DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Why the anti-capitalism focus?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jun 25 2009 17:53
Rob Ray wrote:
Waving away this sort of stuff with 'you can just get another job' comes across as the worst sort of misunderstanding of how class and capitalism works

yup

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 25 2009 19:57
petey wrote:
Rob Ray wrote:
Waving away this sort of stuff with 'you can just get another job' comes across as the worst sort of misunderstanding of how class and capitalism works

yup

That may be so, but it's what I did every time I had a job that I didn't like - and I'm not alone. In response to a previous poster, I did not have a privileged up bringing, my parents were poor and I funded my own way through university (Admittedly the evil capitalist state also supported me, but if anyone asks I'll deny it ;o)

My first job was crap, so I spent (literally) every hour I had learning new skills that I would need in the job I wanted to get (whilst (some of) my friends were out partying and bitching about how shit their jobs were - and still are).

I appreciate that 'well, it works for me' is a weak argument, but I'm still trying to learn about the alternative (via the anarchist faq for one).

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 25 2009 20:28
Quote:
Look mrfoo, if after reading the Anarchist FAQ and the posts (some very exhaustive and well-written I must say) in this thread.

And I appreciate everyone patience! Sadly I've not had time to read the Anarchist FAQ completely yet, I'm too busy being exploited 8 hours a day, that and I'm a slow reader smile but I am on the case.

Quote:
Sorry for calling your a troll btw, the last "anarcho-capitalist" who started a thread here was a real douche who kept asking banal questions.

No worries Vlad, every time I see the title of this post in a communist forum it makes me cringe grin I honestly had no idea the AF forum link was to a communist forum.

Quote:
If a worker takes a job it is because he must make a living (beyond the meagre subsistence of the dole), not because he devilishly wants to take advantage of his employer, which he couldn't do anyway by virtue of his economic and social standing.

And the same can be said for the employer. If I was to save some money, buy an ice cream van and hire an assistant (presumably jumping the class divide from acceptable labourer to evil capitalist at the same time) it might not be because I devilishly wanted to take advantage of or exploit my employee, but because without him I wouldn't be able to earn enough to support my family - and without my saving and risk taking, he wouldn't have a job. But I don't really think intention comes into it whether it's exploitation or not.

As for the Anarchist FAQ, the first section I read was on what would be done if someone didn't want to work. It seems they're ejected from the commune, but... and here's the difference, they ARE allowed access to the means of production; they can happily go off and fend for themselves. Well that's all well and good if you happen to be a farmer, but it would still leave me well and truly screwed because I know absolutely nothing about farming or how to raise animals, or slaughter them humanely (some people from the inner cities have never even seen a chicken in the flesh, let alone know how to look after one!). I would be forced to go back to the commune and work for/with them in order to survive.

Who owns the means of production does not change the fact that I am forced to do something I don't want to do in order to survive - what am I missing?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jun 25 2009 20:45

Question: What if all you friends had done the same thing? In fact, let's take it further, let's assume, for a moment, that everyone has the same opportunities and works as hard as each other to learn say, medicine. So you end up with 4,000 people applying for each medical job. What happens to the ones who have spent loads of money, time etc to do this training?

Under a communist system, you'd be glad of the shared load, rotate the jobs so everyone is doing a bit of what they love and a bit of what they don't, and encourage people to diverdify their skills. In a capitalist system, what was a pretty well-paid job becomes worthless, so some people end up doing a job they love for a pittance, while everyone else still ends up in shit jobs because there's not enough to go round everybody.

The essence of a 'good' job under capital is that it has to be exclusive. Your decent pay packet is reliant solely on the fact that people don't throw themselves heart and soul into the competition for your job.

But this is the ideal of free market capitalism - by taking away social safety nets, breaking unionism etc you (supposedly) force everyone to skill up and compete for work. In the end game of this process, you have highly skilled people in India doing the jobs which used to take place in Europe for a tenth of the wage. The only option the European has is to work even harder, for even less. In terms of labour theory, it's known as the race to the bottom.

