libertarian communism could probably not co-exist with societies founded on simple commodity production which as others have said create the conditions where accumulation could take place

Accumulatin of what? Of commodities? Nothing wrong with that.

one whereby the social relations of capitalist and proletarian would come into being once more.

How? By magic? If we live in system that is defined by it's abolition of the employer/employee relation, how exactly does my selling you e.g. chairs, and you selling me e.g. apples magically after some time turns into one becoming the boss of another?

Ultimately, greenjuice though, you are kinda half right - markets existed long before capitalism and therefore one can probably construct an argument around that historical fact that they neednot be inherantly about exploitation.

One cannot construct an argument around it, but one who knows what he's talking about will know for a fact that there is absolutely nothing inherently explotative about markets, as ALL prominent LibSoc thinkers knew.

That's why e.g. Malatesta wrote: “Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others."

Exploitation is a relation where surplus value is extracted from other people's labor, that is- existence of unearned income (employer-profits, rent, interest, patent-profits). Property over which that is done (means of production/ goods/ money/ ideas, resprectively) is called capital when that relation exists, but when property is not used to make unearned incomes, there is no exploitation. Meaning there is nothing inherently exploitative or oppressive in money just like there is nothing of the sorts in the means of production or any product.

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 8 2013 15:13
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
chilli sauce

Furthermore, for money to make more money, more and more things have to be exchangeable for money. Thus the tendency is for everything from everyday items to DNA sequences to carbon dioxide emissions – and, crucially, our ability to work - to become commodified.

One of the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in a while. I'm pretty sure that Anarcho-Individualist and Anarcho-Mutualist are for there existing regulations/ laws/ norms about harm to other people being prohibited, and include any trade of people or their parts and pollution there. You guys here seem to have an awfully naive and bigoted views of mutualists and individualists.

Ha, a reformed capitalism!

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 8 2013 16:02

A society which would be Anarcho-Individualist or Anarcho-Mutualist would be a society established on the notion that capital, and relations that make property capital, are exploitative and that would be the reason for that society abolishing capitalism and establishing AnInd/ AnMut. If capitalism is abolished it means that it is not reformed, but that it doesn't exist.

Can you please stop with the disruptive shouts you throw at this topic? If you don't have anything constructive to say, I kindly ask you to stfu.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 8 2013 17:19
greenjuice wrote:

So, you support stalinist-like forced collectivization? Of cource, it wouldn't be stalinist, it would be "LibCom", that's what would make it ok.

Ehm no, i dont see how you can infer such consequences from what i stated. And i most certainly do not argue some kinda quasi-analytic proposition about libcom along the lines of "libcom by definition is not oppressive therefore x practice in 'libcom' society is unoppressive".

You on the other hand seem to take that kinda approach whereby you state :

Quote:
not to mention and in AnInd and AnMut, being that they are anarchist (LibSoc) economies, selling work (becoming an employee) would be banned, and you could only join a worker coop, where you would be jointly self-employed with there being no exploitation.

where either a) arguing that by virtue of a society being 'AnInd' and 'AnMut' in particular because of the anarchist prefix that there will be no exploitation.

and/or b) that by virtue of 'banning' (coercion) that there would be no exploitation.

Neither of which (in and of themselves without further elaboration)are very convincing arguements,.

But id like to pick you up on the stalinist rhetorical flourish - You seem to be drawing that out on the basis of my recognition of the fact that one does not choose which society they are born into so that a similiar problem arises for people born into libcom societties on the question political obligation that Locke struggled in his writings, as some kinda love for a coercive society hence the stalinist forced collectivisation charge. Yet at the same time ok with coercion in your depiction of the visions that you have set out. Which makes the very initial question you asked about the voluntary nature of societies seem a bit confusing. What are you arguing for here? Coercion or not coercion, and if so what parameters of coercion are ok with you?

Quote:
The Locke stuff you wrote is nonsense, Locke insisted on natural rights he basically only mentioned social contract, second thing- social contract theory is total nonsence because it justifies oppressive systems,

You are the guy who likes Locke! And the fact that you totally relegate practically the whole rationale of Lockes 2 treatise around the whole question of political obligation makes me wonder if you actually have read Locke. What are you saying that Locke is arguing for us to return to his state of nature?

Quote:
Accumulatin of what? Of commodities? Nothing wrong with that

one whereby the social relations of capitalist and proletarian would come into being once more.

How? By magic? If we live in system that is defined by it's abolition of the employer/employee relation, how exactly does my selling you e.g. chairs, and you selling me e.g. apples magically after some time turns into one becoming the boss of another? .

