That makes Bakunin, Malatesta, Rocker and Kropotkin ignorants, because they all defined socialism as the abolition of the exploitation, that is- the abolition of unearned incomes
Saying that just makes me knowledgable on the subject, and doesn't have anything to do with my favoured method of post-revolutionary organisation.
Aside from the obvious fact you are not nearly as knowledgeable as you think you are, as proved by your laughably limited understanding of commodity production, it sort of does have something to do with your favored method and politics in general if you think producing stuff for sale (hint hint, buying commodities on a market) is not exploitative.
That makes Bakunin, Malatesta, Rocker and Kropotkin ignorants, because they all defined socialism as the abolition of the exploitation, that is- the abolition of unearned incomes, and anarchism as libertarian, stateless, socialism. Being that both mutualism and individualist anarchist of the Spooner, Tucker, Lum variety advocate abolition of undearned income and of the state, that means they are a part of libertarian socialism.
I think the root of the problem is your notion of exploitation. Please explain to me in your own words and not the AFAQ's (which doesn't mention "unearned incomes" in the sections you gave out) what is an un earned income is and why it is exploitative.
Aside from the obvious fact you are not nearly as knowledgeable as you think you are
Not aside the obvious fact that view is just a manifestation of your ignorance, and not anything near a fact, as is your laughable non-understanding of what socialism is.
it sort of does have something to do with your favored method and politics in general if you think producing stuff for sale (hint hint, buying commodities on a market) is not exploitative.
Of course it is not exploitative, and there has never been any prominent anarcho-communist thinker to hold such a view, because no prominent anarcho-communist thinker such as Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc. was an idiot who would think that in a system where explotation is abolished exists explotation because things are sold.
what is an un earned income is and why it is exploitative.
Unearned incomes are, as I said more then once- employer-profits, rent, interest and patent-profits and they are exploitative because they cannot be gained expet trought a kind of a theft, because all wealth is the product of labor, all income that is unlabored for is a type of theft, being that it is never a gift.
Of course it is not exploitative, and there has never been any prominent anarcho-communist thinker to hold such a view,
So let me get this straight. You don't think there has been any prominent anarchist communist that has opposed the buying and selling of things with money ?
Unearned incomes are, as I said more then once- profits
Let me stop you right there. So you say un earned incomes are exploitative, and that an example of this is profits. Well Im pretty sure in the buying and selling things there is going to be profit made ?
You don't think there has been any prominent anarchist communist that has opposed the buying and selling of things with money ?
No prominent anarcho-communist (or anarcho-collectivist) ever considered buying and selling of things with money a condition that would put a system where they exist outside the scope of libertarian socialism.
So you say un earned incomes are exploitative, and that an example of this is profits. Well Im pretty sure in the buying and selling things there is going to be profit made ?
I was pretty precise, exactly because I knew that, like with socialism, you don't know the definition of profits.
Profits in neoclassical economics mean any benefit a man percevies, when one cures himself of a illness he profits, when he gets laid he profits, etc. Obviously, no one wants to abolish profits in this sense.
Profits in classical economics stand for the income of the capitalist, eg. when a firm sells its products, the earnings are divided into wages + expenses (for materials etc) + profits (the income of the capitalist). Now these profits we do wish abolish- all socialist, including individualist anarchists and mutualists, as all prominent libertarian socialist thinkers have always been aware of.
"In answering the above objection we have at the same time indicated the scope of Expropriation. It must apply to everything that enables any man--be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord--to appropriate the product of others' toil. Our formula is simple and comprehensive.
We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation; this will be our duty during the Revolution, for whose coming we look, not two hundred years hence, but soon, very soon.
http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin4
Obviously, this scope doesn't include abolition of markets/ commodity production, to establish socialism is to abolish unearned incomes.
As Malatesta said:
“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."
No prominent anarcho-communist (or anarcho-collectivist) ever considered buying and selling of things with money a condition that would put a system where they exist outside the scope of libertarian socialism.
