well what a fantatstic strategy you have
, actually sorry but i'm not interested in your little ideological vision, when we say organising we mean organising to improve our condition, but no doubt you think thats ''reformist'' because its not all about wanking over this 'revolution' you've got planned
And to reform your condition you must stop arming your oppressors.
Quote:
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.they've always said that have they, oh really, well thanks for informing us about what anarchists have always said
You're welcome. You could do some research and find out for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it. There are plenty of books on the subject.
Quote:
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.I'm sure thats a very useful idea to someone defending their pension, thanks so much for enlightening us
Red herring.
You believe that allowing idle Capitalists to approprtiate the product of workers is good for the retired? Who do you think are using their wealth and power to pressure Goverments to retrench pension programs?
Quote:
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.no it isn't,
It is.
yet again i have to point out that what you posted is its based on the idea of ''buying back the world form the capitalists'' whioch as we have pointed out to you is financially impossible given that the ruling class own the means fo production and the majority of the wealth in this country and in fact the entire world.
They do not own one important factor of production. Our labour. And this happens to be the source of all wealth. It is our productivity that makes them wealthy. Your Boss needs you. You don't need your Boss.
Also if you really knew that property was theft, then we wouldn't be buying back the means of production would you, because why should we pitifully try to buy back what is ours anyway.
1- Because the Robbery is not when Land and Capital is bought or sold, but rather then we allow the owners of land and capital to appropriate the product of our labour.
2- Because it is not always the ones who own it now who stoled it, why punish the last owner in the chain alone?
3- Because any method of taking requires wealth, buying it being the cheapest, easiest and least contentious.
Quote:
Quote:
, i mean honestly how do you and lazy riser have the gall to attempt to falsely quote any leftists in ''proving'' this nonsense you are talking.
Your ability to contribute baseless nonsense is clearly greater than your ability to identify it.
so now your denying that you and lazy riser were using leftists to back up your loony ideas?
No, only pointing out that you have no clue what is loony or what isn't, as is proven by your baseless arguments and inability to aply concepts.
Your credibility is not aided by your propensity to replace coherent arguments with petty insults and posturing.
Quote:
Quote:
Yet again you have not answered how exactly do we ''refuse to apply our labour'', how many times do i have to point out to you that we don't have a choice! Capitalism isn't about choice, you can't drop out of 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.
Answer the damn question, how do we 'refuse to apply our labour' in a capitalist society?
By applying it instead to towards the acquisition of, and to mutualy owned owned Property, as Landauer suggests, by contracting different relationships, by behaving differently.
Why do you pretent that founding new enterprises is impossible, when millions are founded every year, many become successfull?
Do really believe that only ones that employ the Capitalist mode of production can be successfull? That is nonsense.
When the CNT overthrew the military in barcelona they didn't have wealth, they didn't buy the means of production, they seized them.
If they didn't have wealth, how where they able to overthrow the military? The capacity for violence requires wealth to develop as any other capacity. Before they where able to oppose the military, they certainly stoped working for them.
And... there was a Civil war going on. Do you some expamples of Property being seized outside of periods of war and crisis? Or are you waiting around for dialetic materialism to bring about the end of history when we all seize our means of production after the collapse of Capitalism?
IMO, to add some meaningfull discusion into this exchange, Marx was wrong in his belief that the synthethis of Capitalist crisis and Worker's revolution was to be the Socialist Workers State. Instead, it was the Liberal State, which co-opted the Labour Union system as a means of extending Capitalist authority.
And while the possibility of using Capitalist Crisis as a means of acuiring Worker's Control seemed possible in the 19th century, the 20th century saw Anarchists losing control of the Labour movement in the "United Front" as well as losing historical attempts of occupation and military resistance in the French, Russian, and Spanish Civil wars.
While the thread of organizaing alternative means of production has always present, and indeed the focus, in the Anarchist community, violence has become a widely questioned strategy.
"Propaganda by deed" no longer means terrorism and assination, it now means applying our labour to and towards mutual property.
"General Strike" means a permenant rejection of employment by Capitalists.
"Direct Action" means promoting Worker controlled organizations, and opposing Capitalist ones.
These are the goals of Anarchism.
All left wing groups have subs or means of fundraising, just liek our class all have their means of ''getting by'' so to speak, but we know all this already and quite frankly your ideas are just patronising and insulting to most people. This venture communism idea however isn't about simply fiundraising, so don#t try to confuse the issue, it actually atempts to buy back property owned by the ruling class and the state, with imaginary money we're supposed to make, its quite frankly lunacynas redyred has already pointed out.
And this means of accumulation of wealth can be spent on Capital formation just as it can be spend on placards, posters, lapel pins, and political campaigns.
However spending it on Capital formation gives you a return on this investment, allowing workers to "form the structure of the new society in the shell of the old" as the International Workers of the World say.
That you consider my ideas "patronizing and insulting" while your entire argument is throwing around baseless, ubsubstantiated labels like "lunacy" gives everyone a good picture of your powers of comprehension.
God alone knows why you want to control a party either.
I don't. I said that it also requires the application of wealth.
I think I have made it quite clear that I see little hope in any success from participation in parties.
Quote:
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.no surely not, capitalisms difficult to get rid of, really? wow you really are like soooo intellectual to have figured that one out. ..jesus christ
And your juvenile sarcasm surrounded by an utter lack of any coherent argument tells us the exact state of your intellect.