Are you being serious here? Its pretty obvious logically that accumulation of commodities (which Marx in Capital Volume 2 refers to as 'commodity capital') can be exchanged for money that can be put to use for hiring wage laborers to extract surplus value from, and in one fell swoop the transformation from simple commodity production towards capitalist production with the corresponding social relations takes place. Historically that is the case also.

What evidence do you have in the favour of your argument that commodity bearing societies are adequate to ensure that a development towards capitalist mode of production wont take place? What safeguards do you propose? Is this where your banning comes into being? But what if said banning orders social power does not correlate with the power of our money accumulator to buy labourers to defend their mode of existence? Also how does society deal with market externalities without violating ones 'natural right' to private property?

sheesh!

As for quoting various anarchists, all you are doing is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just thought that since you are fond of pointing out peoples argumentative problems you ought to apply the same strict standard to yourself!

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 8 2013 17:18

I can imagine an 'AnCom' society tolerating 'AnIns', but I think the indulgence will only extend up to a point. Hell, there'll still be teenagers ATR. That said, I think in most cases an AnIn community living side by side with a AnCom one will be difficult to justify, be difficult to manage, and difficult to maintain.

Will AnIns expect to use social services, like hospitals, sewage systems, roads, communication satellites, etc. then slink off back to their shack in the woods when they're feeling all oppressed? Or will they construct entirely new, parallel services? Remember, labour vouchers won't count for shit in what we'll assume is the majority AnCom world, and we'd be reluctant to let you come and have a heart transplant if you've been bitching about how dictatorial the commune is and refusing to contribute a single thing to it, preferring to try and trade/ exchange your labour or commodities or so on.

I do think there's plenty of room for a huge variety of lifestyles in an AnCom framework - perhaps the most in any political theory - but if you're purely in it for yourself, as it were, there'll be significant resistance if you turn up one day at the commune and start making demands. If I had to choose between an AnIn and an AnCom society, I know which one I'd choose in an instant; I just think the benefits of the latter outweigh the former by a hundredfold, especially if you're not some Bear Grylls-type superhero and you actually get ill and get old and get lonely.

Then you've got the problem of the next generation; especially if you're keeping them from enjoying the fruits of society that they are entitled to, which becomes a form of domination.

Too often these ideas seem like a backdoor for some kind of escalation into hierarchical or exploitative structures; where mutualism and markets and "individual commodity production" are just a few steps short of something a lot less pleasant, and something that would have to be actively resisted to protect AnCom values. This isn't a liberal society, this is a society with teeth, which defends its gains and its way of life as something valuable and worth fighting for.

In short, AnComs ATR will have to be vigilant and maybe even proactive against the return of capitalist and other power structures, and I imagine most of what mutualism etc. proposes looks like it could be serious trouble down the line.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 8 2013 17:54
Quote:
xslavearcx

Ehm no, i dont see how you can infer such consequences from what i stated.

You supported his acceptance of coersion.

arguing that by virtue of a society being 'AnInd' and 'AnMut' in particular because of the anarchist prefix that there will be no exploitation.

By virtue of them being anarchist societies there would be not exploitation.

that by virtue of 'banning' (coercion) that there would be no exploitation.

The point of LibSoc (/Anarchism) is the banning of exploitation and oppression, that is- banning coercion. Banning coercion cannot be coercion, it's a logical imposibility.

Yet at the same time ok with coercion in your depiction of the visions that you have set out.

This is a fictional addiction. I am not ok with coercion.

What are you arguing for here? Coercion or not coercion, and if so what parameters of coercion are ok with you?

The parametars of coercion by Anarchism (/ Libertarian Socialism) is that of oppression (harm, hierarchy) and exploitation (all sorts of theft, including capitalism), whereby e.g. employer/employee relation is both oppressive and exploitative; and no Anarchist is ok with coercion, or he's no longer an Anarchist, but an 'archist'.

You are the guy who likes Locke!

Being that he was a capitalist, and I am an anarchist, that would be a gross overstatement. I might like some things he said, and that's it. And being that I said I consider social contract nonsense, it's obviously not such a thing.

Its pretty obvious logically that accumulation of commodities can be exchanged for money that can be put to use for hiring wage laborers to extract surplus value from

If the system is Anarcho-Individualism or Anarcho-Mutualism (or any other type of Anarchism) it is pressupossed that hiring wage laborers is banned as oppressive and exploitative, so it is actually obvious that it can -not- be put to that use.

What safeguards do you propose?

