Canterbury Anarchist / AWSM Otautahi - Public Thread

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Blackball1908's picture
Blackball1908
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 13 2014 08:59
Canterbury Anarchist / AWSM Otautahi - Public Thread

Hi all, this thread is the result of a recent meeting held in Otautahi/Christchurch and the increase in interest in anarchism and the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement in the city. The decision was made to create a public thread on Libcom.org to help with ongoing discussion about a forthcoming get-together, possible events and to help solidify the crew...as things stand we hope to come together again the weekend of Nov 1st/2nd to work out the next step in our formation. Any agreed events will be advertised through FB which is our main communication tool for now.

Let's see where this takes us...

Questions on my mind include:

Should the Canterbury Anarchist FB page be renamed to line up with the national AWSM group? (AWSM Canterbury, AWSM Otautahi or Otautahi AWSM for example)

Or

Should it simply dissolve and we all simply follow the national page instead?

I would love to think that we can encourage as many folk as possible to sign up to AWSM with the aim of getting as much discussion and input as we can around what we want out of the group and how we can get there.

A free meeting space would definitely be something to work toward.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 13 2014 22:37

I'm not comfortable dedicating myself to a doctrine which I do not understand and hence cannot agree with. Personally I will abstain from this council for the time being as I believe I can communicate my own hopes for the future independent of this foreign body. I support the formation of these forums as a means to communicate our ideas and I will support any move to publicise critical analysis of contemporary society but the statements issued by the AWSM website [1] are frustrating to say the least.

I post this now to give you feed back and to suggest that it is perhaps in your best interests to speak plainly. I will briefly critique a quote from a page describing "The world we want to see":

"Resources and property would be communally owned and controlled by everyone. Production would be geared to satisfying everyone’s needs, people would give voluntarily according to their ability, and produce would be distributed freely according to need."

This dazzling description of utopia really needs some earthing. It's garbled and seemingly facile. Am I to take it people will be geared to voluntarily satisfy everyone's needs? What do people need anyway? When you say everyone, do you seriously mean everyone? What does gearing involve exactly, apart from governing? I have so many questions but perhaps I really need a more practical, action based, description of who you are.

In your "rules" you have only an outline for a basic democratic council, for which I withhold judgement as it seems to be a temporary measure, but coupled with your vague goals makes for a questionable constitution. Maybe I would be more comfortable agreeing to a more basic agenda.

So that's pretty much my thought process thrown up onto the keyboard, I mean for the best, educate me. Alles was ist, was war, war nicht genug, wird neu erfunden.

[1] http://www.awsm.net.nz/ 14/10/14

P.S. Some ideas for issues I can see myself potentially tackling, which deserve criticism and thinking over:
> Making food available to people independent of the capitalist system (community gardens, grow pods [engineering flatmate and I working on this concept atm], commercial "waste" [keeping it in warehouses, shelves and then throwing it out when it reaches its expiry date]..)
> Shelter (squatters rights, protesting selling state houses with letters or whatever..)
> Water (ensuring it is not polluted or over used, introducing more public control, rain water / grey water capture for garden use..)
> Public social commentary (zines, letters to the editor, blogs, forums like this.. Include products to boycott, effect of contemporary government and cooperate action on people..)
> Electricity (creating a pool of money which people use to purchase solar panels and then refill with a monthly payment of the amount of their old electricity bill until paid for and then +2% or something for expansion, resulting in free power and income, or..)
> Not voting is a political act (talk about why people don't engage with our electoral politics and even when they do why they are largely apathetic towards the outcome)
> Brainstorm for more ideas! + critiques

Eviscerate
Offline
Joined: 14-10-14
Oct 14 2014 04:32

I'm not entirely sure what we would gain by adding ourselves to AWSM. That being said there is also nothing to lose, solidarity in the end is nice.
Changing the name means very little. I don't care either way.
I would however be opposed to melding ours into the national one. Regardless of what happens we will always need a page to organize just within this city.

I agree with most everything above has said. The "what we believe" is meaningless jargon. That being said considering AWSM's relatively small base and the amount of time they've been around i don't really think that says anything particularly bad about AWSM.

