Founding an anarcho-communist communal enterprise - ideas and suggestions.

Arbeiten

Oh come on man. Why does every thread have to turn into one about you Stan. If you want to moan about 'identity issues' why not make a new thread about it, rather than turn every thread into the Stan show. I think your post is problematic in that you have added in parameters into your general diatribe. The people who called you out were talking about Occupy Oakland, a very different beast to Laclau and Mouffe*. Goal post moving is going to get you nowhere. If you think your post there is part of a natural flow of this thread then your utter, utterly mad.

I dont know whether or not you are CRUD (I honestly don't care), but why do you keep posting here? If I went to a website and everyone accused me of being a sexist racist CRUD, I don't think I would bother after a while.

* Suggesting anyone is holding a Laclauian model of revolution is pretty slanderous in my opinion.

/
I'll stop posting here. It's been a rather negative experience from the start. Libcom may want to question why so few people post here. Have a nice time.

Because the earnings of the working man is taken (taxed) from him and given to the fat cat (subsidised). The problem is that theft is rampant and unchecked not that there is too little theft.

You don't understand capitalism if you think the disparity of wealth in the world is from taxes. Seriously, you think the reason that top five percent in America own half the wealth is from taxation? Seriously?

You also don't understand communism if you think we'll have collective ownership of things like toothbrushes and committee control of pianos.* Those are odd fucking right-wing arguments, my friend.

Of course, things for personal use would be "yours". But here's the great thing about communism: we can have a society-wide discussion about where personal use end and social ownership begins. Although personally I think the divide is pretty obvious.

Regarding the actual means of production, each workplace will be under democratic control (so the shipyards will be run democratically by the workers within them). Such workplace collectives then federate industrially and throughout the wider economy--with delegatory decision making on each level.

*That said, it makes ecological and productive sense to find ways to share luxury goods. I really don't think that communism means everyone will become entitled to their own washing machine, for example. Rather, there will be free local laundromats in each neighborhood.

Similarly with pianos, communism doesn't mean pianos for everyone. Rather, I imagine there'd be something akin to instrument libraries run by collectives of musicians where there are lots of pianos to practice on and where smaller instruments can be loaned out.

That collective may also decide, for example, that if someone has been playing a particular instrument for a year they're entitled to their own personal instrument. They'd then put in a request to the violin making collective who'd provide it, free of charge--safe in the knowledge that while they give their violins away for free, they too will be provided with everything they need to survive as well as an ecologically and socially sustainable amount of luxuries, too. That's communism.

I should also point out that my piano library thing is an idea. A strong point of anarcho-communism is that it's wary of providing blueprints of a future society. Rather it's a set of principles under which societal experiments can be tried out and readjusted as to fulfill those guiding principles.

anarchomedia

but if my gift to them and their gift to me happened at the same time that would be a market type trade transaction and we would both have to walk the plank. It is more than a little bonkers to be honest.

I said nothing of that sort. If you carefully read my post, you'll notice I gave the example of a would-be employer.

anarchomedia

You presumably don't expect me to share my toothbrush with the world, perhaps you would allow me to keep my piano provided some political commitee doesn't take a fancy to it, but what of my car, my house?

As a self-professed anarcho-communist, you should be familiar with the distinction between possession and property. BTW, the argument you give is lifted (withou you necessarily knowing) straight from the works of apologists like Bastiat who would view the process of eating lunch as production process, and call child labor a "voluntary service" provided by the children to the employer. I think you should seriously reconsider labelling yourself as an "anarchist".

anarchomedia

But your diagnosis and proposed treatment is not correct. The problem isn't private property it is that the private property is not protected enough. Why do the aristocrats have the land and not us? Because the ancestors of the aristocrats stole it from our ancestors and that wrong was never righted.

I don't know about the UK, but there are no aristocrats in my country. We do have capitalists, though. A lot of them came into existence in the early 1990s. It's them, the state, and the catholic church who own most of the land. Not that I care much about land specifically (I don't know what I'd do with it without the necessary machinery, fertilizers etc. anyway). Anyway, you seem to have a very narrow understanding of capitalism based on the history of its English form. In countries other than the UK, the process of primitive accumulation took a completely different form. But in even in the context of the UK, seeing the aristocracy as a major problem today seems cranky to say the least! It's like some steampunk time machine sent you from the 19th century when politico-econoimc apologists for capitalism used to blame all the problems on the birthmarks inherited from feudalism.

anarchomedia

Why is it that the working man has little while the fat cat has much? Because the earnings of the working man is taken (taxed) from him and given to the fat cat (subsidised). The problem is that theft is rampant and unchecked not that there is too little theft.