Being that an Anarchist socity will be a post-revolutionary society, that means that the majority of people was already organised well enough to destroy the state and capitalism and to defend the revolution from the reaction of the oppressive and exploitative organisation, meaning that it defeats the purpose of it if they after such a feat start tolerating oppression and exploitation.

Concretely, according to Mutualists, people will organize communal mutual banks and voluntary non-hierarchical militia by which they will make sure that oppression and exploitation will not arise again in their communities, and Individualists say that defence agencies will have to agree on anarchist principles thereby, besides offering security services for costumers, funcioning as a safeguard agaist oppression and exploitation being established again.

Also how does society deal with market externalities without violating ones 'natural right' to private property?

Negative externalities would be relagulates as a type of imposition of harm on other people and thus banned. Also, both AnInd and AnMut are against property, but for the occupancy-and-use principle, that is- possessions (the only Anarchist who ever supported a socialistic form of private property was Spooner).

As for quoting various anarchists, all you are doing is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I wasn't appealing on their authority, I was responding to misrepresentation of their ideas. No LibSoc thinker ever said that markets/ money/ commodity production are exploitative or oppressive, and being that such calumny was put forth here by people assumed to be LibSoc, I had simply given quotes that clearly show that the claim of markets being exploitative cannot be a LibSoc view. Impractical, yes, but not exploitative.

Quote:
Tian

That said, I think in most cases an AnIn community living side by side with a AnCom one will be difficult to justify, be difficult to manage, and difficult to maintain.

And seeing the practicality of communistic organization, people will probably choose to form such organizations, but that doesn't mean that non-exploitative and non-oppressive forms of organisation should be fought against and people forced into communes. Anarchist forms of organisation, if they are anarchist should by definition tolerate each other.

If Australia establishes AnInd or AnMut it will surely not prohibit people from organizing collectives or communes, if Island establishes AnCol or AnCom, it will surely not prohibit people from refusing to join a collective/ commune and buying/ selling stuff they make; if such is not the case, but a system doesn't tolerate non-oppresive and non-exploitative orgnisational forms, it is then not a non-oppressive system itself, and thus not an Anarchist one.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 8 2013 17:58
Libcompedia wrote:
the 2012-2013 Trollers' Rebellion was a failed anticommunist insurgency of extreme-right ancap trolls funded primarily by the United States and the John Birch Society. Commandante Greenjuice, the last leader of the insurgency, claimed the aims of the rebels were to:
Commandante Greenjuice wrote:
[Stop] the tyranny of totally mean insults, mod discrimination against us liberals and ancaps, to overthow the totalitarian adminship of Steven., and prevent the tyranny of fully imposed stalinist libertarian communism

It is notable for having attracted, at its zenith, only 2 or 3 active millitants. Nearly every rebel was put in a leadership position because the last one would mysteriously disapear. They were given high-grade weaponry, such as anti-tank guns and advanced artillery, but they usually sold them to Islamists and used the profits gained from such transactions to patronize sex workers and enroll in prestigous economics courses.[citation needed]

Their typical tactic was to open bad threads asking an idiotic and bizzare question and then to ensnare innocent posters into stupid arguments wherein they would purposely attempt to frustrate their opponents through really horrible posting. Posters would quickly gain fire support and the rebels would run off to create more bad threads and engage in more grade-a shitposting. Generalissimo Appleton, the first leader of the rebellion stated succuntly:

Generalissimo Appleton wrote:
The Libcommer advances, we shitpost; the Libcommer camps, we shitpost; the Libcommer tires, we shitpost; the Libcommer gives the fuck up, we shitpost. That is the essence of shitpost warfare

Their actions were condemned by the UN 196 to 2 for "infringing onthe basic human right to [not to look at shitposts]". Only the United States and Israel voted against.

The rebels were finally crushed in the Battle of "hey your a fucking troll", wherein all posters realized that the rebels were totally fucking trolls and just started making fun of them. After this decisive battle, all the rebels retreated back to Ludwig Von Mises, vowing to return with a vengeance.
Admiral Webby, in the last communique the rebellion ever produced, stated:

Admiral Webby wrote:
these intolerant libertarian stalinists will never realize that there will always be more like us! That we will NEVER read anything beyond the Anarchist FAQ, that we will NEVER post in good faith, that we will NEVER explain just what the fuck we're going on about, that we will NEVER argue like a rational human being and that we will NEVER STOP SHITPOSTING!!! VIVA LA RÈACTÍÔN!!!!!