So you are saying that you can be libsoc and still believe in buying and salling for money, and money in general ? If so your definition of libsoc is beyond backwards.
I was pretty precise, exactly because I knew that, like with socialism, you don't know the definition of profits.Profits in neoclassical economics mean any benefit a man percevies, when one cures himself of a illness he profits, when he gets laid he profits, etc. Obviously, no one wants to abolish profits in this sense.
Profits in classical economics stand for the income of the capitalist, eg. when a firm sells its products, the earnings are divided into wages + expenses (for materials etc) + profits (the income of the capitalist). Now these profits we do wish abolish- all socialist, including individualist anarchists and mutualists, as all prominent libertarian socialist thinkers have always been aware of.
In which case, I think your probably not understanding neoclassical economics. I don't claim to, but why would they essentially make the word profit be a synonym for general benefit ? They are economists. They are talking about the economy, not people benefiting from people being in good health. Very strange definition indeed, and probably not a neoclassical one at all.
Obviously, this scope doesn't include abolition of markets/ commodity production, to establish socialism is to abolish unearned incomes.
As Malatesta said:
“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."
Anarchists absolutely and exclusively are FOR the abolition of markets and commodity production (commodity production in the capitalist sense, Im not saying communism would not produce anything at all obviously). There is having a successful anarchist revolution which results in libertarian socialism/communism (i.e. a society without a state, without capitalism [which means markets etc] and exploitation in all its forms [that would mean abolishing patriarchy, racism etc]) and there is forcing communism on people post revolution. They are not the same thing.
That makes Bakunin, Malatesta, Rocker and Kropotkin ignorants, because they all defined socialism as the abolition of the exploitation, that is- the abolition of unearned incomes, and anarchism as libertarian, stateless, socialism. Being that both mutualism and individualist anarchist of the Spooner, Tucker, Lum variety advocate abolition of undearned income and of the state, that means they are a part of libertarian socialism.
now apart for it being nonsense to talk about abolishing unerned income (would you demand children work so as not to exploit their parants?) this treats anarchism as a unchanging idea definded by a bunch of "founding farthers" not a living movement that devolops an learns.
If you find correctness ridiculous, yes.
Quote:. Modem mutalism is backwards looking seeking to create and idealist version of a none existent golden age, its capitalism
If "modern mutualism" is an idea that is capitalistic then it has nothing to do with mutualism, which is a socialist idea, being that socialism is the abolition of capital, that is- of unearned income, which both individualist anarchism and mutualism advocate.
you're not correct unless socialism is statice and unchanging. history is important, but you cant understand what ideas currently makes sense by looking at what ideas made sense 100+ years ago. imagine if people did this with science.
I don't say that mutalists intend for capitalism, but the idea of mutaism is heavily influenced by ideals of what capitalism is "suposd to be" and mutalims as imagined by its supporters can never be anything but a fantasy.
You just called virtually all anarchist thinkers (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, etc etc) idiots...
And?
the croydonian anarchist
So you are saying that you can be libsoc and still believe in buying and salling for money, and money in general ? If so your definition of libsoc is beyond backwards.
That means that definition of LibSoc by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, and all other prominent AnCom thinkers, as correctly presented in numerous parts of AFAQ, is "beyond backward". And if you are so "progressively LibSoc" to disagree about what LibSoc is with the likes of Kropotkin, then I sure as hell don't want to be so progressive, and will happily accept that my definition of LibSoc is beyond backwards.
Also, nice to see that you admit your ignorance about the subject about which you are disagreeing with me, maybe that germ of intellectual honesty will grow enough to stop you from being a wiseass about things you are obviously ignorant, such as what LibSoc is.
I don't claim to, but why would they essentially make the word profit be a synonym for general benefit ? They are economists
Because they are not economists. They are bullshiters, and their business is to confuse people about capitalism being justified. I'd suggest reading the section C of AFAQ.
Anarchists absolutely and exclusively are FOR the abolition of markets and commodity production (commodity production in the capitalist sense, Im not saying communism would not produce anything at all obviously).