In the end, only those who own capital can gain from this process. Everyone else is expected to incrementally destroy their lives by clawing their way over the bodies of their friends and family simply to make a living. Forgive me for not wanting that particular utopia.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jun 26 2009 02:49
mrfoo wrote:
My first job was crap, so I spent (literally) every hour I had learning new skills that I would need in the job I wanted to get (whilst (some of) my friends were out partying and bitching about how shit their jobs were - and still are).

nobody likes whiners, so you're one up on that lot. however, what you did was in response to the demands of others: i hope you got work you like, but lots of people do what you did only in order to make money, and hate their lives every day. "that's life" doesn't explain it (not that you said that). there's a newish term i like, 'precarity', which describes the fact that the conditions under which you work can be taken away tomorrow, that employment insecurity is passed off as the normal order of things. now, i don't have blueprint for how things might work differently, but it's for certain that an immeasurably more secure economic system is within reach.

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 25 2009 21:56
Rob Ray wrote:
Question: What if all you friends had done the same thing? In fact, let's take it further, let's assume, for a moment, that everyone has the same opportunities and works as hard as each other to learn say, medicine. So you end up with 4,000 people applying for each medical job. What happens to the ones who have spent loads of money, time etc to do this training?

But the thing is, they don't. And why? Because they value going out and partying (in my example) more than they do investing in their future, that is a choice they made. Nobody forced them to drink heavily at university and finish with a 3rd, they decided that they valued having fun more than furthering their own education. I'm not judging them at all, I'm just saying that it was their choice.

Quote:
Under a communist system, you'd be glad of the shared load, rotate the jobs so everyone is doing a bit of what they love and a bit of what they don't, and encourage people to diverdify their skills.

That's another thing I don't understand, this whole job rotation thing. Lots of crap jobs are located in the back of beyond, or actually do require some skills! You can't just pitch up once a month, with a bunch of other people who last did the job about a month ago, who you probably haven't worked with before and monitor the hazard alarms at a nuclear plant (for instance).

Quote:
In a capitalist system, what was a pretty well-paid job becomes worthless, so some people end up doing a job they love for a pittance, while everyone else still ends up in shit jobs because there's not enough to go round everybody.

Jobs become worthless all the time, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's usually called progress. What does it mean when a job becomes worthless? It means that society has decided en mass that the job is not required any more, usually because some better alternative has come about. Whilst it's not nice for the individual, who may have enjoyed ploughing the field by hand, society as a whole advances as resources (labour in this case) are freed up for other endeavours.

Does communism require a Luddite mentality?

Quote:
But this is the ideal of free market capitalism - by taking away social safety nets, breaking unionism etc you (supposedly) force everyone to skill up and compete for work.

Free market capitalism (as I understand it, which I know isn't the same as this forum) does not prohibit social safety nets. It does not prohibit people getting together and creating mutualities / insurance companies etc. etc. It's just that they are not provided by the state.

Quote:
In the end game of this process, you have highly skilled people in India doing the jobs which used to take place in Europe for a tenth of the wage. The only option the European has is to work even harder, for even less. In terms of labour theory, it's known as the race to the bottom.

Tell me about it, my last job was outsourced :S But we also gain from having cheaper products and services from other countries.

Alderson Warm-Fork
Offline
Joined: 24-12-08
Jun 25 2009 23:07
Quote:
Jobs become worthless all the time, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's usually called progress.

Right, and this is an interesting illustration of how capitalism and communism differ. Under communism, if a task no longer needs doing (and isn't fun) then everybody benefits because there's less 'socially necessary labour', so people can have more free time (or find a different productive thing to do).

Under capitalism, the task no longer being done also means that the worker who used to do it becomes unemployed - i.e. they no longer have a means of accessing society's wealth (short of what the state or their friends provide them with). Maybe they can get another job, maybe they can't. They're probably quite worried about that.