See Also:
The Anarchomedia-"Communist Enterprise" Scandal

Webby
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 8 2013 18:26
Quote:
Libcompedia wrote:

the 2012-2013 Trollers' Rebellion was a failed anticommunist insurgency of extreme-right ancap trolls funded primarily by the United States and the John Birch Society. Commandante Greenjuice, the last leader of the insurgency, claimed the aims of the rebels were to:

Commandante Greenjuice wrote:

[Stop] the tyranny of totally mean insults, mod discrimination against us liberals and ancaps, to overthow the totalitarian adminship of Steven., and prevent the tyranny of fully imposed stalinist libertarian communism

It is notable for having attracted, at its zenith, only 2 or 3 active millitants. Nearly every rebel was put in a leadership position because the last one would mysteriously disapear. They were given high-grade weaponry, such as anti-tank guns and advanced artillery, but they usually sold them to Islamists and used the profits gained from such transactions to patronize sex workers and enroll in prestigous economics courses.[citation needed]

Their typical tactic was to open bad threads asking an idiotic and bizzare question and then to ensnare innocent posters into stupid arguments wherein they would purposely attempt to frustrate their opponents through really horrible posting. Posters would quickly gain fire support and the rebels would run off to create more bad threads and engage in more grade-a shitposting. Generalissimo Appleton, the first leader of the rebellion stated succuntly:

Generalissimo Appleton wrote:

The Libcommer advances, we shitpost; the Libcommer camps, we shitpost; the Libcommer tires, we shitpost; the Libcommer gives the fuck up, we shitpost. That is the essence of shitpost warfare

Their actions were condemned by the UN 196 to 2 for "infringing onthe basic human right to [not to look at shitposts]". Only the United States and Israel voted against.

The rebels were finally crushed in the Battle of "hey your a fucking troll", wherein all posters realized that the rebels were totally fucking trolls and just started making fun of them. After this decisive battle, all the rebels retreated back to Ludwig Von Mises, vowing to return with a vengeance.
Admiral Webby, in the last communique the rebellion ever produced, stated:

Admiral Webby wrote:

these intolerant libertarian stalinists will never realize that there will always be more like us! That we will NEVER read anything beyond the Anarchist FAQ, that we will NEVER post in good faith, that we will NEVER explain just what the fuck we're going on about, that we will NEVER argue like a rational human being and that we will NEVER STOP SHITPOSTING!!! VIVA LA RÈACTÍÔN!!!!!

See Also:
The Anarchomedia-"Communist Enterprise" Scandal

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A POST!

Libcom has delivered at last! But hold on, shit, I've been rumbled! It's back to the family mansion in the the wilderness for me. I can't wait to see Mom(Sarah Palin) and Dad(David Icke).
As for you nasty commies - you'll never see me again!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sob.

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 8 2013 22:28

A new current has emerged recently, and its called anarcho-trollism. Its a political current that seeks to establish strictly political organizations purportedly organized on anarchist principals, and which members adhere to a common language. Firm belief in the holy doctrine (whatever that may be, individualism, mutualism, AFAQism, etc.) is required by members or potential members. Its purpose is to penetrate other inclusive organizations and influence that organization and its members with its own ideas. Eventually, the goal is to "win the battle of ideas" and takeover the invaded organization, restructure it according to the principals of the holy doctrine. Often, the method of winning the battle is by repeating the doctrine over and over until their opponents are infected with mind numbing isms of all sorts. Formerly, one member would be elected to accomplish the task, but it often failed. Learning through experience, advocates of anarcho-trollism realized they had to storm through other organizations with at least two members, each applauding each other on the back, no matter how banal the argument put forth by that other member.

One case example is the Individual's Rights Association, whose members include Comrade Appleton, Anarchomedia, Webby and Greenjuice. Comrade Appleton was the founding father of the organization and laid down a strict pro-individualist doctrine for oncoming members to adhere to. Often he would get into conflict with new members, who he thought were not that far enough to the individualist end of the spectrum. But, as showcased in recent battles with rivals like Libcom.org, members have been able to speak the right line and their quite comfortable at it. In the first encounter with their rival, Comrade Appleton penetrated Libcom alone and managed a thread of almost 500 posts! But it sadly failed. Now the organization is currently through their second attempt encompassing four threads with the use of three members. Two threads have disappeared along with one member, Anarchomedia. Feeling oppressed by communist ideology, he ditched society and jumped into the Iguazu Falls in Argentina to embrace the wilderness. Meanwhile, Webby and Greenjuice are putting as much effort as they possibly can, and they hope to be rewarded with a product equivalent to their efforts. Or else, they will feel exploited. Their success will determine the fate of anarcho-trollism.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 8 2013 22:40

While I think Nanner's post was pretty effing funny, I will remind folks that this ain't libcommunity...

