What Is Venture Communism?

Well, obviously not without some prodding.

Thanks for responding to the challenge.

Correct.

False.

The Rent mechanism gives all workers an equal share of the return to Land and Capital, Labour (the Enterprises) need only Rent its land and Capital, it keeps its entire product, thus the price of labor and capital is driven by its demand from labour, and any (temporary) deviation of the price of land and capital from its cost is automatically split among the workers evenly.

Capital formation is financed by Labour voluntarily diverting a portion of their income from consumption to production by the acquisition of Bonds, the Interest of these bonds would be set by dutch auction, and could even become negative if certain curreny systems are used, i.e. a Gesselian demurage system.

Surplus value does not exist as this is no longer the Capitalist mode of production, the worker appropriates the entire product of their labour.

Incorrect, the value of the Product is unchange by the mode of production, 100 pounds of tomatoes is 100 pounds of tomatos, the fact that Labour retains the entire product of their labour and does not have to pay any more that for Capital that its cost means that the return on their labour is by definition as high as it can be given the levels of productivity.

As the value of the product is unchanged, so is the capicity to apply a portion of the product to investment instead of consumption, in the case of my proposal, via the bond system. Thus the only difference between the speed of capital accumulation is based upon the propensity to invest versus the propensity to consume. I do not agree that this propensity can be considered to be higher in the Capitalist mode, rather than the Venture Communist mode.

In fact, there is every reason to consider that not only will this propensity be higher within the mesoeconomy of the communes rather than the surrounding macroeconomy, but that existing Capital will also be put to more vigerous use.

In the Capitalist mode, the Capitalist depends on privelege, monopoly and subsidy and not efficient use for his retun, the motivations for efficient use are small. Also, because of the Speculative value of Land and Capital, simply owning it is often more profitable than actually using it, is its value accrues just sitting there, like for example an empty lot in a growing city. Any additional money to actually use the lot does not produce a suffiecient return over simply allowing it to become more valuable by the economic activity of the surrounding community.

In the Venture Communist mode, land and capital only has value when it is used, it is a liability when unused, thus those who are not using it would quickly pass on possession to those who want to use it, creating far more efficient use of existing capital.

Further, the motivation to buy Bonds is much clearer when the result of those bonds is the land and capital that you and your fellow workers want to use, this would lead to much higher propensity to invest, then in the Capitalist mode, in which "investment" is so abstracted people have forgotten what "Capital" actually means, and is pretty much a luxury expenditure made by those who have already consumed as much they possibly can.

It _IMPOSSIBLE_ for a mode of production to give the worker _MORE_ than the entire product of their labour, any claim that workers owning their own land and capital would earn less is thus nonsensical.

Why is it important?

Correct, within the Venture Communist mesoeconomy inflation would merely be a correction to the price system, bring the price of the Stock of goods and labour in line with their current market value, based upon supply of currency. As Capital is mutually held it would not result on a tranfer to any private individual, but would be a diffuse effect on the personal consumptive capacity of all members in proportion.

As I do not see a huge difference between planned demurage and market driven infalation, I am not concerned about this.

Money should not be used a store of value, that is what the Bonds are for, as the Interest of the Bonds are set by dutch auction, Interest rates thus only reflect the true time value of money (abstained consumption) and not monoply interests of the central banking regime, thus, as I said, could even be effectively negative if you have demurage currency or a period of high inflation.

However, as long as productive yield is high, demand for Capital and thus return to bond holders will be sufficient.

The Commune would us its own internal currency or even perhaps currencies, the design of which I am still not settled on, I forsee a mix of LETS-type mutual credit system spontanously sprouting between members for the exchange of Products, along with a psuedo-gisselian Scrip, backed by its use-value of paying Rent on land and capital, used between Enterprises and the Commune, the use value of this Scrip would also make it attractive for other types of trade, and even make it convertable to external forms of currency.

Thanks very much for your comments.

Regards.

Which is directly embodied in the Venture Commune.

Home workers are left with the entire product of their labour, just like all other workers, my system does not have a conflict here. As land use is predominately commercial, residential land will tend to be less than per capita share, and thus would be made free by the psuedo-Georgist Rent mechanism.