So under capitalism, a new advance actually means some people lose out seriously. That's because commodity exchange relies on the neediness of the other guy - so each person's interests are opposed to everyone else's.

Quote:
I'm not judging them at all, I'm just saying that it was their choice.

Sure, but a lot of people get to do both.

Quote:
It seems they're ejected from the commune, but... and here's the difference, they ARE allowed access to the means of production; they can happily go off and fend for themselves. Well that's all well and good if you happen to be a farmer, but it would still leave me well and truly screwed

I'm not sure that's quite what the 'ejected' means. I'd have envisaged it more as 'you no longer get a say in our decisions, or a right to have us provide you with services', rather than physically forcing you out of a certain (although physical force would certainly be used if you became a violent nuisance).

So still having access to stuff means you can still take food if you want, but nobody's going to deliver it to you, repair your stuff when it breaks, inform you of developments, etc. I think what enforcement methods get used depends on how desperate the situaton is, and I very much doubt it will become remotely desperate, because 1) we have the resources to support plenty of 'freeloaders' if they're just taking what they need to live on, rather than seizing 80% of GDP, and 2) relatively simple threats like social disapproval can be a strong deterrent when people aren't put in deprived situations to begin with.

So since I anticipate only an inconsequential minority of such resolute shirkers, I imagine people will tend to ignore them more than hate them.

Hungry56
Offline
Joined: 24-08-08
Jun 26 2009 02:30
Quote:
That's another thing I don't understand, this whole job rotation thing. Lots of crap jobs are located in the back of beyond, or actually do require some skills! You can't just pitch up once a month, with a bunch of other people who last did the job about a month ago, who you probably haven't worked with before and monitor the hazard alarms at a nuclear plant (for instance).

He has a point here,some commies tend to overemphasise the rotation of jobs. It would be really inefficient for all boring jobs to be "one day a fortnight" jobs. Often a menial job which seems very simple has a lot of tricks to learn to do it right, so someone who has been there a year is ten times faster/better than a beginner.

A lot of currently horrible jobs could be reorganised to make them okay, there woud be more teamwork and solidarity, and there would be no boss hassling you. If someone has a boring job though they would only do it three days a week, then still have plenty of time to do all sorts of fun, fulfilling activities. I have a repetitive job assembling electrical products, there is a story about a guy at work who once shouted out "I can't stand it any more. It's so repetitive!" and then started throwing stuff around! But I would be willing to do it for years if it was only three days a week, and I could go around chatting up the girls I work with without worrying about the boss seeing me slacking off.

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 26 2009 11:19
Alderson Warm-Fork wrote:
I'm not sure that's quite what the 'ejected' means.

Whoops, I meant 'expelled', but the end result is the same :

I took it from here : http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci414

Quote:
If an individual joins a commune and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools or means of production to work alone.

That this may only happen to a very small number of people is irrelevant. Whether the presure to comply with the will of the commune is subtle and nuanced or not, the consequences of non-compliance would be well known and unless you are capable of fending for yourself you are forced to comply with the commune in order to have access to commodities you are unable to produce yourself.

I'm currently unable to see how this is any different from the necessity to work in order to survive in the system we currently have (not that I support the status quo btw).

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jun 26 2009 11:49
Quote:
But the thing is, they don't.

Of course they don't, that's not the point I was trying to make. What I was doing was pushing the ideas of free-market capitalism to their logical conclusion. Currently, the incentive to have a good time outweighs, in many young peoples' minds, the incentive to buckle down and work their tits off to be better than their work rivals.

However in the absence of a social safety net for the long-term unemployed* you are talking about millions being forced into work, and as I explain later on and you acknowledge, part of this is entails the rise of competition across all fronts, skilled and unskilled, leading to the degradation of pay and conditions for all working people.

While the indolent rich may still be able to drink their degrees away, no-one else will so you personally would find yourself in a much tougher environment, against people who will, in all likelyhood, be much, much brighter than you are.

Quote:
We also gain from having cheaper products and services from other countries.