Anyway. Thats not even whats important. whats important is what we do now:

So, as above mentioned, we need to start providing people their primal needs (sustenance, shelter, community) outside of capitalism. Once people can sustain themselves outside capitalism, if we wish to live we will need not prostrate ourselves to fatcats and inert objects. The worth of capital will diminish and the legitimacy of that world system with it.
If we wish to create this new world, the average joe has to be convinced first that our way of living and organising works just as well as the old system. when you talk to people they are scared of food insecurity, lack of medicine, lack of scientific advancement and political instability which could lead to war. We must convince people that our system can provide security from these negatives.
Typically the left will give theories of how it should could and would happen. People can't eat theories. Theory means nothing without action.
Once we have achieved the ability to sustain ourselves outside capitalism, we have to prove that this way is better. Its all well and good to plant our own gardens and survive off dumpster diving, but if we intend for this to become a broader social movement people wont want to just survive. They will want close to the same luxuries as they had before. Of course, alot of these luxuries are how we fucked the planet in the first place. People can and will accept a lower material quality of life (less computers, takeaways, 2 dollar shop crap) in return for the benefits of actually living in a society that gives a shit about them. However, i'm not entirely sure people will flock to us if all we are offering is a life of lettuce and dough.
(yeah, technically if this was a worldwide revolution we wouldn't have to worry about that but.... it's probably more reasonable to consider what we could achieve, alone, in new zealand. Anything past that starts bordering on fantasy)
So, now that i've had my rant about shit you guys already probably understand, what is it we need to do?

Questions:
What does an average person need?
What kind of luxuries can we feasibly create in our own country?
How will we get luxuries that people depend on these days from other countries?

First we have to secure peoples primals(*'s are luxuries that can come later):
Sustenance:
-Water
- vegetables/fruit
-Bread
*spices and other luxury foods that we cannot produce in New Zealand.

Shelter:
-Land
-Housing
-Electricity

Community:
I'm not entirely sure what steps we would take to create community in NZ. so, lets have a discussion about it.

I'm just going to write down my ideas of what we could do in the future.
Politicizing/outreach/radicalization:
-Poster campaign
-Lightpost media
The media has failed to produce news. Its time we took up the mantle. I propose we start posting up individual articles that we've written on light posts near bus stops. Perhaps something specifically about what capitalism says it produces for people and how thats not true. It'd be a list because, as buzzfeed shows, humans fucking love lists.

-Obscure minimalist posters
Get 1000 posters saying vague things like "life shouldn't be this hard" "i fucking hate my boss" "The landlords just raised my rent again, i'm barely holding on" and paste them up EVERYWHERE. We have no idea what it might do but if we keep it open ended but anti-status quo, people will look at it and draw parallels with their life. The posters would literally just be text on white paper.

-Stockpiling paint
I imagine that the dump gets ALOT of paint dropped off to it these days. Perhaps we could start taking it and painting slogans on NatLab offices about how they've betrayed NZ? (or literally anything else we would do with paint.)

-An injury to one
Perhaps we could run this on facebook (though it'd get shut down pretty quick) or we could put this on our own site (AWSM?) where anyone could place their greivance relating to capitalist exploitation (this is important because we don't want it to become people throwing their petty vedentas against particular people on there) on a list with a thousand other peoples greivances. It could have an upvote system like reddit where an upvote meant "i'm fucking angry about this and i'm willing to do something about it"
When you cast that up vote, a message is sent to the person whose greivance it is that X person upvoted your greivance. Then they could coordinate what can be done between them.

Copy pasted
> Not voting is a political act (talk about why people don't engage with our electoral politics and even when they do why they are largely apathetic towards the outcome)

Food

-East Christchurch memorial garden.
We should pressure local government to turn the red zoned areas into a massive food forest running along permaculture lines (we could perhaps ask the permaculture college in takaka to help with planning (i have no idea how big the college is, i've only heard rumors). Much like we have quota for fish and mussels and whatever there could be quota yearly on the food forest (yeah, i understand we really don't want govt intervention on what should be "take as you need basis" but this is a project that can only be pushed through with CCC consent. We might need to play on their terms. Otherwise our efforts would get cut down.)
The food forest might even have a lake for wakeboarders (have a cable system to pull them.) and whatever else we could think of.
The purpose, apart from feeding cantabrians, would be to make sure houses never get built on such shitty land again. I feel that in a couple decades (if we have that long) some fucker will convince the CCC its in their economic interest to reopen it to development. Might be better we create a park instead.
-Gardens in schools.
Every school should have a garden. every child, at one point in their schooling, should have reaped a harvest from the ground so that whenever someone tells them in the future "oh you should just grow your own food" they know that they can.
-Urban harvest App
I'm no good with coding but it'd be cool if there was an app where you could pinpoint trees that were dropping fruit onto the pavement so that everyone on the app knew where to harvest free fruit.
-Dumpster diving.
I've heard of collectives in american cities that dumpster food and deliver it direct to poor households in need. If we chucked some radical literature in there too they could be fed and given the tools to take control of their own lives.
-Student food co-op
The university union could start a food co-op where, quarterly, they would get people to place orders for various base food stuffs (rice, beans, cereals, maybe veges if it got popular) and the union would buy it in bulk. Everyone would then get their share at a far lower price than at the super market. This could be done at anywhere that had a significant base of capital to start it up. Schools maybe? Hell even if there were radicals on the council we could get the council to do it (pipedream i know.)

