Submitted by FS98 on June 22, 2016

In an anarcho-collectivist anarcho-syndicalist society how are businesses started up and grown? Also, how is it decided how much each person will be paid. As I understand it, labor vouchers cannot be used to purchase means of production, and are not circulated. If this is so, businesses will not make money to pay their workers, and new businesses will never be started. I've seen a number of anarcho-syndicalists that are also anarcho-collectivists, but I'm not quite sure how these two ideologies are compatible.

Khawaga

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

There are no businesses in a communist society. And if there are wages, it's still capitalism.

FS98

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

I'm not talking about a communist society, I'm talking about an anarcho-collectivist one. I think wages can exist in a socialist economy as long as they are decided in a given company by the workers themselves and workers aren't being exploited by an employer taking a share of their profit without consent.

Khawaga

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

What you are describing is capitalism.

Gulai Polye

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

In an anarcho-collectivist anarcho-syndicalist society how are businesses started up and grown?

Well the thing is socialism doesnt have to worry about this because capitalism has done this work for us already. All we have to do is just take over the means of production. Which, after the state has been smashed will be a no brainer

If this is so, businesses will not make money to pay their workers, and new businesses will never be started.

Why would you start new business? Are you not happy with what already exist?

Of course there is still expenses associated with maintaining the means of production. So lets say in a factory with 4 workers in combination producing goods worth 400 units of economic value (EV). Then lets say 50 EV are needed to maintain the means of production. Well. Then all the workers needs to do is pool together 50 EV of their 400 EV income and put it back into the factory.

drakeberkman

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

"Anarcho-collectivist" sounds an awful lot like something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

FS98

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

drakeberkman

"Anarcho-collectivist" sounds an awful lot like something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

Everytime you say something on this website someone accuses you of being a capitalist. Anarcho-collectivism is a well known anarchist school of thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

radicalgraffiti

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

FS98

drakeberkman

"Anarcho-collectivist" sounds an awful lot like something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

Everytime you say something on this website someone accuses you of being a capitalist. Anarcho-collectivism is a well known anarchist school of thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

maybe you should stop promoting capitalism then.

collectivism was a tendency within anarchism but its completely archaic now.

Chilli Sauce

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Man, libcom has just been weird lately.

So, for new posters, it's totally cool to have questions, but this is a libertarian communist site, so don't be surprised when non-communist ideas are rejected. On top of that, there have only really been three organized anarchist tendencies in the past hundred years: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and platformism (who consider themselves anarcho-communists anyway).

The other competing ideas - collectivism, individualism, mutualism - they've been rejected as failing theoretically and practically lacking the ability to overcome capitalist social relations. And for good reason.

Anyway, without trying to be a dick, the idea of "businesses" within socialism or anarchism, it totally misses the idea of the collective and democratic control of the means of production.

Noah Fence

5 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

What Chilli said.

FS98 - I've read all of your posts and they pretty much all have their roots in capitalism. Is it so hard to make the leap from the assumption that people are set on controlling commodities and extracting what they can from them rather than freely giving and receiving. In fact, I hardly see it as giving even, I mean, in communism we all win - we play our small part and have the reward of a free life and provision of all our needs. Just think about that - isn't that both a sensible and beautiful idea?

Anarcho

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Khawaga

There are no businesses in a communist society. And if there are wages, it's still capitalism.

Oh, come on. You know what was meant -- how do new workplaces get formed in a free society...

As for "wages", you mean payment according to work done rather than distribution according to need? Many anarchists have accepted that -- not least Proudhon, Bakunin and others. The notion that this is "capitalism" is just a joke -- next thing you will be saying an artisan is a "capitalist" or stone-age tribes bartering products is "capitalism" or a slave-economy is "capitalist".

If workers sell/exchange the product of their labour to other workers then it is not capitalism -- as that needs workers to sell the labour itself to an owner. That does not mean it is the best system (I agree with Kropotkin) it is just to be clear that it is a form of socialism.

I should also note here that Proudhon did not advocate "labour-notes" -- that is an invention by Marx (indeed, the only one of the two to actually advocate payment by hours work). Sure, Kropotkin also accused Proudhon of this but he was just repeating the standard narrative.

Anyway, oppose "to each according to their deeds" by all means but do not call it "capitalism".

Anarcho

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Chilli Sauce

So, for new posters, it's totally cool to have questions, but this is a libertarian communist site, so don't be surprised when non-communist ideas are rejected.

If it is a libertarian communist site, then why are "left-communists" posting things here? I've seen plenty of non-libertarian "communist" nonsense here... but people seem only bothered by non-communist libertarians... strange.

And there is a big difference between disagreeing with other libertarians for the right reasons and "rejecting" them based on confused notions and frankly self-contradictory positions. Rejecting, say, mutualism because distribution according to needs to better is fine. Rejecting it by calling it "capitalism" is not -- it just suggests you do not understand mutualism or capitalism.

The other competing ideas - collectivism, individualism, mutualism - they've been rejected as failing theoretically and practically lacking the ability to overcome capitalist social relations. And for good reason.

Given that mutualism and collectivism overcome the key "capitalist social relation", namely wage-labour, it is just nonsense to dismiss them as "capitalist". There are good arguments against "distribution according to deed" but calling it "capitalist" is not one of them.

Just like the ideological defenders of capitalism, such a position ends up making every society "capitalist" -- after all, artisans and peasants sold the product of their labour, slave economies likewise were based on buying and selling. So all "capitalist"... as if.

Anyway, without trying to be a dick, the idea of "businesses" within socialism or anarchism, it totally misses the idea of the collective and democratic control of the means of production.