You see, I live in a country with a flat 19% tax (technically not anymore, it has changed on January 1, 2013). There are other countries around the world with even lower and fairer taxation and regulation, and there are historical examples of pre-welfare state capitalist economies with no taxation of labor. Do you think these are examples of economies that are "fairer" than the contemporary economies in developed European countries? Do you deny the existence of exploitation of the working class in the absence of labor taxation? If so, this makes you an apologist for capitalism, and definitely not an anarchist. Even Proudhon, whom you mentioned favorably, had a theory of exploitation of the workers by their employers. Do you really think that even if workers incomes weren't taxed, and, say, my girlfriend would earn about €1080 instead of about €560 (that's the full employer's labor costs versus the net wage she actually gets), that would make our life so much better and magically turn us into capitalists? (BTW, €1080 net is not that much, skilled auto workers can earn that.)

anarchomedia

So I could presumably continue to drive people around in my (sorry I mean of course the people's taxi) and my customers would presumably be free to give me something i desired in return but if my gift to them and their gift to me happened at the same time that would be a market type trade transaction and we would both have to walk the plank. It is more than a little bonkers to be honest.

:confused: :confused: :confused: what on earth are you talking about???

nobody's going to rush in and take it from you at gunpoint if someone fancies baking you a cake to say thanks for driving them or whatever. that's just insane...

if on the other hand you tried to create an entire social system in which people could only access the basic things they need in life through the exchange of cake, and in which people could be left to die in the cold because they didn't have enough cake to pay the heating bill, and in which a handful of people controlled the majority of the world's cake and protected it with the combined forces of the police, the army, private security and the courts...that would be something of a different matter.

This idea that the means of production should be common property also doesn't bear close inspection.

Um...you know that bit in your profile where it says you're an "anarcho-communist"? sorry to break it to you...

Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism, and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

At what point does an object become the 'means of production'? My toothbrush is means of producing clean teeth, my piano is a means of producing music, my car is a means of producing travel, my house is a means of producing shelter from the elements, every useful thing from paper clips to shipyards is a means of producing something. You presumably don't expect me to share my toothbrush with the world, perhaps you would allow me to keep my piano provided some political commitee doesn't take a fancy to it, but what of my car, my house? Okay probably I could keep those too provided I didn't use them to help someone else in return for a reward.

This largely comes down to the personal/private property distinction, one which I imagine would vary enormously according to what resources are available, what we have the ability to produce, what people need, etc. So no, you don't have to share your toothbrush with the world - but you also don't get to personally control the toothbrush factory and dictate who can or can't have one.

anarchomedia - what you'd get in return for driving a taxi is free food, free accommodation, free education, free healthcare, free clothes, free (environmentally sustainable) holidays, free toothbrushes... Why would you need money?

dp

anarchomedia

This idea that the means of production should be common property also doesn't bear close inspection. At what point does an object become the 'means of production'? My toothbrush is means of producing clean teeth, my piano is a means of producing music, my car is a means of producing travel, my house is a means of producing shelter from the elements, every useful thing from paper clips to shipyards is a means of producing something. You presumably don't expect me to share my toothbrush with the world, perhaps you would allow me to keep my piano provided some political commitee doesn't take a fancy to it, but what of my car, my house? Okay probably I could keep those too provided I didn't use them to help someone else in return for a reward.

The shipyard, well I don't own one of those but if I did own a share in one, fine I should forget about that. It is now the people's shipyard so no people can own it, even if the people that made it didn't want it but prefered to have some money for making it and the people that bought it obtained that money fair and square with no fraud or theft.

Again, I don't think you need to read anarchy to get the class struggle, but here's another reason I don't think you have actually read any:

From What is Communist Anarchism?

The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title-not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, cooperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.

“But if you can’t buy anything, then what’s the use of money?” you ask.