Students are a form of Capital formation (so-called "Human Capital"), and should be considered one of the costs of mutual Capital formation furnished as a public good from the Rent on Land and Capital on existing Capital.

I propose that these areas are a good place to start. This is just my suggestion though, as these are all areas I am am involved with, workers with other skilled may have other ideas.

It should direct its investment towards acquiring all the Land and Capital it needs, as well as funding new venture in different sectors.

There is no reason that these can not eventually include the power grid and the power stations.

Regards.

If you are ever in Berlin, I will lend you my (very old and tatter copy) of Worker's Control: A reader on social change, which covers much of the same topics, including some excellent articles by the likes of David Ellerman, Andre Gorz and Daniel Bell's classic "The Subversion Of Collective Bargaining."

I am still mistified what you use you imagine making references to outside works and not actually applying what you consider the relevent details to this discusion. Are you trying to impress me with your erudition, or do truly believe that my reading list is currently too short?

I suggest some more tactical hyperbole, I appreciate your emphaisis on politeness and so forth, that to has its value, however if your relly want to has something out, don't be shy to do a little prodding, the feelings of comrads can be patched up AFTER the critical dialog has taken place.

Apparently some of the discusions between Emma Goldman and Petr Kropotkin where SCATHING, this only made them both intellectually stronger and in no way prevented them from also being friends and mutual admirers, there are countless other examples of this.

Shying away from strong debate does not help you nor anyone else ideas develop ideas.

And you and Catch also have to live in the same conditions, my proposal seeks to provide a plausable cource of action, as opposed to never to be relalized utoptian longins to "seiz" land and capital.

Assuming this a real question, when in fact it is likely rhetorical, I will give you a sincere answer.

As I am an IT guy, my capital is Computers and Servers, so far within my circle of freinds, who are the proto Venture Communist, we have a network that spans three cities on two continents that we have been actively using cooperatively for going on about 8 years.

This can not be called a Venture Commune yet though, as the model is still under development, however I am developing it in full solidarity with colleagues, who are fully prepered to put to practice when we are ready.

What is more, our group is hardly unique, I know of many other simular collectives with my field who have built simular resources under the same cooperative terms.

One only needs to look at the examples of the Mondragon co-ops and Building Societies to see how much is possible in a relatively short time.

Of course, these examples also help us understand the obstacles that we must design our Communes to avoid.

So? Is it meant to be an organisational forum for the Anarchist movement? If so, should it not also embody its principals?

I have my methods and my reasons, note that I have at no time complained of abuse, only poor reasoning and arguments from ignorance.

To take a cue from LR, I love you all, and deeply hope for the best for all of us and our movement.

This will not stop me from provoking the critical discussions I feel we need to have.

In anycase, enough about me, I am not the topic, Venture Communism is.

Regards.

I don't deny that may be so, however I would be more gratefull if you applied what you thought was relevent, as I have taken the time to do regarding the comments of others made here, not merely allude that something might be relevent and offer a hyperlink.

???

Goldman and Kropotkin where among the greatest contributers to the Anarchist movement, they where not "highly strung" they where passionate about Anarchism, and like most true seekers, enjoyed a vigorous debate.

In the main, shaping of public opinion is also an extension of economic power, the public believes whatever the one who applies the most wealth to manipulating them via the education system and the media wants them to believe.

I am not so much interested in convincing anyone of anything as I am interested in discussing ideas with those who are interested in them.

Further, what on earth gives you the idea that Goldman and Kropotkin where unhappy people???

And what gives you the idea that the public avoided them? They where incredibly popular public speakers who consistently packed the largest auditoriums available.

If the capital is owned by workers it is a return to labour, because it is reduced to being a subordinate input in my model, its price is driven towards its cost, which is the lowest possible sustainable price, with labour becoming the dominant input, the one which retains the entire product.

No, as the Rent is not being paid to EXTERNAL parties, the Rent mechanism is only affected by demand for Property within the commune. And again, as mentioned, any temporary deviation above cost is split up by the Rent mechanism, providing the availiable income to reinvest in supply, which would push the price back down to cost.

I agree with both the recomendation and the problem .

Note that Venture Communism treats Land and Capital in the same way, as Capital is nothing more than refined land.