If you think every economic decision will be made by everyone then you are wrong. There will be extensive workplace and community autonomy in a free society -- if it is to function at all. individual workplaces will decide to invest (to expand) and so on, groups of people will seek to create new workplaces, etc. and it will not be decided upon by everyone. because it cannot be!

So "collective and democratic control of the means of production" requires genuine autonomy, it requires federal links, etc. Which means asking how collectives form is valid (regardless of the actual words used) because that will be something which needs to be worked out.

The flawed legacy of Marx with regards "planning" seems to be wider than Marxist circles... which is a shame. The two or three paragraphs on planning in that dishonest work The Poverty of Philosophy just showed (like the rest of that work) Marx's ignorance of economics and economic theory. Anyway, I discuss this here:

Review: "Democracy at work: A cure for capitalism"

Same with the likes of Bordiga -- I remember reading him proclaim workplace autonomy was "capitalism" and would be abolished under his "communism", which just showed he had no idea how any real economy functions...

jef costello

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anarcho

And there is a big difference between disagreeing with other libertarians for the right reasons and "rejecting" them based on confused notions and frankly self-contradictory positions. Rejecting, say, mutualism because distribution according to needs to better is fine. Rejecting it by calling it "capitalism" is not -- it just suggests you do not understand mutualism or capitalism.

Given that mutualism and collectivism overcome the key "capitalist social relation", namely wage-labour, it is just nonsense to dismiss them as "capitalist". There are good arguments against "distribution according to deed" but calling it "capitalist" is not one of them.

A labour voucher is distribution according to deed, ie hours worked, but if someone is selling something then surely that is distribution according to the market?
Let's say I make something out of steel that looks pretty, people really want them and exchange a lot of whatever money you're proposing , so I make all that money, what do I do with it? Assuming I can't buy any means of production what do I do? I suppose I can buy luxury goods, say high thread-count egyptian cotton sheets. People making useful products, say scalpels, can either have crappier stuff than me or switch to making knickknacks like me. So the price of medical equipment goes up, some people can no longer afford medical care, obviously with my fat stacks of whatever I still can. I can also buy up steel creating a shortage in the scalpel market, I could even stockpile it and speculate on even greater price rises. This seems to me to be obviously not a communist society.
It seems to me that if you have currency and a market you allow accumulation (and speculation, investment etc) which creates an unequal society very quickly.

Just like the ideological defenders of capitalism, such a position ends up making every society "capitalist" -- after all, artisans and peasants sold the product of their labour, slave economies likewise were based on buying and selling. So all "capitalist"... as if.

Artisans are capitalists and peasants can be too, depending on the definition. Our current society could very easily incorporate slave labour and informally already does.

If you think every economic decision will be made by everyone then you are wrong. There will be extensive workplace and community autonomy in a free society -- if it is to function at all. individual workplaces will decide to invest (to expand) and so on, groups of people will seek to create new workplaces, etc. and it will not be decided upon by everyone. because it cannot be!

Not everything is decided by everyone, that's why we have delegates to coordinate etc. Individual workplaces will have autonomy but there would need to be some mechanism in place to make sure useful stuff got made and a market which often rewards non-essential production more highly isn't always the way to do so. A system where accumulation isn't possible would naturally encourage people to produce useful stuff (I suppose that I might still produce my trinkets just for the praise of my comrades but that would probably dry up if that were having a negative impact on the production of necessities)
To go back to my example earlier, would I be able to use my earnings for new equipment for my workplace and to expand it, would I then be allowed to decide who could work there? Let's say that the rice harvest failed, would I be able to walk over to a wheat farm and 'join' and take a share? I would imagine not, so I'd probably have to pay some kind of fee or contribute something which would mean existing members were benefiting from the ownership of capital...
I'm sorry if I have over-simplified your position but it seems to me that these are the logical consequences of having a currency and a market.

Noah Fence

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Jeff, had this conversation with a comrade last week. They thought labour vouchers were worth consideration whilst I came to precisely the same conclusion as you. Unfortunately, as ever, I was unable to vocalise my position as well as I would have liked. I will now plagiarise your ass and use your words to spank hers.

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

If it is a libertarian communist site, then why are "left-communists" posting things here? I've seen plenty of non-libertarian "communist" nonsense here... but people seem only bothered by non-communist libertarians... strange.

Man, if that's your experience, I suggest you find basically any thread about the ICC. Seriously, put "decadence" into the search bar and tell me people don't bother with non-libertarians communists...

Just like the ideological defenders of capitalism, such a position ends up making every society "capitalist" -- after all, artisans and peasants sold the product of their labour, slave economies likewise were based on buying and selling. So all "capitalist"... as if.

So, no one has said anything like this but you.

And I'd add that same point to basically the entire second half of post #12. Most posters on this site - certainly me - have pretty well-developed ideas of how production and distribution would be organized post-capitalism. It's probably best to find out their ideas before before crafting arguments about whatever incorrect legacy they've inherited from Marx.

Anyway, as Jef has skillfully pointed out, attempting to run the society we inherent from capitalism through payment by deed and market exchange will result in a society of inequality and competition. "Workplaces" will be attempting to garner more return on the products they create than they put into it. That excess - or lack thereof - will have to be distributed amongst the workforce somehow.

You don't want to call that "self-managed capitalism" or "self-managed wage labour", fine. But it seems a pretty f*cking far cry from socialism to me. It looks more like an attempt to democratize the economy we have now as opposed to overcoming the social relations that underpin it.

Spikymike

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

A social system in which generalised commodity production and distribution is the dominant form, irrespective of the internal relations of co-operative worker enterprises that compete on any form of market is still capitalism by any reasonable definition, but of course there is much to argue about as to how any transition to a communist society might be achieved in practice by those of us committed to that objective.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

jef costello

So the price of medical equipment goes up, some people can no longer afford medical care, obviously with my fat stacks of whatever I still can.

can be solved with charity

I can also buy up steel creating a shortage in the scalpel market, I could even stockpile it and speculate on even greater price rises.