None whatever; money becomes useless. You can’t get anything for it. When the sources of supply, the land, factories, and products become public property, socialized, you can neither buy nor sell. As money is only a medium for such transactions, it loses its usefulness.

“But how will you exchange things?”

Exchange will be free. The coal miners, for instance, will deliver the coal they mined to the public coal yards for the use of the community. In their turn the miners will receive from the community’s warehouses the machinery, tools, and the other commodities they need. That means free exchange without the medium of money and without profit, on the basis of requirement and the supply on hand.

Okay I'm convinced by anarcho-media here, we should be taking a leaf out of his book guys. Monetary exchange is clearly the only way in which we can run communism. So, in the light of this extraordinary insight...

Let's see, we have a dozen or so people with a collective experience of thinking about and advocating anarchist-communism of several decades, giving him a personalised consultation on the nature of the ideology. Now, as we need a market system at all times otherwise it's little more than coercion, we'll need to tot up the rough amount of time that's been spent on this so he can avoid "stealing" off us.

Let's see there's 309 posts so far, say 200 of them are from libcom regulars/supportes and it's an average of about 10 minutes per post, that's about 33 hours spent patiently explaining first what the market is, then what economics is, then rowing back and explaining what communism and anarchism are when it turned out he was so utterly ignorant of the first thing about the subject that he was trying to directly contradict dictonary definitions of the terms. Normal rate for a teaching seminar is about £16 or so an hour, so...

INVOICE
Anarchomedia:
Item: 11-page consultation on the nature of communism
Cost: £528
Provider: Libcom forums

Would you like to pay that by card or cheque? I do hope you're not going to force us to do this for free?

Either that, but we will also accept a gift of free rides to forum members.

RR, that was beautiful.

anarchomedia

Chili - I am fine with a moneyless society but I don't think it is at all reasonable to expect everyone to follow that path. I am already part of a moneyless society, my marriage. Me and my wife share everything and we labour for each other without quantifying what we should get in return. But then we agreed to that. There is not problem with extending this natural kind of communism to include others but again they need to agree to it otherwise as Bakunin said it is just slavery and brutality.

Commieprincess - Of course inside a communist society there is no need for money but as I say it is unrealistic to expect everyone to sign up to this at the same time. Until everyone does the commune no matter how big it is will need to get things from outside its consenting members and their common property and in those cases the commune will need to do explicit reciprocal trade which is much easier if money is used instead of barter. Once you get over the imaginary need to abolish money and private property the world over and just start by abolishing it within your circle of consenting comrades then you can do communism now just like the folks at Twin Oaks. If this small scale communism works and works better than capitalism then more and more people will take communism seriously as an alternative to capitalism and sign up too. Eventually the whole world might join in. This is the substance of my message: communism is good but you have to grow it organically with people who actually want to do it.

Look, no one would be 'forced' into communism. I don't think anyone here would object to people going along their own way into the wilderness, to survive on their own subsistence. Communism will be work of all the people who chooses to engage in the practice of revolutionizing the global community. And it will spread as more and more people have a change in consciousness and decide to join along. Its will be a long process. In fact, I won't be surprised if the Earth and all of it's inhabitants are not fully communized. At any point during the process, people have the choice to join the revolution or remain isolated, and members of the revolution will have to respect that choice. There's no need for everything or every person to be part of the global commune. I can imagine small pockets of geographical areas throughout the world where people are practicing a variety of different forms of local, self-subsistence.

But for most of humanity, if they choose to take the direction of communism, don't be surprised if most of the means of production (mines, mills, factories, machines, office buildings, public transports, etc.) are under the democratic control of the people, operated in the interests of the whole community. Individuals like yourself can be excluded from our self-organized communities; I don't know how that will work out, but we will tolerate whatever you do. But what will not be tolerated is any attempt to disrupt and subvert the practices of libertarian communism by physically attacking inhabitants of the new self-organized communities or by trying to re-introduce reactionary capitalist methods of organizing production, distribution, and exchange.