Which presumably is why consumer debt rose to an all-time high over the last two decades despite a massive rise in the number of households where both parents are working?

The fact is certain costs in society do not reduce in the same way as wages do - housing, food, fuel, utilities - so while yes I can now get a plasma TV for less, I end up spending a vastly higher percentage of income on the basics so I still can't afford it unless I get a damn great loan. The use of loans to hide the extent of real wage loss in the wake of decades of free-marketeering has been a major factor in the creation of the credit crisis.

This is without getting into the fairly crucial bit of anti-capitalist theory which states that in a pure free market environment competition cannot remain pure. As some are more successful than others, dominant players rise and eventually, because co-operative behaviour brings powerful results for participating businesses, there is the creation of cartels resulting in effective monopolisation. I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's a bad thing in terms of efficiency, prices etc.

Quote:
Does communism require a Luddite mentality?

Absolutely not. However it does require an understanding of the integration of technology with social trends and individual needs that goes a bit beyond "fuck you you're obsolete".

---

* On this subject, the question is of starting and continuing capital. Yes people can get together into mutals etc, but a) the poorest can't pay into them, excluding them from aid in the first place and b) they can't support the long-term unemployed indefinitely. At some point without a tax-based support system for all, these people will have to get jobs.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jun 26 2009 11:53

If you are unwilling (not unable) to work in the commune, or the commune next door, or any other commune that you or any other members of any commune know about, then you are essentially a total refuser to take part in society. No one can force you to take part if you don't want to.

Offering to set someone up as an independant producer is I think incredibly generous. Society as a whole is basically saying "this person refuses to be part of society, but we, as a society, will still make social goods (land, tools, or other means of production) freely available to them so that they can survive". I don't see capitalism saying "are you a bum? What you need is a small business grant, some machinery or a smallholding, here you go mate, good luck".

We cannot force people to co-operate. Should people who don't want to be a part of society be forced to be a part of it? No. Is the fact that they will starve if they seperate themselves from everyone else our fault? No. Hunger is universal, communism doesn't invent hunger. But societies exist for a reason, and that reason is that one human being is not a viable unit of survival. We are social beings. But even so, we cannot force people's adherence to their own human nature. If someone doesn't want to be a part of communist society, that is up to them, but we can't let one person stop the rest of us.

In some ways it's a problem with decision making. Say 99 people want a commune, and 1 doesn't. The 1 person flatly refuses to join in. In the end, the 99 can either have to democratically decide that their 99 votes count for more than his 1 vote, and do what they want (which can include them starting their commune and expelling him), or consensually decide that his 1 vote (a veto, really) blocks their 99 votes, in which case the 99 have to do what the one wants.

So in your argument, should one person's refusal to take part mean that all the other people should be forced not to implement communism? Should communists (whether anarchist or Marxist) cease to be communists because some people might be able to blackmail the whole of society by intransigent laziness and social refusal?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jun 26 2009 11:59

On the subject of the necessity of work, that's a feature of all pre-roboticised societies. The difference is not in the requirement to work, but in the efficiency of said work. Under capital, we have vast sectors of society which are basically useless. PR, marketing, direct sales, banking even.

Strip away those and break the line between working for the benefit of all and working for the benefit of yourself alone, and you can vastly increase the pool of labour for useful jobs. As a result, everyone works less. You don't eliminate the need to get people to work, you eliminate the need for them to work 40 hours a week, every week, until they're too old to do so any more.

mrfoo
Offline
Joined: 23-06-09
Jun 26 2009 12:13
Hungry56 wrote:
...and there would be no boss hassling you.

One point before I forget. I've noticed in a few posts and the reading around I've done so far a certain negativity towards management, heirarchy and 'bosses' (which is fine). But it should be pointed out that this is nothing to do with capitalism but to do with organisational theory and practice.

