A. salaries for all workers!
B. workers shop committees determine how much revenue will go towards their pay, and how much will go back into capital investments
C. abolition of money
(what happened to the poll option?)
Feb 4 2008 17:23
Feb 4 2008 20:05
Other: Nothing.
Feb 4 2008 22:38
C. as a consequence
Feb 4 2008 22:47
Regardless of what it means, it does not say enough.
What it must imply is the abolition of all forms of currency in specific and 'exchange' in general, and the creation of a society wherein production is undertaken for use and not for profit.
Feb 5 2008 09:30
Quote:
production is undertaken for use and not for profit
The opposite of profit is loss, not use.
Feb 5 2008 11:08
I agree with Severin - it can only happen through the abolition of commodity production.
Feb 5 2008 11:23
None of the above. So D.
Feb 5 2008 15:50
guydebordisdead wrote:
Communard wrote:
C. as a consequence
ehm.... what? 
Feb 5 2008 22:18
C as well as the abolition of exchange.
Feb 6 2008 00:54
i can't speak english very well... so i talk in "short and rude" sentences
no property of means of production -> no wage labor -> no money -> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Feb 6 2008 16:28
i am the only socialist (not pure communist) libertarian on this board?
Feb 6 2008 17:09
I see nothing about the voluntary extinction of the human race in the tenets of 'socialism', 'libertarian' or otherwise.
And I don't believe a distinction should be made....um libertarian socialism= libertarian communism
Feb 6 2008 18:14
Quote:
i am the only socialist (not pure communist) libertarian on this board?
Definitely. Though you’re all the Left-of-Capital from the perspective of the working class themselves. Ha ha. Exchange as degenerate? A sentiment as bourgeois as its Benthamite negation.
Feb 8 2008 16:38
Quote:
i am the only socialist (not pure communist) libertarian on this board?
No...but they tend to ignore us...serious discussions about exchange value tend to break down into circle-jerks surrounding the views of obscure Dutch communist sects.
Quote:
Ha ha. Exchange as degenerate? A sentiment as bourgeois as its Benthamite negation.
I agree, actually. That's ok, the vast majority of working people...having learned from hundreds of years of economic development...are much warmer toward exchange than their agrarian forebears.
Feb 8 2008 23:34
Quote:
And I don't believe a distinction should be made....um libertarian socialism= libertarian communism
w/out the distinction you deny us a home and our very existence. proudhon was not a communist, nor was he a pure capitalist. The middle ground is socialism.
Feb 8 2008 23:39
There can be no middle ground. And Proudhon was a douchebag.
Such irrationality, and such a treacherous stance against the interests of the working class, should come as little surprise, however, from someone who both advocates the extinction of the human race- and who supports the IWW as well.
Fuck you and your 'capital investments'.
Feb 9 2008 00:20
Proudhon, Marx and the middle ground? No thanks. There are plenty of intellectuals amongst the contemporary working class, ignored by politico-cliques as they focus on exhuming failed ghost-philosophies. The task of the revolutionary is not to interpret the Pantheon’s ramblings, but to turn working class thought into working class action, into real events. The punters’ perspectives are nether informed by the values of these “great” thinkers or through corruption by the elite, but by their ongoing secret experience of life.
Feb 12 2008 16:41
Quote:
Fuck you and your 'capital investments'.
fw severin, don't you think heated talk of whether to abolish money (with force?) should be one for when the class struggle is over and the workers have seized the offices and factories?
as for vhemt, v is for voluntary- a core principle of anarchy. i question whether we can ever live in harmony w/ the earth again, so i applaud all the 1st world hedonists who spend their disposable income on WoW, drugs, pets, especially electronic ones instead of reproducing. they are doing their part to end capitalism, money, patriarchy, racism and civilization.
also i applaud the syndicalists who are "race traitors" because they know starting a family would just shorten the chain around their necks that the bosses have on them.
have a nice day,
wh
Feb 12 2008 17:30
woundedhobo wrote:
Quote:
Fuck you and your 'capital investments'.fw severin, don't you think heated talk of whether to abolish money (with force?) should be one for when the class struggle is over and the workers have seized the offices and factories?
as for vhemt, v is for voluntary- a core principle of anarchy. i question whether we can ever live in harmony w/ the earth again, so i applaud all the 1st world hedonists who spend their disposable income on WoW, drugs, pets, especially electronic ones instead of reproducing. they are doing their part to end capitalism, money, patriarchy, racism and civilization.
also i applaud the syndicalists who are "race traitors" because they know starting a family would just shorten the chain around their necks that the bosses have on them.
have a nice day,
wh
I said nothing about force.