By the sound of the last few sentences you wrote in response to Commieprincess, I would say your idea of social change is ill-informed. I think your under the assumption that all we need to do is set up a small-scale example of communism like Twin Oaks (which I am entirely clueless about), then people will pass by it, make judgement of it, and then decide to "sign-up". As if new systems can be signed up or practiced in little enclaves "isolated" from the currently-existing, wider system. I bet your one of those an-caps who believes that capitalism was signed-up for or voted in by the majority of the planet's population. What's the name of the small 'intentional community' that practiced capitalism under the old feudal system and popularized capitalism so much as to make everyone want to abandon feudalism?

anarchomedia

Taxation is only one of many different scams to take wealth from its creators, I have already covered what I call internal exploitation where the market value of group's product is unfairly distributed by some members of the group (usually management or owners but potentially the workers too through union action) act as paymasters for the rest.

anarchomedia

Taxation is only one of many different scams to take wealth from its creators, I have already covered what I call internal exploitation where the market value of group's product is unfairly distributed by some members of the group (usually management or owners but potentially the workers too through union action) act as paymasters for the rest.

Anarchomedia,

Why is it a bad thing for workers to receive a larger share of the pie they themselves created with their own hands and brains?

Are you sincerely concerned with the profit rates of the bosses?

anarchomedia

This it the basis of contract law discovered centuries ago by common law. A valid contract requires 4 components:-
1. Offer
2. Consideration - meaning the substance of the agreement such as the terms - I will give X in return for Y
3. Understanding - meaning if one of the parties is not actually aware of the terms he can't be said to be bound by them.
4. Acceptance

Don't you mean invented by common law? Or can we add a belief in natural law to all the rest of your bourgeois idiocies?

RR - that is an example of fraud. Why? Because you didn't explain the terms of the contract before we commenced the business of communism consultation.

So apparently the concept of sarcasm and parody has passed you by as well. Good grief.

This it the basis of contract law

Law? Contract law? How will you enforce your laws once you've abolished the state?

Or--wait for it--are contracts in place to protect the sanctity of private property and, consequently, need a state to enforce them?

I actually can't believe this is still happening? In any case, yeah. I support Rob's initiative. Give us money.

Also this,

quote=Webby]He'll be doing nothing and still earning money. You call that exploitation. I call it leverage.
[/quote]

LOLOLOLOL!

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEEEEEEEAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is not problem with extending this natural kind of communism to include others but again they need to agree to it otherwise as Bakunin said it is just slavery and brutality.

Man, you did not understand that quote.

Also, you and your wife don't qualify as a "society". I could be a pedantic bastard and post up definitions of what that means (maybe even finding one on that ever reputable source of urban dictionary), but I'm above that sort of thing. 8-)

In any case, when did you agree to capitalism? I don't remember ever signing a contract agreeing to a world where all economic life would be mediated through money. Do you?

Once you get over the imaginary need to abolish money and private property the world over and just start by abolishing it within your circle of consenting comrades then you can do communism now just like the folks at Twin Oaks. If this small scale communism works and works better than capitalism then more and more people will take communism seriously as an alternative to capitalism and sign up too.

And we come full circle.

From a link on the fourth post on this ridiculous thread:

Fagor is a workers’ co-operative, one of dozens that dot the valleys of Spain’s hilly northern Basque country. Most belong to the world’s biggest group of co-operatives, the Mondragón Corporation. It is Spain’s seventh-largest industrial group, with interests ranging from supermarkets and finance to white goods and car parts. It accounts for 4% of GDP in the Basque country, a region of 2m people. All this has made Mondragón a model for co-operatives from California to Queensland. How will co-ops, with their ideals of equity and democracy, cope in the recession?

Workers’ co-ops are often seen as hotbeds of radical, anti-capitalist thought. Images of hippies, earnest vegetarians or executives in blue overalls could not, however, be further from reality. “We are private companies that work in the same market as everybody else,” says Mikel Zabala, Mondragón’s human-resources chief. “We are exposed to the same conditions as our competitors.”

The history of the Co-op in the UK which started out as an explicitly working-class co-operative institution providing everything from banking, groceries, clothing and funerals is much the same.

You can't have islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism.

Why? The market. Precisely because you're still producing commodities and have to trade and compete with explicitly capitalist institutions. As the above quote rightly states, co-ops "work in the same market as everyone else".

