Fuck it, I give up. Your a lost cause.
Feb 7 2013 18:28
Feb 7 2013 18:45
You give up what- not explaining your views? I suppose that having views you don't know how to explain and argument is frustrating, and that opting out of rational conversations makes it go away, but more permanent solution would be reading a little and thinking a little and thereby learning how to explain and argument your opinions.
Feb 7 2013 20:28
You're on a site with the largest collection of English-language libertarian communist literature in the world, and you keep talking about how fantastic money is. I'm not sure that you're in a position to lecture other folks on the virtues of learning.
Feb 7 2013 20:59
You're also on this site, and seem to to think money is exploitative. Money is impractical and should be abandoned, but it is not exploitative and no prominent LibSoc thinker ever though that it is, being that they all knew what exploitation is.
Feb 10 2013 18:34
Just read some spooner and its a piss poor take on locke. And it was from the mises site.
Feb 10 2013 18:56
Greenjuice, read some Marx or stfu. First three chapters will do.
Feb 10 2013 19:05
Spooner's importance was in that he was the first anarchist to write about the contradiction between labor theory of property, which was espoused by Locke, and accepting capitalism.
I've read Marx. All ok stuff he said were said before him by Proudhon, and the rest of his work is authoritarian bullshit or plain bullshit.
Feb 10 2013 19:09
Pray tell, what was it by Marx that you've read?
Feb 10 2013 19:41
greenjuice wrote:
Spooner's importance was in that he was the first anarchist to write about the contradiction between labor theory of property, which was espoused by Locke, and accepting capitalism.
.
Ahhh so basiclly he got up on those nonsense-stilts and showed that some of that nonsense was in fact bad nonsense but some of the other nonsense was good nonsense??
Feb 10 2013 20:57
Poverty of philosophy, Manifesto, Capital, Theories of suprlus value, all of them multiple times. I've read also the German ideology, Manuscripts and Holy family, but not in their entirety, just chapters that I needed.
Feb 10 2013 21:06
greenjuice wrote:
I've read Marx. All ok stuff he said were said before him by Proudhon,
Really?
Feb 10 2013 21:11
Basically.
Feb 10 2013 23:58
"No, no, no, you guys. You just don't get it. Haven't you read books before? I found this one quote from 200 years ago that says mutualism is socialism! Why won't you just read the quote that says mutualism is socialism! GOD!" - crazy internet guy
Feb 11 2013 14:13
No LibSoc thinker ever denied that mutualism is a type of libertarian socialism. Being that they knew what LibSoc is.
Feb 11 2013 14:18
greenjuice wrote:
I've read Marx. All ok stuff he said were said before him by Proudhon, and the rest of his work is authoritarian bullshit or plain bullshit.
greenjuice wrote:
Poverty of philosophy, Manifesto, Capital, Theories of suprlus value, all of them multiple times. I've read also the German ideology, Manuscripts and Holy family, but not in their entirety, just chapters that I needed.
You either haven't read Capital and TSV in their entirety, or you have seriously misunderstood them. Proudhon certainly was an important precursor (and Marx admitted this much), but he never developed a systematic theory of the capitalist mode of production comparable to that of Marx. (Yes, I am familiar with the System of Economic Contradictions.) He tended to confuse the historically specific with the transhistorical (just like classical political economy). See his ranting about "abolishing value" being the same as "abolishing labor". He provided no satisfactory account of how and why "Every product is a representative of labor", or of what kind of labor it actually is. Instead, he offered some pretty chidlish illustrations involving a fictional character ("Prometheus") and argued by assertion: "It is an axiom generally admitted by the economists that all labor should leave an excess. I regard this proposition as universally and absolutely true."
There is "ok stuff" in Proudhon, but most of it comes from previous authors anyway.
Feb 11 2013 15:15
Proudhon certainly was an important precursor (and Marx admitted this much), but he never developed a systematic theory of the capitalist mode of production comparable to that of Marx.
Proudhon didn't develop systematic anything x) He doesn't even have a systematic use of the same words, it is tought to read him if one doesn't commit.
There is "ok stuff" in Proudhon, but most of it comes from previous authors anyway.
Yes, I've been reading Ricardian socialists recently, and it seem so, being that they wrote similar things a couple decades before him, but that doesn't change the fact Proudhon said everything Marx did about property and suprlus value, likewise a couple of decades earlier then him.