No you cant, that would be capitalism. Buying things you dont use. If you dont use what you have bought then someone else who can use it, can come and take it from you.

It seems to me that if you have currency and a market you allow accumulation (and speculation, investment etc) which creates an unequal society very quickly.

- Accumulation, only on a small insignificant scale
- Inequality, only in possessions which would be in accordance to productivity not in means of production. In MOP there there would be equality
- Speculation, no because you can only posses what you use

jef costello

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

can be solved with charity

No.

No you cant, that would be capitalism. Buying things you dont use. If you dont use what you have bought then someone else who can use it, can come and take it from you.

What time frame exists before people are allowed to come and take 'my' things? Who decides? What hapens if I'm really big, know karate or have a gun? What if I pay a guy to watch my stockpile?

- Accumulation, only on a small insignificant scale
- Inequality, only in possessions which would be in accordance to productivity not in means of production. In MOP there there would be equality
- Speculation, no because you can only posses what you use

If means of production are equal then how can there be investment?
What happens to the problem of production gearing towards profiting from my fat stacks rather than providing necessities?
Some other posters have raised the same questions.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

jef costello

Gulai Polye

can be solved with charity

No.

yes

What time frame exists before people are allowed to come and take 'my' things? Who decides?

Thats up for people to decide locally

What hapens if I'm really big, know karate or have a gun? What if I pay a guy to watch my stockpile?

Does karate work against fire? Does a gun work against poison?

If means of production are equal then how can there be investment?
What happens to the problem of production gearing towards profiting from my fat stacks rather than providing necessities?
Some other posters have raised the same questions.

Through unions and communes.
Well lets say there is a lack of food or water, and lets say i am running a steelmill. Well that steelmill couldnt do anything about it anyway. Well i guess i dont understand what your trying to say. You want to change a steelmill into making food?

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

jef costello

Gulai Polye

can be solved with charity

No.

yes

What time frame exists before people are allowed to come and take 'my' things? Who decides?

Thats up for people to decide locally

What hapens if I'm really big, know karate or have a gun? What if I pay a guy to watch my stockpile?

Does karate work against fire? Does a gun work against poison?

If means of production are equal then how can there be investment?
What happens to the problem of production gearing towards profiting from my fat stacks rather than providing necessities?
Some other posters have raised the same questions.

Through unions and communes.
Well lets say there is a lack of food or water, and lets say i am running a steelmill. Well that steelmill couldnt do anything about it anyway. Well i guess i dont understand what your trying to say. You want to change a steelmill into making food?

if these answers worked then capitalism would be perfectly fine as it is, if we cant't understand why these answers don't work then we don't understand why capitalism is the horrific exploitive murderous system it is

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

The problem with capitalism, is that in wage labour, in private property, there is exploitation.

A worker producing in 8 hours is only paid for 4 hours of work. The rest is surplus value. No - this is what makes capitalism not working.
And then there is the state and all that.

Take exploitation out of capitalism, and you would no longer have capitalism. This is the one thing capitalism can not survive.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

The capitalist, to generate profits, must keep the working day at a certain length. Part of the day is spent generating value that keeps the workers fed and clothed, while the remainder is spent generating surplus value, which goes to the capitalist himself. This is the essence of exploitation

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/section3.rhtml

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

explain why your solutions haven't solved these problems in capitalism

Fleur

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Not to be snarky, well maybe a little bit, but your arguing about Marx with people whose knowledge far exceeds that of a sparknotes précis.

syndicalistcat

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

If it is a libertarian communist site, then why are "left-communists" posting things here? I've seen plenty of non-libertarian "communist" nonsense here... but people seem only bothered by non-communist libertarians... strange.

I tend to agree with Anarcho's comments here. What I've found is that libertarians who diverge from UK communist orthodoxy are subjected to snark & caricature.

This is why I don't post stuff here on economics.

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye #17
‘jef costello wrote:
So the price of medical equipment goes up, some people can no longer afford medical care, obviously with my fat stacks of whatever I still can.

can be solved with charity’

To argue that any of societies needs can be solved by ‘charity’ is to return to Victorian values - paternalistic and moralizing nonsense. The welfare state is progressive compared to this right wing shite.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

radicalgraffiti

explain why your solutions haven't solved these problems in capitalism

They would have long time ago if the state hadnt intervened

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Gulai Polye #17
‘jef costello wrote:
So the price of medical equipment goes up, some people can no longer afford medical care, obviously with my fat stacks of whatever I still can.

can be solved with charity’

To argue that any of societies needs can be solved by ‘charity’ is to return to Victorian values - paternalistic and moralizing nonsense. The welfare state is progressive compared to this right wing shite.

Communism would be null and void without charity. So please tell us more about how charity is right wing and make yourself look stupid.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Fleur

Not to be snarky, well maybe a little bit, but your arguing about Marx with people whose knowledge far exceeds that of a sparknotes précis.

Fine then there is no reason to disagree with me

jef costello

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

Does karate work against fire? Does a gun work against poison?

What about guards? What happens when one person can buy the power to commit more violence and can use it? You either end up with a free for all where might makes right or some kind of regulation of violence...

Through unions and communes.
Well lets say there is a lack of food or water, and lets say i am running a steelmill. Well that steelmill couldnt do anything about it anyway. Well i guess i dont understand what your trying to say. You want to change a steelmill into making food?

Let's say the steel mill stops making vital parts for hydroelectric power plants? Or go back to my example of scalpels? Or irrigation equipment? IT was a simplified example.

Let's ignore the example, what happens when people decide to produce items based on market value rather than need? What happens if someone/a commune is producing something that no-one wants?