However, I see an even bigger problem with Georgism: It requires the State to implement it! Why would the apparatus of property implement a model that is contrary to its interests? Where would the landless get the wealth required to cause this change?

Georgism is just as futile as any Liberalism, or the idea held by some Anarchists that Land and Capital can be seized.

It is the fallacy that the powerless can overcome the powerfull while still powerless. Perhaps we can call this the David and Goliath fallacy.

The powerless must first acquire wealth, which is power. Venture Communism is a strategy for doing that.

Silvio Gessel proposes a currency that loses value over time, thus encouraging its circulation rather than accumulation.

Incorrect, with the Rent being driven towards its _cost_, it does not take any product away from the worker, as the worker is only entitled to his own product, he must pay for its inputs, so long as those inputs are subordinate, there is no surplus value.

No, it establishes that as the goal, which is accomplished incrementaly.

True, however this is true of all strategies, seizing these things requires a sufficient capacity for violence to seize and defend the land and tools. Demanding these things from the State requires sufficent capacity for lobbying and campaining to be granted the land and tools. Wealth is required in anycase.

Buying them is by far the cheapest and easiest way, especialy if smart choices are made up front, as you do not nead to seize or be granted your own labour.

The office in London would be an example of a dumb choice. While working out of my apartment in Berlin is a far more sustainable starting point, the acquisition of our own land is the goal.

As it would in anycase, however the workers now have the entire product of their labour, however they lose it to their landlord because land can not be subordinated unless it is owned, it does not compete, it is only when they acquire their own land as well as capital that this truly becomes a venture commune, and as I mentioned, an office in London would not be the smartest place to start.

I agree. which is why these mutual credit currencies are a phenomon of the commune's members, not the currency of the commune, which is the Scrip based on the Land and Capital availaible for Rent, since this land and capital has a use value, this Scrip is thus convertable to any currency.

Of course the goal of the Venture Commune should to acquire all the land and capital it depends on, including the grocery stores and the farms.

I also mentioned that the currency system is still an area of development, I have not fixed my opinion on every detail yet, so detailed suggestions here are more than welcome.

The houseworkers do not need a wage, they keep the entire product of their labour and share it with their family, there is nobody taking anything from them, thus they are not exploited, ignoring possible domestic abuse for the moment.

I already explained that Eductaion should be considered a cost of Capital formation, and thus funded from Rent.

The Rent Mechanism also ensure that those that use less then there per capita allotment of land and Capital will be compensated for this abstenance by those that use more. As residential use of land and capital is itself smaller than commercial use. Residential users will draw a positive income by way of the Rent mechanism.

We are only taking about a mode of production here, thus those that have never applied their labour to the land and capital are not being exploited by the mode of production I am proposing.

The PURPOSE of changing the mode of production is to put wealth in the hands of those that create wealth by working, rather than those that appropriate it by way of "ownership"

The result of this will be a SOCIAL environment that is dominated by the interests of people and not capital.

I have no reason to believe that such an environment would be less humane and charitable towards those who are unable to earn a share and every reason to belive that workers, able to retain the entire product of their labour would be far more charitable.

While a social environment is a by product of the mode of production, a mode of production is not a social environment.

Ventur Communism does not design the social institutions that will develop, it only put the people in control of them.

The producers are the consumers, once Property is subordinated, the combined information inputs of consumer demand and worker's control of the productive process provides the best method to deliver what the consumers want.

It is Property and Authority that distort the information inputs and allow a productive process to ignore consumers.

The existence of non-productive forms of wealth expenditures is largely a by product of non-productive accumulation of wealth, if it were not for the fact that Capitalist maintain an Authoritarian control of workers by way of Property ownership, expenditures that do not contribute significantly the producte process would simply add expens and no value to the product.

It is the great accumulated wealth that can be applied to manipulating the massess that is approporiated from the worker by the Capitalist mode of production that makes this expenditure on manipulation possible.

Once again, thanks for your comments, I now officially retract my earlier comments about the quality of this forum. I clearly spoke too soon.

Regards.

Quite a spectacular display of stupidity and intolerance. Congrats.

Instead of taking the time to understand what is being discussed, and present your arguments, you act like a hostile moron and try to shout me down and shut me up. Aparently you are in charge of what is to be discussed, and what is to be considered in our movement!

