Is LibCom voluntary?

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 10 2013 18:26
Quote:
However, as other posters have pointed out, the non-communistic economic systems you seem to favour may result in capital accumulation,

Still waiting on the explanation of how could that happen in a system that is defined by it's abolition of capital.

Because we are not dealing with dictionary definitions! we are dealing with social phenonema which can be subject to change. Ok so when said change happens it ceases to be as you said 'an-archist' to 'archist' preserves your lovely idealistic definition wherever the platonic forms reside, but sorry that is of no comfort for those of us who actually give a shit as to whether capitalism has a chance to regenerate.

The systems you propose have been argued by myself and others as being vulnerable to capital accumulation with plenty of examples delineated. The fact that you have chosen to ignore them and stated again and again that nobody is answering your questions when they have right from practically the first reply onwards really does give the charge that you are trolling justification.

Fair doos if you think that the safeguards that you have proposed will stop that from happening but please don't say that nobody has attempted to answer your question. For somebody who likes to think about labour quotas - show some fucking respect for the labours of those who have tried to answer your questions!!

There is really no point in engaging with you.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 18:41
Quote:
Tian

If we're talking Carson-type mutualism, Proudhonian mutualism, or union of egoists, I think mostly they fall into the middle camp.

That's my point- Anarcho-Mutualism (whether of the Warren-type or Carson-type, both are Proudhonian) and Anarcho-Individualism (Spooner, Tucker, Lum) are both non-oppressive and non-exploitative, and should therefore be tolerated.

I also think most green anarchist and *some* primitivists (of the non-dam-blowing-up variety) fall into the tolerated-with-a-frown variety

Green anarchism and primitivism are not economical organisations, one could be a green or a primitive and advocate some form of the four main anarchist schools- individualism, mutualism, collectivism or communism.

speculation on societal make-up ATR is just, well, a bit pointless.

I stronly disagree. Sure, the revolution will have a huge influence, but we must think stuff trough.

And that's where I think an-communism/syndicalism completely blows mutualism and individualism out of the water; as a theory of revolutionary struggle mutualism (in its reformist iterations) and especially individualism is a bit of a limp dick.

Reformism/ Revolution is another topic, one can be AnInd or AnMut and a revolutionist, as was e.g. Lum, who was AnInd, and don't forget that much of propaganda of the deed and illegalism was done by AnInds.

All that said, we (I live in hope) will almost definitely be facing the kind of problems that make worrying about which strand of anarchist-y organisations we want to form a position on laughable.

Having a clear and agreed upon definitions of anarchism and what invalidates anarchism (I'd summarise it as oppression and exploitation) is IMO of big importance.

Quote:
xslavearcx

no comfort for those of us who actually give a shit as to whether capitalism has a chance to regenerate.

People with phobias also give a shit about stuff happening, but don't have any reason to. The point is to give real arguments, otherwise the fear is as irrational as phobias are.

The systems you propose have been argued by myself and others as being vulnerable to capital accumulation with plenty of examples delineated.

E.g.? Name one example of AnMut and AnInd being vunerable to capital accumulation that doesn't also apply to AnCol and AnCom.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 10 2013 18:52
Quote:
no comfort for those of us who actually give a shit as to whether capitalism has a chance to regenerate.

People with phobias also give a shit about stuff happening, but don't have any reason to. The point is to give real arguments, otherwise the fear is as irrational as phobias are.

Your failure to quote the first part of that sentence that i said shows that you are a sophist. So please spare us the crap about reasoning.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 20:40

So, you don't have any arguments in favour of your fear that an anarchist system will turn capitalistic?

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 10 2013 21:02

This has already been covered in the thread.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 21:13

Yes, I know that we're covered the fact that you don't have any arguments for your claims, but you still keep making those claims, and therefore I keep asking for arguments that support them.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 10 2013 21:16

You want to go over all of the mutualist vs. communist arguments again?