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye #28
‘..and make yourself look stupid.’

charity noun (GIVING)
a system of giving money, food, or help free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor, or have no home, or any organization that has the purpose of providing money or helping in this way.
charity noun (KIND)
the quality of being kind to people and not judging them in a severe way

You advocate a system which you admit generates the need for charity. Free communism by abolishing private property ends this affront to human dignity. I believe in mutual aid and abundance of good will, and an end to the benevolence of the better off.

You are not stupid, though I suspect you have never known the indignity of the charitable hand out. Several weeks ago after giving some groceries to a food bank collection, I annoyed some people as I replied I didn’t want thanks, I wanted an end to capitalism.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

jef costello

What about guards? What happens when one person can buy the power to commit more violence and can use it?

Well that would be impossible. You see in capitalism personal wealth are build through stealing value from workers. But after capitalism is abolished this will no longer be acceptable. So all that wealth that once was in the hands of the 1%, are now distributed to a much wider part of the population.
Wealth can now only be obtained through hard work and not through a parasitic relationship.

And hard work can only generate so and so much wealth. When you have that limited amount of wealth you dont wanna waste it away on protection if the much more cheaper alternative is to just stay in line according to what the community has decided.

Let's say the steel mill stops making vital parts for hydroelectric power plants?

Everyone has the right to go on strike, or make a boycott if someone feels they are treated unfair and so fourth. If a steelmill should refuse to make vital parts for a hydroelectric plant, it would most likely be because they are offered a too low exchange price.

(1)Let's ignore the example, what happens when people decide to produce items based on market value rather than need? (2)What happens if someone/a commune is producing something that no-one wants?

(1) Well market value is build on need. Need = demand. When Supply meets demand you get the market value.
(2) Then they will accumulate a lot of the products they are producing. They will have to find room for it in their backyards or where they can find room for it.

Edit: Actually the financial crisis in 2007-8, was because the banks had produced too many loans that no one wanted to buy. The banks are trading loans to each other you know?

Spikymike

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

I think Marx dealt with the crude argument that capitalism was based on 'stealing' but I'm afraid ''anarchists without adjectives'' have not advanced beyond a moral case against capitalism and are still imprisoned within solutions that look backwards rather than forwards to it's compete abolition.

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

radicalgraffiti

explain why your solutions haven't solved these problems in capitalism

They would have long time ago if the state hadnt intervened

how has the state intervened to prevent charity from solving the problem of people without healthcare? charity is used now to provided health care, why are there still people without healthcare? why are the only places where everyone has healthcare places where the state has interfered to make sure everyone gets it?

why hasn't fire and poison been used to deal with the excessive accumulation of capitalists now?

Pennoid

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Why the hell would we have autonomous enterprises when we can centrally plan production?

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Pennoid #35

So some daft sods can pretend to be independant?
The same people who will insist to paying for a ride on the communal bus with two carrots and want a brussel sprout in change.

Noah Fence

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Pennoid #35

So some daft sods can pretend to be independant?
The same people who will insist to paying for a ride on the communal bus with two carrots and want a brussel sprout in change.

Watch your step there comrade. That's a very vegan centric comment!

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

radicalgraffiti

how has the state intervened to prevent charity from solving the problem of people without healthcare?

Through taxation, then spending the tax money on corruption and war leaving the worker left with no money left to spend on charity.

charity is used now to provided health care, why are there still people without healthcare?

Because as long as capitalism exist money has to be directed to fight capitalism, like strike funds etc. It leaves less money for charity.

why are the only places where everyone has healthcare places where the state has interfered to make sure everyone gets it?

Its not the state that has interfered, it is democracy that has interfered. Would the naked state provide healthcare for everyone? Never!

But hey democracy can (and should) exist without the state

why hasn't fire and poison been used to deal with the excessive accumulation of capitalists now?

Because of state intervention or the threat of it

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

radicalgraffiti

explain why your solutions haven't solved these problems in capitalism

They would have long time ago if the state hadnt intervened

The an-cap emerges.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Gulai Polye #28
‘..and make yourself look stupid.’

charity noun (GIVING)
a system of giving money, food, or help free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor, or have no home, or any organization that has the purpose of providing money or helping in this way.
charity noun (KIND)
the quality of being kind to people and not judging them in a severe way

What i meant was that in communism you give away all what you have produced and in return you expect nothing. The same can be said about charity. You just pour money away. So communism without charity would be null and void.

Fleur

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Communism doesn't need charity, nor money.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Fleur

Communism doesn't need charity, nor money.

Lol everytime im in direct contact with a communist party they are asking me to donate some of my money to them

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye #42

I don’t think a political donation is the same as charity.

It seems to me you are using the word ‘charity’ stripped of all its usual contextual meaning in capitalism. In relation to the post-revolutionary society I think it is obsolete and should be replaced with ‘mutual aid’, as this implies a social context of mutual dependency – of equality. For example some words may remain the same, though ‘un-alienated labour’ is very different from capitalism’s ‘work’ and the drudgery this implies today.

Serge Forward

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

If everyone's equal in a libertarian communist commonwealth, then what need of charity? Gulai Polye, your ideas seem to have more in common with zakat (which inadvertently institutionalises rich and poor) than libertarian communism. Eid mubarak on Wednesday, by the way ;)

Fleur

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Lol everytime im in direct contact with a communist party they are asking me to donate some of my money to them

You've clearly come to the wrong place if you think the com in libcom stands for communist party.

Noah Fence

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Fleur

Lol everytime im in direct contact with a communist party they are asking me to donate some of my money to them

You've clearly come to the wrong place if you think the com in libcom stands for communist party.

Funnily enough, I thought that Libcom meant Libertarian dot com when I found it. I had never even heard the term Libertarian Communism. I was clearly a clueless knob.