You question our capacity to live in harmony with the earth..I have no doubt of it.
As for the rest...absurdity I cannot begin to address.
And I am not your 'FW', dont insult me.
Feb 12 2008 20:04
Quote:
i applaud all the 1st world hedonists
Ha ha. That's why we do it! However I assure you, despite what you say, we have no part to play. There is no historic struggle.
Feb 13 2008 02:44
C. Probably an evolution from A to B and then to C.
Feb 13 2008 23:23
I always thought it had more to do with worker self-management. Most importantly removing the division between managers and managed, order givers and order takers.
Feb 14 2008 03:30
C. abolition of money. Probably, as said earlier, as a consequence.
Feb 19 2008 01:31
sam sanchez wrote:
I always thought it had more to do with worker self-management. Most importantly removing the division between managers and managed, order givers and order takers.
Yes, that is what Proudhon hoped for. Kropotkin wanted total Communism. There are as many forms of anarchist economics as there are anarchists.
Feb 19 2008 21:40
In the actual practice of Anarcho-syndicalism and Revolutionary Unionism, at least in the USA (think IWW in particular) but also to a significant extent the rest of the world, abolition of the 'wage system' or of capitalism is taken to mean that the workers in a particular factory, enterprise, or industry collectively administer and distribute the product and revenue that is produced...both in terms of internal distribution of income and the exchange of goods.
Or to put it simply (and I've seen this quote numerous times coming directly from the mouths of workers involved in these struggles): 'the workers own the factory they work in'. Everything else seems to work itself out through people being generally well-meaning and considerate of the needs of others. The abolition of 'exchange' doesn't really have a place in this understanding and the abolition of money would be in terms of abolishing state-mandated forms of currency.
Feb 20 2008 21:11
ok but is that what it actually means or is that a popular misunderstanding?
Feb 20 2008 22:08
If it's that popular, then it means whatever we "misunderstand" it to mean.
Feb 25 2008 16:05
Antieverything wrote:
the abolition of money would be in terms of abolishing state-mandated forms of currency.
How can you have any kind of currency without a state mandate? What's to stop me and the rest of my print workers' syndicate from printing off a load of money and buying all the other syndicates out?
Feb 25 2008 16:17
Why would the other syndicates accept your funny money if it wasn't based on any enforcable promise of reciprocity in the future? In order to have value it would need to be based on past labor or the promise of future labor!
There are all sorts of examples of non-statist forms of money--research LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) and community based currency.
http://www.gdrc.org/icm/lets-faq.html
Quote:
Q.1 What is a LETSystem?A LETSystem is a locally initiated, democratically organised, not-for-profit community enterprise which provides a community information service and records transactions of members exchanging goods and services by using the currency of locally created LETS Credits. The LETS Credit currency does not involve coins, paper money or tokens of any kind but rather acts as a scoring system, keeping track of the value of individual members' transactions within the system. It is simply a community information system attached to its own market-place. Different LETSystems call their LETS Credits by different names, adding a "local flavour".
...
Q.3 Why start a LETSystem?
When ordinary money is in short supply, needed community projects are put on indefinite hold, local businesses fail, people become unemployed, and individuals and families suffer, not because they have nothing to offer, or because they lack skills and abilities, but simply because there is not enough money to go around.
LETSystems helps develop and free local markets by operating like a community bank, in which members open an account. Unlike a bank, however, it gives unlimited interest-free credit, generated at the point of sale, to facilitate trading with other members. In this way, LETS acts like a supplementary currency, creating an additional system of value in a community. By supplementing conventional cash flow with a local currency, a community can maintain full employment, and protect itself from changes and fluctuations in the money supply.
Feb 25 2008 17:03
Antieverything wrote:
Why would the other syndicates accept your funny money if it wasn't based on any enforcable promise of reciprocity in the future? In order to have value it would need to be based on past labor or the promise of future labor!
How would you tell the difference?
Can comment on articles and discussions
B.
i prefer B., but am not opposed to federations of communes in certain regions instituting an internal gift economy and/or non-monetary trades between communes.