Shelter
-Housing Co-op
My ex-girlfriend helped set up (or knows about, it was always a little vague) a housing co-op in Birmingham. A group of people pooled cash and bought a reasonable house to turn into a radical centre. Rent was then whatever was deemed necessary by the group to pay down the mortgage. When the house was paid off they planned to move onto another with the hope of taking as many houses as they could off the market.

Copy pasted from above because it's great.
> Electricity (creating a pool of money which people use to purchase solar panels and then refill with a monthly payment of the amount of their old electricity bill until paid for and then +2% or something for expansion, resulting in free power and income, or..)

-Large focus of squatters rights laws. We need them in NZ!

Misc
-Revleft parliament.
You know how the soviets (bear with me) created their political apparatus parallel to the "legitimate" government? Then as time went on they debated and came to conclusions about how things should move forward, eventually becoming more relevant than the ineffectual Duma?
yeah we should do that in NZ. Revleft parliament. I dunno what power it'd have but itd be great for all the disparate left to come together in one place.
No Labs allowed.

-Anarchist rape crisis
Honestly, i don't know what would be needed to make such a thing happen but i feel its despicable that the gov cut funding to the chch one. So.. where the govt falters, we show ourselves more relevant.

-Self-defense. fighting classes
For people to feel safe, secure in their own bodies and for us to not fear the cops we need to be organized and trained. Weekly basic self-defense classes would provide a place for us to get strong and talk about where to go with our leftist movement. Instead of despairing and having nowhere to blow off steam lets blow off steam and learn from it. If we got good at it we could start bringing in non-anarchists to our little meetings for free self-defense and radicalization!

Ok i've got a little bit more but thats all i'll write for now. give me a shout about what is good and what is not.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Oct 15 2014 08:08

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback and ideas.

The "where we stand" article is a mixture of big picture analysis and long term goals. It's not a practical guide to day-to-day organising. We need that.

Another limitation of the "where we stand" document is that it reflects more a very brief picture of where existing members sit, rather than an introduction for others. We need that too.

Our focus has been on community and work projects rather than writing a day to day organising guide or an introduction. We're always looking for others to help us build the organisation.

HappyChaos

Blackball1908's picture
Blackball1908
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 15 2014 07:54

Lots of great input, thanks to everyone who's taken the time to write so far...I reckon HappyChaos is on to it when they say that AWSM is more than the 'where we stand' doc...would be good to hear from others smile

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 15 2014 21:48

& I'd be much happier signing my name to that! I'm all for supporting things like the ANZ strike and community projects. Just letting you know I don't "...strongly agree with our principles and constitution..." as a requirement of your site.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 16 2014 05:12
Quote:
This dazzling description of utopia really needs some earthing. It's garbled and seemingly facile. Am I to take it people will be geared to voluntarily satisfy everyone's needs? What do people need anyway? When you say everyone, do you seriously mean everyone? What does gearing involve exactly, apart from governing? I have so many questions but perhaps I really need a more practical, action based, description of who you are.

We are anarchist communists and so we stand by that old slogan of the revolutionary movement 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.' If you consider that garbled and facile then so much the worse for you... to me the meaning of that statement is perfectly clear; it implies the total abolition of capitalist and any other property relations and with them the institution of wage labour. It is the only way we can reorganise society so that it is possible to truly seize control of our lives. We do not currently hold a 'practical' or 'action based' description of this principal because we believe that it will be the job of the dispossessed class to implement such a program during a moment of revolutionary rupture.

I believe that in a communist world people will be quite capable of consciously understanding what their needs are and cooperating with the peers to collectively satisfy those needs. Its the capitalists who believe that we are too stupid to consciously direct society in a way which benefits everyone, this is one of their justifications for the mechanism of the market. Its a shame self-declared anarchists have also absorbed this dogma.