No amusing responses needed. I already thought of them myself.

Anyway, talking of clueless, WTF is GP talking about? Bizarre.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Gulai Polye #42

I don’t think a political donation is the same as charity.

Perhaps you are right

Anarcho

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

jef costello

A labour voucher is distribution according to deed, ie hours worked, but if someone is selling something then surely that is distribution according to the market?

Who said anything about it not being a market? It is market socialism we are talking about.

jef costello

Let's say I make something out of steel that looks pretty, people really want them and exchange a lot of whatever money you're proposing , so I make all that money, what do I do with it? Assuming I can't buy any means of production what do I do? I suppose I can buy luxury goods, say high thread-count egyptian cotton sheets. People making useful products, say scalpels, can either have crappier stuff than me or switch to making knickknacks like me. So the price of medical equipment goes up, some people can no longer afford medical care, obviously with my fat stacks of whatever I still can. I can also buy up steel creating a shortage in the scalpel market, I could even stockpile it and speculate on even greater price rises. This seems to me to be obviously not a communist society.

Of course a market socialist system is not a communist society. In terms of those after a revolution who do not want to join a commune, what are you going to do? If you make something out of steel and don't want to give it away for free, what would happen? Would you be forced to? This seems to me to be obviously not an anarchist society.

In other words, there will be a series of economic experiments within a free society -- particularly after a revolution. To proclaim everything which is not communist "capitalist" is just silly.

jef costello

It seems to me that if you have currency and a market you allow accumulation (and speculation, investment etc) which creates an unequal society very quickly.

Accumulation of what? Means of production? Nope. As for "investment", are you suggesting a communist economy would not invest resources in producing new means of production? As for "unequal", sure, but in terms of some people producing more than others and so having a better income -- hardly the same as living off the unpaid labour of others.

Artisans are capitalists and peasants can be too, depending on the definition. Our current society could very easily incorporate slave labour and informally already does.

And so we descend into silliness. Peasants are capitalists... so aiming for land reform is just about creating more capitalists?

Capitalism is wage-labour -- once you forget that you quickly end up in self-contradiction.

To go back to my example earlier, would I be able to use my earnings for new equipment for my workplace and to expand it, would I then be allowed to decide who could work there?

Completely missing the point about mutualism here -- that is way it argues for socialisation of the means of production, to stop the recreation of wage-labour.

Libertarian communism means the option not to be communists -- otherwise the term is meaningless. As a libertarian communist, I'm more than happy if people in a free society decide to experiment with other forms of social organisation -- as long as there is no hiring of labour.

I'm surprised this position seems controversial -- unless we assume a 100% collectivisation rate, which seems unlikely...

Anarcho

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

You advocate a system which you admit generates the need for charity. Free communism by abolishing private property ends this affront to human dignity. I believe in mutual aid and abundance of good will, and an end to the benevolence of the better off.

So do I -- but what are you going to do about workers who do not agree with you?

Free communism means a communism you are free to join or not, surely? Unless you are using the word "free" in some unusual way?

So it is a basic question, really. Are people free in free communism not to be communists? If so, then we are talking about people exchanging the products of their labour in some form. If not, then it is hardly free....

Assuming that 100% of people will be communists sounds like avoiding the very obvious problems any real social revolution would face. Particularly in its early stages.

Anarcho

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Spikymike

A social system in which generalised commodity production and distribution is the dominant form, irrespective of the internal relations of co-operative worker enterprises that compete on any form of market is still capitalism by any reasonable definition,

And so we have a definition of "capitalism" which ignores the key characteristic of capitalism, namely wage-labour. Which is precisely the definition of capitalism the advocates of capitalism love -- which shows you way it should be avoided.

Spikymike

but of course there is much to argue about as to how any transition to a communist society might be achieved in practice by those of us committed to that objective.

You have basically ensured that any "transition" to communist society would be "still capitalism by any reasonable definition". Maybe you should reconsider?

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anarcho, would you agree that co-ops within capitalism are capitalist enterprises?

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anarcho #49
‘Free communism means a communism you are free to join or not, surely? Unless you are using the word "free" in some unusual way?

So it is a basic question, really. Are people free in free communism not to be communists? If so, then we are talking about people exchanging the products of their labour in some form. If not, then it is hardly free....’

I try not to be proscriptive about what a post-revolutionary society would be like. I think it highly unlikely that everyone will be anarchists (or communists). There will be a certain pluralism or experiments both economically and culturally. I do not see this as a problem as people are different and will express themselves in various ways. Gradually the variations would, I imagine, be permutations of free communism. This is because it offers, I believe, a strong social and economic framework to maximise human happiness. I could see all the public services being freely available to everyone not just libcoms. Gradually people would recognise its advantages and adopt similar forms.

To try and establish a monolithic libertarian communism would generate a counter revolution. Only a physical attack or deliberate sabotage of the communist commonwealth would legitimise a negative response to ‘alternative lifestyles’.

cactus9

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Chilli Sauce

Man, libcom has just been weird lately.

So, for new posters, it's totally cool to have questions, but this is a libertarian communist site, so don't be surprised when non-communist ideas are rejected. On top of that, there have only really been three organized anarchist tendencies in the past hundred years: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and platformism (who consider themselves anarcho-communists anyway).

The other competing ideas - collectivism, individualism, mutualism - they've been rejected as failing theoretically and practically lacking the ability to overcome capitalist social relations. And for good reason.

Anyway, without trying to be a dick, the idea of "businesses" within socialism or anarchism, it totally misses the idea of the collective and democratic control of the means of production.

Where does anarcho primitivism fit? Is it too leftfield (no pun intended).