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 9 2013 13:12

So, you don't have answers to the two questions I asked; that is, you don't know which forms of organization will be toletared besides the communistic one nor do you know why are money and buying/ selling exploitative, even though you hold those views?

Agent of the Fifth International's picture
Agent of the Fi...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 9 2013 16:37
Chilli Sauce wrote:
While I think Nanner's post was pretty effing funny, I will remind folks that this ain't libcommunity...

Nanner's post deserves to be nominated for Best Post of the Year.

greenjuice wrote:
So, you don't have answers to the two questions I asked; that is, you don't know which forms of organization will be toletared besides the communistic one nor do you know why are money and buying/ selling exploitative, even though you hold those views?

I think if you read back the thread starting from the beginning, you'll find all of the answers your looking for.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 9 2013 17:45

I have read it, and there is nothing of the sorts, unless you consider "Ha, reformed capitalism!" a response, which just makes your mental development questionable, doesn't make that a response.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 9 2013 18:17

At best, mutualist ideas seems like a temporary measure during or immediately following a revolutionary period in times where proper libcom organisation is incredibly difficult (maybe because of shortages, conflict, geography, mass migration or similar). Even then I'm not entirely convinced. Either way, it certainly isn't a viable foundation for a new society, or at least it doesn't seem that way to me.

The idea of two people exchanging their crafted tables for a pair of shoes as if they were in some kind of social and economic vacuum just ignores so much of lib-com theory that it just isn't anarchism any more, and as such not worth debating, (but perhaps I'm strawmanning here).

In much the same way as a communist revolution has to be global to succeed, I think it is really difficult to create an alternative economic system that would stand next to a libcom one -- if not completely impossible. It is much more likely that individual regions/ communes/ cities would be organised politically and socially in a number of different ways, but economically I think the foundation necessarily has to be communist(ic).

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 13:39
Quote:
At best, mutualist ideas seems like a temporary measure during or immediately following a revolutionary period in times where proper libcom organisation is incredibly difficult (maybe because of shortages, conflict, geography, mass migration or similar).

It's better to have AnCol as temporary transition to AnCom, but I don't even think a transitory period is necesarry if people organize with calculation in natura and labor quotas for the able, and with communal work encompasing only infrastructure and basic needs, everyone would be working 4-5 hours a day, 5 days a week in immediate time after the revolutinon, less aftewards.

That's not my question, what would I or you or someone like, and which community would we join or work to organize, my point is that there are other forms of organization other then communistic one that are non-oppressive and non-exploitative and it is neccessary to tolerate them in orded to be non-oppressive oneself.

Quote:
In much the same way as a communist revolution has to be global to succeed, I think it is really difficult to create an alternative economic system that would stand next to a libcom one -- if not completely impossible. It is much more likely that individual regions/ communes/ cities would be organised politically and socially in a number of different ways, but economically I think the foundation necessarily has to be communist(ic).

Ok, so, being that there are no natual laws making it impossible, can you explain why would it be impossible for there to be different forms of organisation in different communities, e.g. one in Australia and another in Britain, and a third in Ireland?

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 10 2013 15:27
greenjuice wrote:
Ok, so, being that there are no natual laws making it impossible, can you explain why would it be impossible for there to be different forms of organisation in different communities, e.g. one in Australia and another in Britain, and a third in Ireland?

No, of course not impossible. I just meant that a) why would anyone live like that when you have full communism a quick boat ride away b) no-one is going to tolerate certain kinds of behaviours/ organisations. Again, to reiterate, this isn't anarchy in 'oh shit do whatever you like son' sense. It isn't oppressive to stop people being wankers towards one another, however voluntary the arrangement might seem.

Which brings us back full circle to post #3:

Steven. wrote:
Yeah, people should be free to develop their own forms of organisation. But ones based on exploitation, domination and violence would not be tolerated.
greenjuice wrote:
That's not my question, what would I or you or someone like, and which community would we join or work to organize, my point is that there are other forms of organization other then communistic one that are non-oppressive and non-exploitative and it is neccessary to tolerate them in orded to be non-oppressive oneself...

I see that. However, as other posters have pointed out, the non-communistic economic systems you seem to favour may result in capital accumulation, resource hogging, or unjust penalising of 'non-productive' members of society (you didn't earn any labour vouchers today grandma, so no dinner for you tonight), and inequality. It is also isolationist to the extreme, and if the non-communistic society was located in a particularly fertile/ resource-rich area, then you're gonna have a bad time (as the meme goes).