There are capitalist companies out there with no enforced heirarchy, where workers choose leaders they wish to follow (see Gore for example). I personally beleive that this is a much more optimal structure than what I would call the command-and-control central planning structure seen in most corporatons, but this has no bearing on the debate between capitalism and socialism as far as I see it.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jun 26 2009 13:04

Well, sort of. Except that you can be your own boss while still being outranked (and eventually, outflanked and bankrupted) in practical terms by those more financially successful. Don't forget what capitalism is - in itself it's a competitive environment which requires there to be some winners, some losers.

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 26 2009 14:26
mrfoo wrote:
Thanks for the link, reading the first section it seems I've run afoul of the dictionary being wrong. I had no idea that being an anarchist required being an anti-capitalist.

Ah, the old "dictionary definition" fallacy. You cannot expect a dictionary to define a socio-economic political theory and movement which dates back to 1840 (at the least) with any degree of accuracy. If you base your politics on dictionaries then you have serious problems being taken seriously...

Interestingly, the person who invented "anarcho"-capitalism in the 1950s (Rothbard) once concluded the obvious:

“We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”

This was applicable to both the “dominant anarchists” (like Kropotkin and Bakunin) as well as individualist anarchists like Tucker, considered by Rothbard “the best of them”, as both had “socialistic elements in their doctrines.” He suggests that there were thinkers “in that Golden Age of liberalism” who had ideas “similar” to his ideology, but these, significantly, “never referred to themselves as anarchists” probably because “all the anarchist groups” (including the individualists) “possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common.”

Shame he did not stick to that position -- instead he inflicted that oxymoron "anarcho"-capitalism onto the world...

Anarchism, as a theory and movement, is based on opposition to capitalism and the state, or as Proudhon put it: “the denial of Government and of Property”

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 26 2009 14:29
mrfoo wrote:
Whether the presure to comply with the will of the commune is subtle and nuanced or not, the consequences of non-compliance would be well known and unless you are capable of fending for yourself you are forced to comply with the commune in order to have access to commodities you are unable to produce yourself.

Oh, right, you expect others to produce goods for you regardless of whether you work or not? Sounds like a capitalist all right...

mrfoo wrote:
I'm currently unable to see how this is any different from the necessity to work in order to survive in the system we currently have (not that I support the status quo btw).

If you actually read the AFAQ you reference, you will discover that the difference is that you have access to the land and tools required to work for yourself. Unlike under capitalism, where you have to sell your liberty to whoever does own them...

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 26 2009 14:33
jaocheu wrote:
In some versions of anarcho-capitalism I've heard of they accept the Lockean principle of you must mix your labour with nature to claim ownership. This means no-one can get rich off anyone else's labour, its strickly what you manually do yourself.

In reality, the Lockean principle is to ensure that the owners get right off the labour of others -- that is its WHOLE POINT! The worker sells their labour (liberty) to the property owner, who then owns it and whatever it produces. Lockean principles are capitalist principles, aiming to ensure the rich get rich from the labour of others.... While some have used Locke in more radical ways (and they are NOT "anarcho"-capitalists!), that is a misreading of Locke.

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 26 2009 14:37
slothjabber wrote:
Not all anarchists are socialists.

Actually, all anarchists are socialists (or, at the very least, anti-capitalist). Not all of them are communists, though...

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jun 26 2009 17:12

Only if socialism and communism aren't the same thing. Which I'm happy to insist they are. I won't claim the "actually" are. What would be the point?

So, if you think they are different, it might be good to point out what you think the differences are.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 26 2009 23:17

Foo, my friend, let's talk about technology. You said that often when jobs are lost it's due to "progress", but progress for whom? In the States many sectors of the economy won the 8-hour day between 1880s to the 1930s, yet now, despite the massive increase in productive technology since the 30s the average American /in work/ works more than an 8 hour day. Is this progress?

Under capitalism (anarcho-cap, "free" market, neo-liberal, or otherwise), technology is employed toward the end of profit. In a rational (libcom) economy it would be applied toward making life easier and ensuring that we all have more free time to spend on the things that really matter in life--ya know, hanging out with friends and family, recreational pursuits and the like.