Hi Eviscerate, your list of tasks is quite ambitious! I have a couple of comments to make.

Firstly I think it would be an extremely bad idea for anarchists to try and set up an alternative to rape crises. Our own small group, and even the entire community of self-identified radicals and anarchists in this country, simply doesn't have the necessary ability or resources to set up that kind of institution. Attempting to do so would be irresponsible and probably quite disastrous. If the cause of supporting rape victims is important to you then I think it is a better idea in general to participate in defending the established state funded institutions, imperfect as they are, rather than try and establish our own counter institutions.

On the RevLeft parliamant, again I think this is extremely ambitious and doomed to fail since it ignores our actually existing level of organisation, resources and abilities (in fact I would extend this critique to most of your suggestions). Something like a 'Workers' Council' is an institution which is only worth establishing during a moment of revolutionary counter-power. The Russian workers and radicals understood this which is why they did not bother trying to establish those institutions outside of the revolutionary explosions of 1905 and 1917. It also runs the risk of playing a quite negative role in a future class struggle movement since it is based on fetishizing a 100 year old organisational form. I believe that, and I think the other members of AWSM would agree with me, it will be up to the dispossessed class of this country (and the world) to develop an organisational form appropriate to modern conditions and that this cannot be done outside of a moment of revolutionary rupture. Anarchists and others can participate in the search for new forms, but in an honest and open minded way, without demanding workers and others adopt structures which have no relevance to their current situation.

A lot of your other suggestions seemed to be different variations of co-ops. I have nothing against people participating in such ventures if they can see some benefit in it for themselves or their friends and family but as a political project it is quite flawed as co-ops are still ultimately just alternative capitalist markets. For the bulk of society there is no possibility of escaping the poverty and misery of capitalism without totally overthrowing the basic economic relations of society through class struggle.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 16 2014 12:58

The Bourse du Travail and their modern decedents are, in my opinion, good systems for designating labor outside of a capitalist system. I would be keen to hear your critique of their mechanism. I am also anti-capitalist, I just wouldn't like to live under a council such as this which it seems willing to enforce rules it can't elucidate to its membership or potential membership. Leaving this kind of practical issue for some "rapture" does not fill me with confidence and I think that if you can't form an organisation robust enough to handle the capitalist system it will remain vulnerable during this rapture and, as we have seen before, be destroyed by the system without.

I do not think we are too stupid to direct ourselves but I think that assuming that we know what everyone else needs as well is going to be counter productive and a fundamentally difficult to realise (see the bible, valiantly authoritarian effort but like the rest of them ultimately failed to be truly benevolent due to radical flaws). It would be better to organise a free system of communication, association and cooperation within a society with a strong spirit of solidarity (which I think you hint at). There is also no reason to limit these struggles to classes, nations or any other arbitrary boundary.

Why I wanted a practical/action based explanation is because I don't know what type of organisation is going to arise (I don't expect you too either), but the assumption that it will appear it a time of turmoil is ungrounded. This utopian prose sweeps aside a genuine issue. A time of revolt, when many special interests will be attempting to establish power systems, leaves the revolution at risk of instigating recurrence of the same type of oppressive structure. A pattern I can recognise in every revolution I have studied. James Conolly's struggle is a prime example, so is what is occurring with the autonomous Kurds, Greece after world war two, Spain before hand, Ukraine, and the list goes on (which I am mostly ignorant of). Preorganisation allows catalysis, we need catalysis because things will be changing very quickly during the transition state and we call ourselves Anarchists because we favour a very particular type of social structure: ie. an anti-authoritarian one. Saying my desire for direction (through ensuring our change occurs faster, allowing for the determination of the stable revolutionary product) is all the worse for me seems counterproductive and I want to be productive!

I opposed agreeing to join AWSM with it's current requirements for membership because I could not understand the writings I would have to have to "strongly agree" with. If it is claiming that resources should actually be controlled by everyone (or indeed that this is possible), that conflicting special interests do not exist, then we have a genuine disagreement. However, if it is claiming that we are capable of working together in solidarity, then we do not. Clarification is needed, I'm not ballooning with hope, but I don't regard this as an insurmountable obstacle for our cooperation. Why have such writing at all?

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 16 2014 19:58

First off at no point did I use the word 'rapture', I refer to a revolutionary rupture a very important distinction!