This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that if such a development ever actually threatened capitalism, capitalists--backed by state power--would put it down by force.

capitalism is not something you can opt in or out of. It spreads like an aggressive strain of herpes. And it's even more unpleasant. For example, capitalism causes death, psychological torment, an array of physical illnesses, and the destruction of the environment. If someone was going round inflicting the herp on others, I think we'd be well within our rights to stop them. Sorry if that impacts upon their freedom to dish out herpes for some unexplained personal gain, but tell me why should the rest of us have herpes because some people aren't ready to "sign up" to a world without herpes? Why' goddamit!?

Omen, you still out there? This needs a cartoon.

Please work in post 325 somehow. Please.

Also, this:

Anarchomedia,

Why do you like herpes so much?

Can't you see that there's nothing wrong with the idea of having all of the means of life held in common by all. It doesn't require force. We put in what we can, and take out what we need. And we can do whatever we want before and after 'work' (although this is not the same as that which exists under capitalism). Everyday you'll be able to go about your life without following some routine. Your days of existence won't be structured. It can be as random as you please. Outside of the 20 hours of 'work' you might do at most per week, you can hang out with your friends most of time, drive your taxi for fun, or slump at a corner with your thumbs in your mouth. It doesn't matter. No bosses. No politicians. Nobody looking down at you. It would be a free community of free, self-determined individuals. And yes, I said 'individuals'.

I am already part of a moneyless society, my marriage.

I know I should let this go, but do you and your wife use money? Even if within your marriage you don't buy things from each other (which would just be weird in the first place), one or both of you still brings in an income. You have to take that money and buy food, clothes, accomodation, etc. If both of you were out of work, you wouldn't magically get everything you need for free.

It's actually a pretty apt analogy for our criticism of co-ops, although with co-ops we take the argument a bit further: to survive as a productive enterprise, the market will force co-ops to adapt to capitalist norms. To be successful, their radicalism will be subverted and co-opted until they present no actual threat to capitalism, just another choice in the marketplace of ethical consumption. And ethical consumption is not communism.

In any case, I think you've presented an ideology of right-wing mutualism since coming on these boards. I mean, it's obviously a massive impossible contradiction, but in a way its contradictions are more explicit in your argument than with co-op enthusiasts who attempt to have more consistent anarchist politics. So bravo for that?

anarchomedia

So imagine…

I'm not in the habit of calling troll, but I think I'm gonna at this point. Nobody could possibly be so stupid as to try a second time to "explain contract law" after actively having it explained to them that the post they're responding to is satire.

Is he like going to remove 'anarcho-communism' from the political label section of his profile, as well as Peter Kropotkin from the Favorite Thinkers section? Because its making my heart burn.

Agent of the Fifth International

Is he like going to remove 'anarcho-communism' from the political label section of his profile, as well as Peter Kropotkin from the Favorite Thinkers section? Because its making my heart burn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

Anarchomedia, ComradeAppleton, HorroHiro, et al, have all been using the same tactic to get a rise. Frankly, I enjoy these threads, because the idea that some of these guys might be genuine is pretty funny*. That said, when I see people expanding on points they've already rebutted, because the troll dressed up the rebutted point, it makes me think some users are unaware of what they're replying to. If it actually bothers people, perhaps writing, "That's already been addressed" and linking to another of these threads should be considered.

-------------------------------------
* By the by, post #29 should have been a dead giveaway of what this guy is all about and it should have completely ended the conversation. I mean, he actually wrote, "You should listen to me I have solved these contradictions, my doctrine is consistent, moral and pragmatic. Would you like to know more?"; from then on it should have been omen cartoons and laughter.

A 'concern troll'? First time I have ever heard about that one. Well, these an-caps ain't fooling anyone.

Anarchomedia

You should listen to me I have solved these contradictions, my doctrine is consistent, moral and pragmatic.

I just wonder; what 'contradictions' was he talking about?

Anarchomedia, you should seriously consider getting that herpes seen to by a professional.

Somalia = anarchy

anarchomedia

Bastardx - I mean discovered by common law. Common law is a process for discovering ineffable moral law in a quite a dialectical and scientific way. It goes something like this:
Party X claims party Y did some wrong doing. (Thesis)
Party Y claims they did not do the wrong doing, and if they did it wasn't wrong and anyway it was someone else fault. (Anti-thesis)
The Jury consider the claims and counter claims and the facts and testimony from other sources and compare it against their own sense of right and wrong, deliberate amongst themselves and come up with a verdict (Synthesis). From the jury's verdict the resident legal expert (the judge) writes up the jury's discovery as law in order to help future juries decide similar cases.