It would seem to me that you are 'familiar' with the System of Economic Contradictions trough Poverty of philosophy, which is a terrible book, you should read the System itself and also "What is property?" if you haven't, I'd suggest the book General Idea of the Revolution in the 21st Century as a systematisation of Proudhon's thought.
Feb 11 2013 15:37
greenjuice wrote:
He doesn't even have a systematic use of the same words
This is sometimes fancily called "consistency". At my future managers training facility ("the university") they said it was a prerequisite for anything to be called a "theory".
greenjuice wrote:
but that doesn't change the fact Proudhon said everything Marx did about property and suprlus value, likewise a couple of decades earlier then him.
Great.
1. Can you please point me to Proudhon's discussion of the difference between the rate of surplus-value and the rate of profit?
2. Or to his elaboration of relative surplus-value?
3. Or his explanation of ground-rent?
...
72. Or his discussion of the effects of turnover time on advanced capital?
greenjuice wrote:
It would seem to me that you are 'familiar' with the System of Economic Contradictions trough Poverty of philosophy, which is a terrible book, you should read the System itself and also "What is property?" if you haven't, I'd suggest the book General Idea of the Revolution in the 21st Century as a systematisation of Proudhon's thought.
I've read almost all of SEC (in the English translation) about 4 years ago, when writing something for school. I couldn't stand the last quarter or something, it gets too ridiculous. I don't think The Poverty of Philosophy is a "terrible" book. It certainly is more consistent and readable than its target. The style is snide (as opposed to Proudhon's smugness), but most of the criticisms are spot on.
Feb 11 2013 16:53
This is sometimes fancily called "consistency". At my future managers training facility ("the university") they said it was a prerequisite for anything to be called a "theory".
It can be undestood what he says from the context.
So as no to discuss any random point of Proudhon's or Marx' writings, read this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html
but most of the criticisms are spot on.
Marx contadicts much of that criticism in Capital, as noted in the just mentioned article. There's a SEC english translation linked in the article that I just linked to, with footnotes listing all Marx' distortions of Proudhon. Here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/system-of-economic-contradictions-1
Feb 12 2013 03:00
OMG could one of the admnins just delete this fucking thread already? It has nothing to do with the original topic any more. Its just become a forum for greenjuice to feel like people take him seriously for once in his miserable fucking life.
Feb 12 2013 11:19
greenjuice wrote:
So as no to discuss any random point of Proudhon's or Marx' writings, read this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html
I'd prefer if you could confirm that Proudhon has a real theory of capitalist production, one that clarifies, e.g., the apparent contradiction between the extraction of unpaid surplus labor being the basis of all profit and the average rate of profit. If he doesn't, then there's at least one (extremely important) thing that Marx said about surplus-value and Proudhon didn't, and your original statement is false.
Feb 12 2013 13:27
You can read it all here:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/introduction-contents
Feb 12 2013 14:55
I'm really tempted to just start posting links to capital as a rebuttal. But that would be idiotic, just like apfelsaft's link-loving.
Feb 12 2013 15:17
Feb 12 2013 16:37
greenjuice wrote:
You can read it all here:http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/introduction-contents
Feb 15 2013 08:45
I got really sick for a while and was afraid the thread went into some really productive and awesome direction and I wasn't contributing. oh well...
Also,
xslavearcx wrote:
lolif you read everything in this
http://www.worldcat.org/therein you will find all the answers.
DONE!
Feb 15 2013 13:41
The guy asked about views that Proudhon expressed, I gave him a link to that expression of those views so he could read it. I don't see the point in your acting like idiots throwing false analogies, insults or gif images around.
Feb 15 2013 14:05
laborbund wrote:
DONE!
what like this?
If only that was possibe .... but alas i think the reality of reading fast is like as woody allen said
“I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.”
Feb 15 2013 14:04
No, I asked about specific things that I know Proudhon never discussed. And they're not discussed in the document you've linked.
Feb 16 2013 13:44
So, you ask about stuff you think you know, why didn't say from the start you're interested in such a constructive conversation, I would've known it not to be a complete waste of my time, and make an extra effort to write a more comprehensive answer.
Can comment on articles and discussions
It is still doubtful despite the quotes that they said it themselves? Wow, you're a piece of work.
They didn't see money as exploitative or oppressive. You just throw words around without any idea what you're talking about. Exploitation means extraction others' suprlus value, that is- making unearned income, and oppression means coercion. Money cannot be neither exploitative nor oppressive.