I am not well educated on the Bourse du Travail institution however from a quick glance it appears to be an institution which, like the CGT, has been well and truly integrated into French capitalism. In general I believe the specific organisational forms will have to be experimented with and developed by those who are confronted with the immediate necessity of building a new society. Pontificating over mechanisms and institutions is a useless exercise. However on questions of organisation and revolutionary consciousness I would generally agree with the Nihilist Communist tendency.

I believe that most 'special interest groups' I.e. Hierarchical and separated social relationships develop out of capitalism and the general war of all against all which is fostered b the capitalists as a political tactic. It's hard to envisage a genuine human community right now because our current existence is so incredibly depressing and meaningless. This does not mean that there will be no special interest groups in a communist society however the rigid separation of e world into distinct genders, sexualities, ethnicities - separated and hierarchically ordered identities - will without a doubt begin to break down as the lose their previous social function.

What exactly is it about our program that you have trouble understanding? Ours is a fairly bog standard anarchist communist perspective, perhaps so browsing around this site will help clarify things for you.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 17 2014 10:17

"First off at no point did I use the word 'rapture', I refer to a revolutionary rupture a very important distinction!" Sorry! I really am, that was just my lack of comprehension (only excuse is that it was 0200). In my writing you can replace "rapture" with "time of turmoil".

The Bourse du Travail have indeed been well and truly incorporated into the capitalist system. I agree. As have people, food, water, shelter and many other things vital for a revolution.

"Pontificating over mechanisms and institutions is a useless exercise." I am not asserting myself as an authority over others, only myself, I am telling you I can't accept your dogma. Nothing is ideal for everyone, we are diverse. It seems it's not worth trying to organise any mechanism for free cooperation here as it is not in our mutual interests.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Oct 17 2014 21:02

Hi Oleksandr,

I think language is probably a barrier here.

I'm interested in understanding your point of view more. Could you point me towards anything you've written or articles that summarise/relate to how you see things?

Personally I'm very supportive of the Bourse du Travail as originally conceived. I also agree with the point you made. Bourse du Travail are a version of a functioning local that is engaged in its community and helps organise smaller workplaces that are better organised in a region than through an industry.

HappyChaos

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 18 2014 00:16
Quote:
The Bourse du Travail have indeed been well and truly incorporated into the capitalist system. I agree. As have people, food, water, shelter and many other things vital for a revolution

Yes but the Bourse du Travail is not a piece of bread or a brick or a cup of water it is an institution I.e. A social relationship. It has no purpose, no use value, outside of a particular social context. The fact that you compare a social institution to things which clearly have a use value irrespective of the social context is very revealing. It demonstrates a clear example of fetishism; treating a relation between people as a relation between things.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 27 2014 22:08

I'll do a write up soon, I'm sure I'll find the time when I remember the alternative is study..

Here's a start:

Realising the absurdity of trying to assign objective purpose (and hence derive objective ethical principles), as purpose is entirely subjective, I reject ethical authority[1]. My call for anarchy is a call for revolt against those systems of oppression which leave many frustrated or despondent.

I have been humiliated by my forebears, brought up with the proceeds of colonial subjugation. The unity of today’s society with those guilty is exemplified both by the recognition of the New Zealand state as a legitimate power structure and the state’s cohesion with the “American” hegemony[2] and modern colonial efforts. Beyond this the wholesale suppression of the individual infuriates me and modern capitalist system appears to be the major facilitator of the affair[3]. The frustration of my anger and the shame caused by the unrepresentative social structure only serves to produce a temporal introversion, I reject atomistic individualism, I propose reorganisation.

Consensus affinity groups based on specific work seem to be a strong foundation for social organisation and are relatively free of groupthink and its associated faults[4]. More sophisticated (cooperative) emergent systems could evolve due to the requirement for cooperative specialisation.

References, only to serve to provide some understanding of my perspective, not that it is shared with the respective authors:

[1] Camus, Albert: The Myth of Sisyphus, The Rebel. summerised reasonably well here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/
[2] Chomsky, Noam: Hegemony or Survival. It’s probably online somewhere but here’s a cool “debate” with Chomsky: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20031126.htm
[3] Marcuse, Herbert: Repressive Tolerance (1965) & http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odmcontents.html (I have this in paper if people want to borrow it)
[4] http://personal.lse.ac.uk/list/PDF-files/PublicReason.pdf

P.S. Bootsy: Within the paper Repressive Tolerance the heart of my argument, for accepting a social relationship or institution as being important for progress, is elucidated more eloquently than I can manage. But perhaps it does not address your issue? I don't think I fully understand the term fetishism, could you provide an interchangeable phrase?