You've gotten so much wrong on this thread you could at least get my name right, it's bastarx, here it is again in capitals BASTARX.

Oh ok so common law was just waiting around somewhere in outer space for humanity to discover it, what a load of mystical bullshit.

bastarx

Oh ok so common law was just waiting around somewhere in outer space for humanity to discover it, what a load of mystical bullshit.

He's an Hegelian.

He's also an an-cap and a professional dialectician!

Agent of the Fifth International

bastarx

Oh ok so common law was just waiting around somewhere in outer space for humanity to discover it, what a load of mystical bullshit.

He's an Hegelian.

He's also an an-cap and a professional dialectician!

:lol:

Farewell, Anarchomedia of the family Driver.

commieprincess

Anarchomedia, you should seriously consider getting that herpes seen to by a professional.

I vote that commieprincess wins this thread for this and previous herp-related post. Commieprincess, just remember to add "ZING!" next time you do one like this.

I think Anarchomedia should be the winner for these bobby dazzlers:

Anarchomedia

I am not afraid to visit in my mind other people's visions

Markets is just the exchange of owned stuff...My understanding of anarcho-communism is just fine

You should listen to me I have solved these contradictions, my doctrine is consistent, moral and pragmatic. Would you like to know more?

my project will succeed

maybe I am a entrepreneur of sorts...but I am a communist too.... My understanding of anarcho-communism is just fine

Allright everyone here is crapping all over my idea but what do any of you do that is so much better? (I bet nothing at all)

Men used to honour women...Women, in turn, deprived of a husband, are...doomed to a lonely old age

"jew"

you little weasel.

You people are slipperier than a oilskin sack of greased eels

not one of you has offered any helpful advice. So much for your mutual aid...My understanding of anarcho-communism is just fine

But there are no real winners here.. only increments of losing.

That is a beautiful collection right there ^^

Webby one thing, and I'm not sure this is always clear, when we talk about our ideas

Is that for most of us (all?) we felt the ideal and had the vision of what the world could be before we started studying economic theory to deepen our understanding. the theory is just trying to interpret the world around us from the perspective of wanting this future communist society, to try to inform ourselves on how as a political minority we can have any influence on the social forces that are shaping our history.

Call it the spirit of communism if you will. The ideal that humanity has massive potential, to work together collectively, share all things in common, abolish domination war oppression coercion and poverty. That if we can build a society that reflects our values and that without alienation and poverty every person will have the opportunity go on to fulfill their potential and be the best person, the happiest most creative productive social creature that they can possibly be. And that everyone would want to give back to the society that gave them that kind of opportunity out of a feeling of solidarity and mutual aid. Not because of want for individual gain and private property, or because the alternative is being destitute.

Thing is if you want to understand why we have spent so much time studying economics and history to get to the point where we are at now, and give so much of ourselves to our cause, why people have gone to prison and died for it, even when we seem to get so little back (at least at this point) you have to try to understand our dream. Everything else comes quite naturally from that point.

For me it was actually novels that were some of the biggest influences in the formative stages of my politics. Starmaker by Olav Stapledon and Look to Windward by Ian Banks were very big influences on me. I'd recommend them to anyone

Well said and thanks for the tips. Posts like this are so much more helpful in helping me understand what motivates you guys than the ones that demonstrate the posters(possibly justified) frustration with me. Cheers.
Very much influenced by novels myself though not overtly political ones. Anthony Burgess' 1985 was a big one for me as well as A Clockwork Orange. The former very anti trades union and the latter putting the importance of the individual above all else. Both of these took up residence in my head in my teens and probably go a long way to explaining my anti left tendancies.

I've no idea why, although perhaps it was to embarrass me but holy fucking fuck, my posting in my first few weeks on Libcom is extraordinary! My persistence is pretty impressive though as Is the patience of a handful of posters who kept their cool with me. I got called a troll and an ancap which wasn't true, and a dick, which was. Anyway, within a few months I was totally sold on libcom which proves you're a bunch of evil, brainwashing, commie bastards. I could have been rich by now if it wasn't for you lot, you fucking assholes!