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

You mean that it's some misanthropic bullshit mascarading as anarchism?

cactus9

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Chilli Sauce

You mean that it's some misanthropic bullshit mascarading as anarchism?

I think it's sort of parallel to the other things you mentioned.

Spikymike

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anarcho asks a reasonable question in their post No 50, but generalised commodity production as I phrased it earlier assumes workers in co-ops are still being paid (equal or not) wages in the form of the money commodity which they then have to exchange on the general market. Exploitation would persist if indirectly due to the unequal distribution of productive wealth between different co-operative (ie private) enterprises. Any transition from this form of capitalism to communism could only succeed in so far as it rapidly and consciously undermined the independent and competitive nature of those enterprises through the planned production and free distribution of goods and services ( inevitably also involving the conversion or abandonment of duplicate, harmful or useless production units). To that extent there would on a world scale persist two parallel systems of production and distribution for a limited period until we were able to establish a genuine human community beyond the realm of the political and the economic. I assume we agree that this process would only work alongside the conscious organised defeat and dismantling of the state apparatus.

slothjabber

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anarcho

.... In terms of those after a revolution who do not want to join a commune, what are you going to do? If you make something out of steel and don't want to give it away for free, what would happen? Would you be forced to? This seems to me to be obviously not an anarchist society....

Where would you get the steel? I suspect, from the rest of us. So, we give you the steel that we made, you make something with it (using the electricity we give you, and you feed yourself with the food that we give you, you live in the house that we give you, when you aren't at work you relax in the communal recreation facilities we give you, you go us for medical help and take the medicines we give you, you go to the place we let use for your work on the transport we provide for you...) and when you're done with 'your' work, you give us what 'you' made with no help from us.

In other words, if you're not going to 'join a commune' (ie, contribute to human society), I don't see why human society should contribute to you.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we'd wipe your brain to get out all of the stuff you learned from us, because there's no point, we couldn't use it; and I'm not going to advocate rendering you down for the nutrients we gave you; but I don't see why you shouldn't be kicked out naked and with nothing in your hands to fend for yourself.

People are social animals. Don't want to be social? Survive on your own with nothing for a few weeks and I suspect you'll see the value of other people.

Schmoopie

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality has to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

The German Ideology, 1845

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

slothjabber

Anarcho

.... In terms of those after a revolution who do not want to join a commune, what are you going to do? If you make something out of steel and don't want to give it away for free, what would happen? Would you be forced to? This seems to me to be obviously not an anarchist society....

Where would you get the steel? I suspect, from the rest of us. So, we give you the steel that we made, you make something with it (using the electricity we give you, and you feed yourself with the food that we give you, you live in the house that we give you, when you aren't at work you relax in the communal recreation facilities we give you, you go us for medical help and take the medicines we give you, you go to the place we let use for your work on the transport we provide for you...) and when you're done with 'your' work, you give us what 'you' made with no help from us.

In other words, if you're not going to 'join a commune' (ie, contribute to human society), I don't see why human society should contribute to you.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we'd wipe your brain to get out all of the stuff you learned from us, because there's no point, we couldn't use it; and I'm not going to advocate rendering you down for the nutrients we gave you; but I don't see why you shouldn't be kicked out naked and with nothing in your hands to fend for yourself.

People are social animals. Don't want to be social? Survive on your own with nothing for a few weeks and I suspect you'll see the value of other people.

Dont give people stuff if you demand something in return - because then your not giving, then your trading. And if you are a trader, then you are a marketeer

Schmoopie

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Dont give people stuff if you demand something in return - because then your not giving, then your trading.

True

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

the idea that people can chose to opt in or out of economic systems is absurd. the point of anarchism cant be for people to pick and chose the bits to make their own personal society independent of everyone else, thats an impossible capitalist fantasy.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

radicalgraffiti:
You make a system that works and people will join it. Its not the other way around where you force people into a system and then suddenly by magic the system is working because a lot of people are subjected to it.

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

radicalgraffiti:
You make a system that works and people will join it. Its not the other way around where you force people into a system and then suddenly by magic the system is working because a lot of people are subjected to it.

that is the ideology of the market, to change social economic system you actually make something that works and at the same time sabotage/suppress competing systems.

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Radicalgraffiti #61
‘the idea that people can chose to opt in or out of economic systems is absurd. the point of anarchism cant be for people to pick and chose the bits to make their own personal society independent of everyone else, thats an impossible capitalist fantasy.’

I agree as you say, making one’s own personal society independent of everyone else is a fantasy, and therefore simply impossible, and not a choice anyone can make (capitalist or not).

Post revolution, to insist on an anarchist ‘economic standard model’, as you appear to imply in your post #63, is another fantasy, unless your proposed anarchist society is a world of warring tribes. People will need time to develop a practical free communist society and diversity will lead to greater innovation. The last thing needed is some anarchist commissars to come along and play the ‘high hat’ (leave that bollocks to the Leninists).

slothjabber

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

The point is property. Does property - all the existing stuff - belong to everyone, or does 1/7,000,000,000 of all of the existing stuff belong to each of us individually?

If it's the latter, then of course Anarcho and GP can go and live on their respective personal 1/7billionths of the territory with their 1/7billionths of the food, 1/7billionths of the electricity and 1/7billionths of steel as their private property, trading to their hearts' content, while calling the rest of us 'capitalists'.

If it's the former, then opting out of 'everyone owns everything' would constitute expropriation. I really don't see why you should take all of society's products but not work, contribute and give anything back, like a parasite. That's what capitalists do. Fuck that. It's what we have already. The point of the revolution isn't so that you two can become a new capitalist class living off the work of the rest of us.

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

slothjabber #65

I took it as read that 'communism' meant an end to private property. If anyone wishes to plough their own furrow, well more fool them! They would not last very long as Radicalgraffiti pointed out the absurdity of their enterprise.