Quote:
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.yes it is, you are using ''ethical'' or''co-operative'' capitalism to create a shareholder model which will supposedly replace joint stock and autocratic companies, which is quite insane.
I am not using any form of Capitalism, as the worker appropriates the entire produc of their labour.
Capitalism is a mode of production where the product, the output of the productive process, is owned by the prividers of Capital.
In order for a class of "Capitalists" to exist, the private ownership of Capital must exist.
I'm not sure why you refuse to know what Capitalism is.
Since we don't have enough wealth to buy a 10 metre by 10 metre space to live in let alone buy up the ruling class's property, and how you intend to buy state enterprisies is not even considered.
Our lack of wealth is a disadvantage in any form of struggle, yet we can stop giving away the one thing we do possess, our labour.
And it is our labour that is the basis of the wealth of the elite. If we enclose it from them, we subordinate their property, if we let them have it, they subordinate our labour.
Now my parents worked all their life in what most would see as moderately comfortable jobs (teachers), but they still haven't paid of the mortgage, and most of their savings have gone into pension schemes or looking after their kids,and in fact my mum hardly even has a pension now, and you have the nerve to say they and thousands liek them are just ''too thick'' to gamble on the stockmarket or their money into some risky little co-operative fund that might in a few decades time, be able to buy up a small shop or something pathetic like that.
I have said nothing of the sort, and I have not called anybody "too thick" for working, baseless dismissals are your game.
I'm not sure what you mean to suggest in bringing up your parents. Are you saying that we shouldn't try and change society, and coninue on exactly as your parent did?
As usual, you offer no point in your example.
Millions of people have started small businesses, many of them co-operatively. If this can be accomplished employing the Capitalist mode of production, so too can it be with the Venture Communist mode.
Yet more bluster and no content from you, as usual.
The only quarrel I have with your parents, is raising a belligerent slob like you.
You try selling you venture commune shit in a sunderland housing estate for example, go on, what you'll find is that people have no money to spend on this bullshit and will rightly regard you as an ideological conman.
Once again, I am discussing, not selling anything. If people refuse to understand the relationship between wealth and power and nature of Capitalist accumulation by way of approriating the products of labour, I can't force to learn. I can only lead by example, and hope that together with my comrads we can prove, by example, that another way forwards is possible.
My writing is not directed to those who don't believe that Anarchism can work, but rather to my fellow Anarchists, who have always understood that industrial organzation must be basis for any worker's struggle and the negation of Property the path to freedom.
Venture Communism is simply a model to achieve this traditional goal, and proposes some novel properties that I believe make it better suited to achieve this goald than previous attempts: The labour-based share acquisition and Rent mechanism being the main differences.
) if I haven't said hi already.
to let the light in!xxx 
Can comment on articles and discussions
well what a fantatstic strategy you have
, actually sorry but i'm not interested in your little ideological vision, when we say organising we mean organising to improve our condition, but no doubt you think thats ''reformist'' because its not all about wanking over this 'revolution' you've got planned
they've always said that have they, oh really, well thanks for informing us about what anarchists have always said
I'm sure thats a very useful idea to someone defending their pension, thanks so much for enlightening us
no it isn't, yet again i have to point out that what you posted is its based on the idea of ''buying back the world form the capitalists'' whioch as we have pointed out to you is financially impossible given that the ruling class own the means fo production and the majority of the wealth in this country and in fact the entire world. Also if you really knew that property was theft, then we wouldn't be buying back the means of production would you, because why should we pitifully try to buy back what is ours anyway.
so now your denying that you and lazy riser were using leftists to back up your loony ideas?
Answer the damn question, how do we 'refuse to apply our labour' in a capitalist society? When the CNT overthrew the military in barcelona they didn't have wealth, they didn't buy the means of production, they seized them. All left wing groups have subs or means of fundraising, just liek our class all have their means of ''getting by'' so to speak, but we know all this already and quite frankly your ideas are just patronising and insulting to most people. This venture communism idea however isn't about simply fiundraising, so don#t try to confuse the issue, it actually atempts to buy back property owned by the ruling class and the state, with imaginary money we're supposed to make, its quite frankly lunacynas redyred has already pointed out.
God alone knows why you want to control a party either.
no surely not, capitalisms difficult to get rid of, really? wow you really are like soooo intellectual to have figured that one out. ..jesus christ
yes it is, you are using ''ethical'' or''co-operative'' capitalism to create a shareholder model which will supposedly replace joint stock and autocratic companies, which is quite insane.
Since we don't have enough wealth to buy a 10 metre by 10 metre space to live in let alone buy up the ruling class's property, and how you intend to buy state enterprisies is not even considered.
Now my parents worked all their life in what most would see as moderately comfortable jobs (teachers), but they still haven't paid of the mortgage, and most of their savings have gone into pension schemes or looking after their kids,and in fact my mum hardly even has a pension now, and you have the nerve to say they and thousands liek them are just ''too thick'' to gamble on the stockmarket or their money into some risky little co-operative fund that might in a few decades time, be able to buy up a small shop or something pathetic like that.
You try selling you venture commune shit in a sunderland housing estate for example, go on, what you'll find is that people have no money to spend on this bullshit and will rightly regard you as an ideological conman.