Nothing you say has the slightest bit to do with Venture Communism, you clearly have put no though into your comments and understood nothing from this thread, if you even read any of it at all.

The entire concept is about the workers retaining the entire product of their labour, not "playing the market."

Your entire rant is so off topic and irrelevant, on wonders how anybody could post such bunk.

If you don't like the thread, feel free to ignore it.

If you have serious questions, post them, I have shown throughout this thread that I will take the time to answer them seriously and in detail.

Coming in here and taking it upon yourself to tell me what you think the group is or is not interested in just shows you to be an intolerant, censorious ass.

And an obvious idiot like you pretending you have the knowledge to criticize Proudhon is laughable. You can't even follow a thread on a discussion board and understand it, let alone understand Anarchism.

Look up the word "fallacy" in your dictionary.

Once you have bothered to formulate an actual argument, please feel free to share it.

"A penetrating criticism of the state and all possible forms of government,

and a deep insight into all economic problems, were well-known

characteristics of Proudhon's work." -- Petr Kropotkin.

Aye, and even if you are right, should I be forced to accept the tyrany of the majority and just shut up? Or is more reasoable to simply ignore this thread if it doesn't interest you?

It's not like I'm posting my unwanted ideas over and over again, ad nauseum in new threads. I posted one proposal, and the rest of my contributions have been responses.

Mainly fairly logical ones, IMO.

I hope so too, however their was no actual criticism in cantdo's post, only virtiol, unsubstantiated attacks and intollerance.

I fully agree with you here Volin. No Anarchist theorist was/is/will be perfect and beyond criticism, not even Eikhenbaum

However, this does not excuse cantdo's completely unsubstantiated dismissal of Proudhon, me, and all kinds of things of unclear relevance, indymedia, Z mag, etc, and not only dismissals but an apparent desire to banish from the movement.

As I have also attempted to do, and now present the same challange to you as I did to the Catch (which he took on and caused me to retract my words regarding the quality of this forum), will you apply these ideas to the actual points I have made in my proposal and the following discusion, or only allude to them while limiting your arguments to me as a person and support of the notion that my ideas are not welcome here?

Regards.

Thank you for admiting your intolerance to other people's ideas.

You really are pretty dim one, huh?

You want a thread to stop, so you keep posting to it long after meaningful discusion has finished. I pretty much spelled it out in my last message, I am done. If no one else posts further messages on this topic. neither will I. For now.

And, not only do you keep a thread you say "does not belong" alive, you also have nothing coherent to say.

Mama's gotta be proud of this one!

We should go on strike.

And never return.

We should focus on the original intent of Anarchist unions before the labour movement become liberalised during Georg Dimitrov's "United Front."

Anarchist labour unions always have had the goal of the worker's collectively owning their means of production.

Anarchist have always said that Liberal labour unions, and their focus on "Collective Bargaining" for wages and benefits would not empower the worker but rather become an authoritarian extension of the capitalist system.

Anarchists who participate in the Labour movement need to remember that Property is Robbery, and so-long as the worker does not own his means of production, he is being robbed.

The goal of Anarchists in the labour movement is Worker's Control. Always has been. Venture Communism is a proposal on how we might acheive that.

Your ability to contribute baseless nonsense is clearly greater than your ability to identify it.

Any revolutionary activity requires the application of accumulated wealth, it takes wealth to control a party, it takes wealth to control a union, it takes wealth to conduct a violent revolution, and, it take wealth to acquire mutual capital.

If you were looking for an easy way to win the strugle, I'm sorry to have to break it to you. There isn't one.

However, when you expend what little wealth you and your comrads have accumulated towards real worker's control, you give yourself the best return on your revolutionary investment.

Please, go ahead and continue to make an ass of yourself.

When you try to insult me, and then also prove you have no idea what you are talking about, you only double the pleasure of those of us who actually bother to learn what terms like "libertarian capitalism" mean, and why what I am proposing IS NOT ANY SORT OF CAPITALISM. I already gave you clue as to why, the answer lies in the question "What is Propery?" You should try to understand the words you use before you throw them around randomly.

As you apear to have no idea what Capitalism is, it is no surprise you have no idea how to oppose it.

But please, continue to insult me, you only give me more oportunity to Agitate, Educate, Organise.