Personally I would not like to live in a community where the distribution of goods is policed by some rule where if you do not work you do not eat. That is what we have now is it not - the deserving and the undeserving?

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

slothjabber

The point is property. Does property - all the existing stuff - belong to everyone, or does 1/7,000,000,000 of all of the existing stuff belong to each of us individually?

Its neither of the two. Unless we are robots and are programmed to work equally the same. No we are humans, and we are made of biological material, which means we are all different in our own ways. This also means that some work more than others, which means that some get to own more than others. Because what you produce is what you own (as long as its not means of production) and because of all the machinery and so fourth it is impossible to enjoy everything we produce ourselves. This gives a surplus value. This surplus value can then be shared with others in some way.
One way is to trade it with each other, the other is to voluntarily give it away. For anarchists there are no 3rd option. For statist there is a 3rd option. The 3rd option is to steal or confiscate the surplus value through taxation.

Now, for your idea to work, you must somehow convince people to give away what they have produced voluntarily. And if you fail to do that there is only one option left and that is to trade.

So good luck.

That's what capitalists do.

You are confused about what capitalists actually do and why they are parasites. When capitalist are stealing wealth from the workers then they are doing it on the workplace through wages not on the marketplace.

Schmoopie

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Paul (formerly Saul) wrote:

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (and incidentally cited by Lenin during the Russian Revolution)

Louis Blanc wrote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Plus de Girondins, 1851(populised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme )

I chose the latter and reject the former.

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye #67

What you produce is not what you own as it is a social product. The items produced are like human beings, links in an interactive social web. No one stands truly alone. (That is a cue for one of Noah’s jokes)

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod:
Also the principle of who does not work shall not eat can easily be changed into

The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat

As Trotsky pointed out.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Gulai Polye #67

What you produce is not what you own as it is a social product. The items produced are like human beings, links in an interactive social web. No one stands truly alone. (That is a cue for one of Noah’s jokes)

Well there is a 4th option, which i didnt mention as it doesnt make much sense. You can destroy the surplus value that you have produced.
But what this means is that the surplus value is not social before it has been shared. Which means before it has been shared it is ones own.

But then again you are correct that no one is strong alone, and therefore most people would like to share their surplus value somehow.

Edit: Actually one example where the 4th option was used was when the tea party in Boston threw their tea into the ocean :D

Khawaga

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Surplus value would not exist in communism. There would likely be surplus products, but it wouldn't take the form of value.

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Schmoopie

Paul (formerly Saul) wrote:

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (and incidentally cited by Lenin during the Russian Revolution)

Louis Blanc wrote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Plus de Girondins, 1851(populised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme )

I chose the latter and reject the former.

The latter though, isn't just "to each according to their need", it includes "from each according to their ability". There's an assumption there, if you see what I mean.

Anyway, I think two issues have been conflated here. One is what to do with people who refuse to contribute post-revolution. The other is what to do with people who attempt to control/horde/trade the product they produce (or at least see themselves as producing).

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Khawaga

Surplus value would not exist in communism. There would likely be surplus products, but it wouldn't take the form of value.

Well - I tell you if you are thirsty and there is some clean water nearby, this water will have a high value to you

Suppose you are running 20 km. Every 5 km there are people handing out water to the runners (just as if it actually was in communism). But you, since you are a communist, thinks everything has no value, so you will not drink this water that is provided to you.

And now, you wanna make me believe this?

Serge Forward

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

GP, what the fuck are you talking about?

slothjabber

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Schmoopie

Paul (formerly Saul) wrote:

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (and incidentally cited by Lenin during the Russian Revolution)

Louis Blanc wrote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Plus de Girondins, 1851(populised by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme )

I chose the latter and reject the former.

I completely agree with what chilli sauce says above. You don't get to the '... to each according to their need' without the first 'from each according to their ability...'.

I think GP is using 'value' in its 'an-cap' sense of 'wanting something' not in the Marxist sense of 'labour cost of production'.

Which is why no-one who accepts Marxist economics breathes of course. I mean, what would be the point?

ajjohnstone

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

I forget where i read it but i did cut and paste it to later re-use...(okay plagiarise if you believe in intellectual property)

The ideal of worker-owned and -operated production neglects the fact that, as Marx observed, the conditions for industrial production are not essentially the workers’ own labour, but rather more socially general: production has become the actual property of society.

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Auld-bod

Post revolution, to insist on an anarchist ‘economic standard model’, as you appear to imply in your post #63, is another fantasy, unless your proposed anarchist society is a world of warring tribes. People will need time to develop a practical free communist society and diversity will lead to greater innovation. The last thing needed is some anarchist commissars to come along and play the ‘high hat’ (leave that bollocks to the Leninists).

I think you have miss understood my post 63, maybe i wrote it badly, it was in response to Gulai Polye's treating society as a market where people can chose between different forms of society as they see fit.

I don't think we can make a perfect model for post capitalist society now, and just get everyone to implement it, but i do think the process of deciding how a post capitalist society would function has already began, the model will obviously be adjusted over time, particularly during the revolutionary period and not everyone will agree at all times. We must find out what works, what doesn't what needs adjustment. I completely reject the idea that how stuff works is something we just spontaneously work out when the revolution happens. Every single time i've been involved in something and people have rejected planing before hand either its gone really badly or people with their own ideas have diverted it to there own ends, and i don't see why this wouldn't apply to revolution to, infact there's a fair bit of evidence this exactly what happens

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Serge Forward

GP, what the fuck are you talking about?

Well .. lets just call it humans.
They look like this:

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Radicalgraffiti #78

I do not think we disagree on this point. The idea of the revolution as a series of events, and not a one off ‘day of judgment’ is useful. As you say, at present we can explore ideas for a post capitalist world, though implementation will depend on conditions/factors impossible to predict in advance.