No they are not, being that Prudhon and Mutualists are anarchist. They are for abolishing capital and hierarchy, making them libertarian socialists, that is- anarchists.
there is forcing communism on people post revolution. They are not the same thing.
Preventing people from organizing according to mutualism or individualist anarchism (both of which ALL prominent AnCom thinkers accepted as LibSoc) means forcing communism.
radicalgraffiti
this treats anarchism as a unchanging idea definded by a bunch of "founding farthers" not a
living movement that devolops an learns.
Read the quotes.
Kropotkin:
"In answering the above objection we have at the same time indicated the scope of Expropriation. It must apply to everything that enables any man--be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord--to appropriate the product of others' toil. Our formula is simple and comprehensive.
We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation; this will be our duty during the Revolution, for whose coming we look, not two hundred years hence, but soon, very soon."
Malatesta:
“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."
And after really reading them and thinking about them, tell me you disagree.
I don't say that mutalists intend for capitalism, but the idea of mutaism is heavily influenced by ideals of what capitalism is "suposd to be"
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about being that every mutualist ever has always talked about abolishing capitalism, never has any mutualist ever talked about mutualism being "capitalist as it's supossed to be" or wanting to establish, or supporting such a thing.
and mutalims as imagined by its supporters can never be anything but a fantasy.
Wow, you proved it man, I now see that you are correct and that I'm wrong, and I hereby recant my views which I foolishly accepted from Proudhon and Kropotkin and Malatesta and Rocker and Cafiero and Berkman and Goldman, and I declare that I accept the view of some anonymous people from the internet which have given not one argument in favour of their views that are in direct opposition to the views of the mentioned anarchist thinkers.
John E Jacobson
And?
That statement, if coming from someone who claim to accept the views that the mentioned thinkers espoused, makes such a person an idiot.
That means that definition of LibSoc by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, and all other prominent AnCom thinkers, as correctly presented in numerous parts of AFAQ, is "beyond backward". And if you are so "progressively LibSoc" to disagree about what LibSoc is with the likes of Kropotkin, then I sure as hell don't want to be so progressive, and will happily accept that my definition of LibSoc is beyond backwards.
Im pretty sure all those people you mentioned would not advocate the existence of money in anyway and are for the abolition of it, in any form. I'm not sure where your getting the whole "progressively libsoc" thing as well as it is in quotation marks but I don't really care at this point.
No they are not, being that Prudhon and Mutualists are anarchist. They are for abolishing capital and hierarchy, making them libertarian socialists, that is- anarchists.
And part of abolishing capital means abolishing markets is it not ?
Preventing people from organizing according to mutualism or individualist anarchism (both of which ALL prominent AnCom thinkers accepted as LibSoc) means forcing communism.
Aside from your quote butchering half of the sentence and point I was making, what I meant was whilst organizing according to mutualism or individualist anarchism would be permitted and allowed after the revolution, the revolution would have failed if the revolution was to organise society among individualist or mutualist lines if it is to be a libsoc revolution.
Read the quotes.
Baring in mind I think you have included the exact same ones before in this thread, not long ago either, I find this extremely patronising. It's like your saying "OMG YOU STILL DONT AGREE WITH ME, WHY ? HAVEN'T YOU READ THE QUOTES" trying to force it like the reason we don't agree with you is because we don't understand.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about being that every mutualist ever has always talked about abolishing capitalism, never has any mutualist ever talked about mutualism being "capitalist as it's supossed to be" or wanting to establish, or supporting such a thing.
Well of course mutualists talk of abolishing capitalism wont say mutualism will result in capitalism, but what we are trying to say is that if it were to be implented it would. Just because they say they are X and their system is not Y, does not mean that they wouldn't. By the same token, Hitler said he was a national socialist, Stalin said he was a communist, were they ? No.
