If this is the same text previously published under the title 'Anarchist Economics: An alternative for a world in crisis.' by the ISEL/La Presa then there was a reasonably good critical review of it's 'capitalist self-management' theme in the old Subversion journal No 12.
Perhaps Steven could be pursuaded to add this to the Subversion articles in the library in the interests of a bit of contraversy!!
It would also help to link up with the still current 'I'd like a moneless system but...' thread and some others debating 'communism ' versus 'mutualism'.
The Guillen pamphlet used to be widely distributed by UK anarcho-syndicalists in the UK and the principles on which it is based are still supported by some, so the Subversion critique of it (available on this site) is certainly still valid. An improved attempt at describing the possibilities of how production and distribution might be organised on libertarian communist lines in the modern world but still from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective has been made by some SolFed members here:
www.solfed.org.uk/solfed/the-economics-of-freedom and is worthy of a critical read.
I think mostly it is because Anarcho-syndicalism as a movement seems to have had taken on aspects of both a collectivist and libertarian communist economic program. I'm going to have to reread the SolFed piece.
I sympathize with Subversion's critique but isn't the collectivist "each according to their contribution" formula what Marx described as "a stowaway from capitalism that will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."
It seems this framework that the collectivist anarcho-syndicalists engaged in was basically similar to what Marx thought of as the lower stage of communism.
klas,
Different historical periods of course - I suppose there are some comparisons but then Marx wasn't a 'federalist' as the anarchists traditionally argue.
Comments
If this is the same text
If this is the same text previously published under the title 'Anarchist Economics: An alternative for a world in crisis.' by the ISEL/La Presa then there was a reasonably good critical review of it's 'capitalist self-management' theme in the old Subversion journal No 12.
Perhaps Steven could be pursuaded to add this to the Subversion articles in the library in the interests of a bit of contraversy!!
It would also help to link up with the still current 'I'd like a moneless system but...' thread and some others debating 'communism ' versus 'mutualism'.
The Guillen pamphlet used to
The Guillen pamphlet used to be widely distributed by UK anarcho-syndicalists in the UK and the principles on which it is based are still supported by some, so the Subversion critique of it (available on this site) is certainly still valid. An improved attempt at describing the possibilities of how production and distribution might be organised on libertarian communist lines in the modern world but still from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective has been made by some SolFed members here:
www.solfed.org.uk/solfed/the-economics-of-freedom and is worthy of a critical read.
I think mostly it is because
I think mostly it is because Anarcho-syndicalism as a movement seems to have had taken on aspects of both a collectivist and libertarian communist economic program. I'm going to have to reread the SolFed piece.
There is also this by
There is also this by him:
https://zabalazabooks.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/principles_of_libertarian_economy_guillen.pdf
I sympathize with
I sympathize with Subversion's critique but isn't the collectivist "each according to their contribution" formula what Marx described as "a stowaway from capitalism that will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance."
It seems this framework that the collectivist anarcho-syndicalists engaged in was basically similar to what Marx thought of as the lower stage of communism.
klas, Different historical
klas,
Different historical periods of course - I suppose there are some comparisons but then Marx wasn't a 'federalist' as the anarchists traditionally argue.
Or maybe the early stage of
Or maybe the early stage of communism as according to Marx most might consider collectivist today?