I do not worry about Gulai Polye’s ideas as they appear to me to be based in part on today’s values though tinged with a nostalgia for the simple life of the middle ages journeyman/trader. The revolution and the ocean of possibilities it will contain, would reveal the self-defeating poverty of their dream.

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Let me give you another example then:

Lets say you are on an epical journey on your bike. So on day one you get thirsty and you are looking for some water. You locate two different sources of water. One right next to you, but this one is dirty water and you would rather avoid it if possible. The other source is a spring located 500m up of a mountain with pure fresh water. So you decide to climb this mountain to get some fresh water.

The next day the same thing happens. Only this time the spring is located 1000m up a mountain. So this time you decide its not worth to do the climb for the fresh water so you drink the dirty water.

Now what does this mean? It means you have put value on fresh water. And the price you are ready to pay lies somewhere between climbing 500 meters and 1000 meters.

But it also means something else. I could have made a similar example with ants, alligator, birds etc.
So its not something limited to human behaviour. So what it means is that value is inherited in natural law. Natural law is something that always exist. Which means communism will never be able to abolish value. It may ignore or try to forget about value, but communism can never abolish value. Value will always be there as a dormant feature of society

Khawaga

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

All your scenario describes is because a person is thirsty, she needs water. Your insistence on placing value on the object of need mans that the water is a commodity that must be exchanged for money. So yet again, you're advocating capitalism.

I guess those sparknotes didn't help you much.

Auld-bod

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye I think we are talking past each other.

I value many things, love, friendship, good company and the necessities of life. I do not think of these things are valuable in the sense you use the term - reducing everything to what you can charge for them (or will pay for them). Value as you see it, will always be a dormant feature of society, well if so, the sad alienated life the working class is forced to live will continue until capitalism consumes the world.

Chilli Sauce

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

GP, you know how that water is free? You don't have to pay for it, it's not a commodity, and therefore it has no value. That's how everything will be under communism.

Spikymike

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Agree with the above posts 82/83/84 and since this discussion has wandered off a little bit from it's title but perhaps addressing some of the underlying assumptions behind this and related points from GP and maybe FS98 I thought this very short text might help:
www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1342-june-2016/scarcity-and-infinite-wants-founding-myths-economics

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Khawaga

All your scenario describes is because a person is thirsty, she needs water. Your insistence on placing value on the object of need mans that the water is a commodity that must be exchanged for money. So yet again, you're advocating capitalism.

Its funny i didnt even mention money and i never advocated for capitalism. Perhaps you should learn what capitalism is before you make any more judgements.

Auld-bod

Value (...), will always be a dormant feature of society, well if so, the sad alienated life the working class is forced to live will continue until capitalism consumes the world.

I dont agree with this perspective. Capitalism is not bound to the market and the market is not bound to capitalism. Capitalism has existed for some 200 years through property relations and through state protection. Destroy the state and eliminate these property relations and you eliminate capitalism.

Meanwhile the market has existed for maybe 15000 years. Yes you read correctly. The market is older than the state. And could it be any different? No, value is under natural law while the state is an invention for intervention on behalf of the ruling class.
http://www.archatlas.org/ObsidianRoutes/ObsidianRoutes.php

Spikymike

Your link said this:
"They are ‘free’ because no labour has to be expended to produce them."

True but two things: You might go on a search and find mission and be lucky to find an apple tree. The much more successful approach though is to cultivate the earth and let 100 apple tress grow in your back yard. Now suddenly an apple is not free since labour was used as input to cultivate and generate it.

Another thing, even if you find a source of water in the mountains it still has to be transported to a place where it can be sold or used. Like it has to go to a city. So again labour is used as an input to transport it and make it ready for consumption. So its not free.

And if you think capitalism is bound to the market then think again
https://tucker.liberty.me/fascism-is-real-and-alive/

Fascism is a specific political and economic idea that arose in the 1920s, beginning in Italy, both from within the socialist ethos and as a response to it. It came from within socialism because it opposed market forces and laissez faire as a model for social order.

In fascism the market was abolished because fascism has its roots in socialism. So now that the market was gone what happened then to capitalism? It only flourished.

Khawaga

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

In fascism the market was abolished? Natural law? Where do you get this crap from. Are you an an-cap turned mutualist?

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Khawaga

Are you an an-cap turned mutualist?

Are you?

Gulai Polye

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Gulai Polye

Khawaga

Are you an an-cap turned mutualist?

Are you?

In other words stop asking these kinds of questions they are only annoying and gets to nowhere

radicalgraffiti

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

You post is full of lies gylai polye

Spikymike

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

GP completely misconstrues the meaning in the Socialist Standard article taking a short sentence outside of context but then we seem still to be talking at cross purposes with them in our different use of language in relation to the nature of modern capitalism - perhaps others lurking in the background might find more of use to them in that article. I nearly said 'of value' but then that would just confuse GP further!

slothjabber

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Anthropology has identified multiple ways goods/objects can get from A to B, few of which involve market mechanisms.

The market as we understand it probably came into existence about 2,500 years ago in Europe and China (which more or less simultaneously developed money) and forms of formal barter-market maybe 4,000 years ago in the Middle East and Egypt. There's no real evidence that the 'market' has existed for 15,000 years.

Khawaga

5 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

And in any case, pre-capitalist markets were different in both form and function in the sense that most markets were temporary in both time and space. Markets were tied to festivals, specific market days and so on. Very far from the permanent stores, regular hours of service, and importantly the institution from which we acquire everything we need. It's perplexing that GP thinks that ancient markets are precisely the same as now and always will be. Sure some form of market is likely to exist post capitalism, but it would most likely be limited as equivalent exchange would be abolished.