Wow, you proved it man, I now see that you are correct and that I'm wrong, and I hereby recant my views which I foolishly accepted from Proudhon and Kropotkin and Malatesta and Rocker and Cafiero and Berkman and Goldman, and I declare that I accept the view of some anonymous people from the internet which have given not one argument in favour of their views that are in direct opposition to the views of the mentioned anarchist thinkers.
Nice sarcastic rant there, really useful for discussion, as is repeating yourself and the quotes you are using as if we haven't read them and we must just be misunderstanding if we disagree with you. Also, unless you want to give me your full name right here and now, I hardly think calling us out for being anonymous people from the internet is really valid as YOUR ON THE SAME FORUM AND ARE ANONYMOUS TOO IN THE SAME WAY.
That statement, if coming from someone who claim to accept the views that the mentioned thinkers espoused, makes such a person an idiot.
If you think Kropotkin, Malatesta and Rocker wouldn't question some one calling themselves anarchists if they didn't oppose money and producing things for sale, right back at you mate.
I was really hoping that this thread would be a helpful discussion on "rights" as its a subject i've been thinking about quiet a bit lately. Early on in the thread, it was established (quite well imo) that natural rights are nonsense. Does this mean that all conceptions of rights are also bogus? Do modern human rights advocates base their appeals on natural rights or some other concept of rights? Can modern concepts of rights transcend their bourgeoisie origins? Would any concept of rights be a useful component of a libertarian communist society? If not, then what in libertarian communism guarantees minimum standards of freedom and well being to each person? I have some answers for some of these questions in mind, but i'm not really sure that they're very good. Then, the thread turned into another one of our alternately infuriating and hilarious exchanges with a mutualist / individualist, and for the first time ever, I was disappointed at that.
Then, the thread turned into another one of our alternately infuriating and hilarious exchanges with a mutualist / individualist
Id pick the former.
I was really hoping that this thread would be a helpful discussion on "rights" as its a subject i've been thinking about quiet a bit lately. Early on in the thread, it was established (quite well imo) that natural rights are nonsense. Does this mean that all conceptions of rights are also bogus? Do modern human rights advocates base their appeals on natural rights or some other concept of rights? Can modern concepts of rights transcend their bourgeoisie origins? Would any concept of rights be a useful component of a libertarian communist society? If not, then what in libertarian communism guarantees minimum standards of freedom and well being to each person? I have some answers for some of these questions in mind, but i'm not really sure that they're very good. Then, the thread turned into another one of our alternately infuriating and hilarious exchanges with a mutualist / individualist, and for the first time ever, I was disappointed at that.
I'm an individualist but that doesn't mean I'm not a good Sumaritan. However, I will swim past you drowning to save my relative, it's up to us as social beings to be survivalists first, sentimentalities and doctrines are ephemerial when life is on the line. But we can have comrades without any blood relation who become our relatives.
PS What I mean is that 'rights' should not have to be a moral judgement, by being legislated, 'rights'' become moulds of conformity, whereas wisdom views rights as a righteous obsession. Like politicians, always using their 'rights' schtick. It's so fucking boring! Sorry!
"Mutualism is socialist because it is not capitalist because it is socialist because it is not capitalist because it is socialist..."
laborbund wrote:
Then, the thread turned into another one of our alternately infuriating and hilarious exchanges with a mutualist / individualistId pick the former.
it is getting pretty lulzy.
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
laborbund wrote:
Then, the thread turned into another one of our alternately infuriating and hilarious exchanges with a mutualist / individualistId pick the former.
it is getting pretty lulzy.
But you haven't been the one that has felt compelled to reply each time.
I was really hoping that this thread would be a helpful discussion on "rights" as its a subject i've been thinking about quiet a bit lately. Early on in the thread, it was established (quite well imo) that natural rights are nonsense. Does this mean that all conceptions of rights are also bogus? Do modern human rights advocates base their appeals on natural rights or some other concept of rights? Can modern concepts of rights transcend their bourgeoisie origins? Would any concept of rights be a useful component of a libertarian communist society? If not, then what in libertarian communism guarantees minimum standards of freedom and well being to each person?