For me anyway, that's how we should judge society.

Don't get me wrong I do subscribe to the theory of proletarian decadence, but producing more pointless cheap shit does not bring social or individual happiness. Capitalism tries to convince us that instead of pursuing the end of fulfilling all human need (including the need for sustainable luxury) with the minimal effort possible, we should just be happy because outsourcing electronics production allows us to purchase a bigass cheap TV.

That ain't progress (and worse yet, a program for environmental annihilation).

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 26 2009 23:16
Quote:
There are capitalist companies out there with no enforced heirarchy, where workers choose leaders they wish to follow

Would this be a workers' co-op? Even then tho, the capitalist market is inherently coercive. Take the "credit crunch" for example. Do you think that co-ops are not going to feel the pinch? They'll either have to pay themselves less, let workers go, or go under.

Mate, that's still not a non-coercive, free society. That won't occur until we establish democratic control of every aspect of the economy and that would be--you guessed it--libertarian socialism.

Tart's picture
Tart
Offline
Joined: 3-04-08
Jun 28 2009 22:35

I have grudged every hour I worked for a boss. I have walked off many sites and left at least one of my managers with a sore face and tried to do two others.
Never the less I take work as preferable to benefits.
Capitalism makes you a whore or a pimp. Not every one can choose to be a pimp so most of us are whores. When we step out of line the pimps slap us around.
We suck bosses dicks not cos we like the taste but because we need to pay our pimps.
We want a world where we can have the dignity of choice- if you are unable to grasp the basic inequality that forces me to waist my precious life cleaning up after stupid rich cunts you are probably a happy pimp.
This "free market" where is it? I don't get nothing free off it!

look
Offline
Joined: 3-06-09
Jun 29 2009 04:25
JimN wrote:
Interestingly, over a hundred years ago these issues were covered by William Morris in "How We Live and How We Might Live" and Paul Lafargue in "The Right to be Lazy":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/hwl/hwl.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/

Interesting read, ta!

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 29 2009 11:04
slothjabber wrote:
Only if socialism and communism aren't the same thing . . .
So, if you think they are different, it might be good to point out what you think the differences are.

All socialists are opposed to the exploitation of labour by capital, but not all seek to abolish money.

So, for example, Proudhon was a socialist who aimed for the abolition of wage-labour but not money (i.e., payment by deed) while Kropotkin was a socialist who aimed for both the abolition of wage-labour and of the wage-system (money, payment by deed). Both were socialists, but the former was not a communist while the latter was.

In other words, if all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists, all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists....

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jun 29 2009 11:11
ncwob wrote:
Quote:
There are capitalist companies out there with no enforced heirarchy, where workers choose leaders they wish to follow

Would this be a workers' co-op? . . .

Co-operatives are NOT capitalist companies! While they operate within the capitalist market and so are affected by it, they are not capitalist. To quote Marx:

Quote:
"Let us suppose the workers are themselves in possession of their respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one another. These commodities would not be products of capital." (Capital, vol. 3, p. 276)

Or how about Engels:

Quote:
"object of production -- to produce commodities -- does not import to the instrument the character of capital . . . [as the] production of commodities is one of the preconditions for the existence of capital . . . as long as the producer sells only what he himself produces, he is not a capitalist; he becomes so only from the moment he makes use of his instrument to exploit the wage labour of others." (Collected Works, Vol. 47, pp. 179-80)

In that, I should note, they follow Proudhon and I should also note that Bakunin agreed: "the co-operative system. . . carries within it the germ of the future economic order." (The Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 385)

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 29 2009 14:01
Quote:
Co-operatives are NOT capitalist companies! While they operate within the capitalist market and so are affected by it, they are not capitalist

whilst as a definition this may be true, it doesn't actually translate into anything in reality though, and anyway aren't both those quotes not more about just making the general point that although capital can't exist without commodities, commodities can exist (and have for thousands of years) without capital?

but regardless, doesn't it take us down a rather pointless route if we maintain that co-ops are not capitalist, as even as marx himself points out even though the antithesis between capital and labour is resolved within such organisations they still reproduce within themselves all the shortcomings of the prevailing system, so in that respect a co-op within the capitalist system shouldn't really be looked at any differently from any other company within the capitalist system - the antithesis has been resolved but the problem remains the same.

vol 3, ch 27 wrote:
The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour. They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other.