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 27 2014 20:02

Fetishism in the marxist sense is where a relationship between people takes on the appearance of a relationship between things. So commodity fetishism for example is where the commodity gets treated as a real thing, economists make forcasts about commodity prices as if they're talking about a weather system, when in fact a commodity is a social relationship it is not a concrete thing.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 27 2014 23:28

So I assume by "thing" you are meaning "an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being". I don't really believe in the immaterial first up. Also you can't just draw a line in the sand and say that humans and maybe chimps and dolphins are sentient and say the rest are objects, I'm sure everything down to the almost cellular proto-life and beyond is sentient and I don't think we should restrict this respect only to the living. I don't care if someone is incapable of reproducing or growing, they're still deserving of respect. It's just that a rock (or concrete) doesn't really think much of itself as opposed to the life forms which released the oxygen to create it (facilitating much of the fractional differentiation of the oceanic crust into continental crust). I think commodities are real things? They seem pretty real. Or do you mean it in the sense that they are artifacts? I don't really see why that's important.

I would argue that just because people, water, ideas, friendship, and membership to AWSM are valued within capitalist society doesn't mean that they are valueless outside of the modern system. Value within capitalism is not mutually exclusive with value in anarchy.

Just clarifying my near-hippy speech about valuing rocks(eh?): I am not a pacifist, if I am physically constrained I will seek to break free and if I see people physically threatened then I will try to protect them. Currently violent action seems ridiculous due to the counter productive reaction. Actions like the Zapatista defensive action as they retreated from their homes seems justified however, tearing down the US surveillance domes was commendable, and if a cop broke into my home in Ferguson I may feel compelled (I don't know, I don't live there) to protect my children (especially if I happened to be black).

I still think I'm not understanding you, simply because I seem to be defending your Marxist fetishism and that sounds like a bad thing. Haha. Are you a Cantabrian? I don't think this discussion is really getting anywhere and maybe it would be more productive in person where relevant clarification can come a lot faster.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 28 2014 02:27

Right now I'm living in Auckland but we do have some members down your way who you might like to get in touch with. If you pm me your email I will pass it along.

What I mean by commodities not being a real thing is that they are actually a relationship between us. So say you sell me a rock and then I buy it that rock is a real thing and existence as a commodity is 'real' in the sense that I am obliged to respect it and pay money for it. Say I use that rock to hammer a post into the ground and also lets say that someone used that same rock to hammer a post into the ground before colonisation occurred i.e. before the notion of a commodity even existed here. Its use value or its purpose remains the same what is different is not a relationship between me and the rock it is a relationship between the two of us.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 28 2014 04:30

I was at the meeting we had, so I don't need help with the local networking, but thanks. I was just unsure if I'd met you due to the nicknames we're using.

I think the rock is only useful like that as long as we use nails then? Hahha, I get what you mean though. I don't think anything has objective value, so we've got a disagreement I guess.

That doesn't really explain what started all of this banter off though, arguing about the French labour exchange and communism. I don't think that I'd be comfortable in a communist society although there is much that is commendable about them and I have heard of successful communist communities in the US of A. There is much to be proud of in their accomplishments.. However I have some objections.

"'From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." My objection is that there is a requirement for those with an ability to consent to fulfill the needs of others. This requirement is not universally met and I am not of the opinion that it would be in a time of turmoil. Both ability and needs are subjective so if you are anti-authoritarian then communities following this principle would have to consist of a single affinity group. But the statement does not mention this and that combined with your belief that some things have objective value worries me and I think that this could lead to people being pressured into fulfilling some false objective need with some false objective ability. False because it has been decided upon by someone/something other than themselves. As long as this moral of those able giving to the needy is not pressed upon others I have no problem with what you're saying though, and it really depends on what you consider to be peoples needs as to whether I would cooperate.

Oleksandr Ihorangi's picture
Oleksandr Ihorangi
Offline
Joined: 13-10-14
Oct 31 2014 04:07

I gotta say again guys, keep it to the practical stuff, we don't need this kind of discussion or statement. Think now, that's where the biggest problems are, where we have common goals. I'm really grateful for the news of strikes and activism your society helps facilitate and I'd love to help out where appropriate.

Preachers gotta preach:
http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/practice-first-then-...