Dunno. I haven't done too much reading on the subject, but its pretty clear to me natural rights are garbage, and I'm not familiar with any other theories of rights - human rights, I'd imagine, are probably vaguely based on notions of natural rights.
I've personally found that talking about human need generally makes more sense than discussing rights. "I need this" as opposed to "I have a right to this."
What are your thoughts on it?
Greenjuice seems like the type of person who could have rather said "You should listen to me I have solved these contradictions, my doctrine is consistent, moral and pragmatic. Would you like to know more?"
Actually, that is what he has been saying all of this time.
the croydonian anarchist
Im pretty sure all those people you mentioned would not advocate the existence of money in anyway and are for the abolition of it, in any form.
They advocated people voluntarily stopping to use market system and money, but saw nothing wrong with people using them, as long as there is no oppression and exploatation, and being that in mutualist and individualist anarchist there is neither, they accepted both as LibSoc.
And part of abolishing capital means abolishing markets is it not ?
No. Abolishing capital means abolishing markets of labor and means of production, not the markets of products of labor and services.
If you think Kropotkin, Malatesta and Rocker wouldn't question some one calling themselves anarchists if they didn't oppose money and producing things for sale
I know they wouldn't, because I've read what they wrote, and you appearently not only haven't but haven't even read the quotes that I put in this topick where say exactly that.
Agent of the Fifth International
Actually, that is what he has been saying all of this time.
Actually, that's what prominent LibSoc thinkers were saying, and I've quoting them, and trying to point that out, being that some here think that they are LibSoc, yet disagree with the most prominent thinkers of LibSoc say that LibSoc is.
Quote:
the croydonian anarchistIm pretty sure all those people you mentioned would not advocate the existence of money in anyway and are for the abolition of it, in any form.
They advocated people voluntarily stopping to use market system and money, but saw nothing wrong with people using them, as long as there is no oppression and exploatation, and being that in mutualist and individualist anarchist there is neither, they accepted both as LibSoc.
I find it hard you have read them if think they oppose money because it was exploitative and oppressive.
Quote:
Abolishing capital means abolishing markets of labor and means of production, not the markets of products of labor and services.
oh my god shut up.
I find it hard you have read them if think they oppose money because it was exploitative and oppressive.
They didn't, as evidenced by their acceptance of individualist anarchism and mutualism as types of LibSoc/Anarchism. Read at least the damn AFAQ, they have miriad of quotes and references, and everything's explained nicely.
oh my god shut up.
Wow what an argument, you got me conviced man.
Just because they may have accepted individualist anarchism and mutualism as types of anarchism doesn't mean they agreed with them (didn't see money as exploitative and oppressive). Thats a massive illogical leap. Stop telling me to read the fucking FAQ.
Just because they may have accepted individualist anarchism and mutualism as types of anarchism doesn't mean they agreed with them (didn't see money as exploitative and oppressive).
You just said that they thought that anarchism cam be exploitative and oppresive. And you're gonna talk to someone else about illogical leaps?
You have to read it if you want to talk about this stuff and don't turn out be a total ignoramus.
...a total ignoramus.
the pot calling the kettle black.
Full of arguments as always.
Quote:
Just because they may have accepted individualist anarchism and mutualism as types of anarchism doesn't mean they agreed with them (didn't see money as exploitative and oppressive).You just said that they thought that anarchism cam be exploitative and oppresive. And you're gonna talk to someone else about illogical leaps?
You have to read it if you want to talk about this stuff and don't turn out be a total ignoramus.
No, I said that just because they may have accepted individualist anarchism and mutualism as anarchism (which Im still doubtful of despite what the afaq may or may not say) doesn't mean that they agreed with them (them, who didn't see money as exploitative and oppressive). Read.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
If you find correctness ridiculous, yes.
If "modern mutualism" is an idea that is capitalistic then it has nothing to do with mutualism, which is a socialist idea, being that socialism is the abolition of capital, that is- of unearned income, which both individualist anarchism and mutualism advocate.