And both capitalist stock companies and co-operatives are considered as one by marx as transitional forms, both of which reproduce all the shortcomings of the systems they are supposedly transitioning from - the 'positive' material thing about them as far as marx is concerned is not that a co-op itself may happen to be individually defined as not capitalist, but that both co-ops and capitalist companies (in contrast to bakunin) would eventually, via the credit system, lead to the ultimate expropriation of the means of production from all individuals - the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself - with the means of production then ultimately resolved into becoming social property, as products of social production (even though this process happens in a contradictory way as being at first the expropriation of social property itself by individuals).

JimN's picture
JimN
Offline
Joined: 5-06-09
Jun 29 2009 20:06
Tart wrote:
I have grudged every hour I worked for a boss. I have walked off many sites and left at least one of my managers with a sore face and tried to do two others.
Never the less I take work as preferable to benefits.
Capitalism makes you a whore or a pimp. Not every one can choose to be a pimp so most of us are whores. When we step out of line the pimps slap us around.
We suck bosses dicks not cos we like the taste but because we need to pay our pimps.
We want a world where we can have the dignity of choice- if you are unable to grasp the basic inequality that forces me to waist my precious life cleaning up after stupid rich cunts you are probably a happy pimp.
This "free market" where is it? I don't get nothing free off it!

Eloquently put.

In other words:
Why the anti-capitalism focus?
Because capitalism is the problem.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jun 29 2009 21:51
Anarcho wrote:
slothjabber wrote:
Only if socialism and communism aren't the same thing . . .
So, if you think they are different, it might be good to point out what you think the differences are.

All socialists are opposed to the exploitation of labour by capital, but not all seek to abolish money.

So, for example, Proudhon was a socialist who aimed for the abolition of wage-labour but not money (i.e., payment by deed) while Kropotkin was a socialist who aimed for both the abolition of wage-labour and of the wage-system (money, payment by deed). Both were socialists, but the former was not a communist while the latter was.

In other words, if all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists, all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists....

Semantics again. Socialism (not 'the beliefs of people called socialists') is the establishment of a classless communal society. That is also communism. As that's impossible with money, people who don't want to abolish money are not socialists (no matter what they believe they're doing, they're not advocating socialism). Proudhon wasn't a socialist, because he didn't believe in the social control of the means of production. He believed, among other things, in a national bank and individual producers, and indeed in co-ops (capitalist companies). He may have been opposed to particular forms of exploitation and the state, but he wasn't actually anti-capitalist (or indeed totally anti-statist). And as capitalism and socialism are incompatable, he can't be a socialist...

Though he's still an anarchist. Mostly.

However, we're unlikely to convince each other here. We have different definitions.

JimN's picture
JimN
Offline
Joined: 5-06-09
Jul 8 2009 19:35
Quote:
Socialism (not 'the beliefs of people called socialists') is the establishment of a classless communal society. That is also communism. As that's impossible with money, people who don't want to abolish money are not socialists (no matter what they believe they're doing, they're not advocating socialism). Proudhon wasn't a socialist, because he didn't believe in the social control of the means of production. He believed, among other things, in a national bank and individual producers, and indeed in co-ops (capitalist companies). He may have been opposed to particular forms of exploitation and the state, but he wasn't actually anti-capitalist (or indeed totally anti-statist). And as capitalism and socialism are incompatable, he can't be a socialist...

I couldn't agree more. Socialism and communism are the same. A propertyless, moneyless, classless, stateless, leaderless, nationless society where production is democratically organised directly to meet human needs.