Be my guest.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 10 2013 21:21
greenjuice wrote:
.

Quote:
radicalgraffity

individualism is not an economic system

Actually, it is. It differs from mutualism in that mutualism thinks there should be communal organizations that would be units of organization for voluntary militia, and organizatiors of mutual banking, that is- credit unions, whereas anarcho-individualists (Spooner, Tucker, Lum and similar) were in favour in defence agencies existing on a market and free banking.

this was the point i decided greenjuice was taking the piss, i see no value in engaging with someone who things privatising the state is compatible with anarchism

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 10 2013 21:26

Kevin Carson is a quisling who hangs out with "national-anarchists" and the open fascists at "AttackTheSystem.com"
Don't bring that asshole up!

Also, Greenjuice, you are totally a sophist. Is there an argument people haven't responded to upthread? Jesus.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 10 2013 21:30
radicalgraffiti wrote:
greenjuice wrote:
.

Quote:
radicalgraffity

individualism is not an economic system

Actually, it is. It differs from mutualism in that mutualism thinks there should be communal organizations that would be units of organization for voluntary militia, and organizatiors of mutual banking, that is- credit unions, whereas anarcho-individualists (Spooner, Tucker, Lum and similar) were in favour in defence agencies existing on a market and free banking.

this was the point i decided greenjuice was taking the piss, i see no value in engaging with someone who things privatising the state is compatible with anarchism

The style of argument also seems rather familiar.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 21:39
Quote:
Tian

You want to go over all of the mutualist vs. communist arguments again?

The question wasn't about comparing mutualism and communism, but alleged exploitativeness of mutualism.

Quote:
radicalgraffiti

i see no value in engaging with someone who things privatising the state is compatible with anarchism

Which I never said, in fact I said the opposite. All anarchism is anti-state and anti-capitalist, including Anarcho-Mutualism (Proudhon, Warren, Lee Swartz) and Anarcho-Individualism (Spooner, Tucker, Lum).

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 10 2013 21:41

Mr. Juice, how do you feel about Margaret Thatcher?

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 10 2013 22:08

Margaret Thatcher Advocated a Property Owning Democracy
Property is under ones direct juristriction
Margret Thatcher advocated Direct Democracy

Direct Democracy is logically equivalent to Anarchism (see ANFAQ)
Margret Thatcher is an anarchist

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 10 2013 22:26
xslavearcx wrote:
Margaret Thatcher Advocated a Property Owning Democracy
Property is under ones direct juristriction
Margret Thatcher advocated Direct Democracy

Direct Democracy is logically equivalent to Anarchism (see ANFAQ)
Margret Thatcher is an anarchist

This perfectly illustrates Mr. Juice's logic and style of argumentation, which is why this whole thread is worthless and we should end it already.

Mr. Juice, did you know that North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic? The people are in control at that country. And here we are miles away living under the oppression of the capitalist regime, debating how we are going to liberate ourselves, when we could take a boat trip and enter the island of freedom. It's as if we don't have any idea that the North Korean people are governing their own affairs in a potentially liberating practice that can change the world. Maybe you ought to go there and see for yourself, become Libcom.org's foreign correspondent.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 10 2013 22:45
Quote:
Nanner

Mr. Juice, how do you feel about Margaret Thatcher?

How do you feel about spam?

Quote:
xslavearx

Acting like an idiot like you just did with that attempt of sarcasm with no point whatsoever can be an argument for nothing except for you being an idiot.

Quote:
Agent of the Fi..

Mr. Juice, did you know that North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic? The people are in control at that country.

People are in control at that country? So.. You too want to post arguments for yourself being mentally impaired?

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 10 2013 23:16

Should this continue? Just to remind you guys, he wrote this:

greenjuice wrote:
Spooner's importance was in that he was the first anarchist to write about the contradiction between labor theory of property, which was espoused by Locke, and accepting capitalism.

I've read Marx. All ok stuff he said were said before him by Proudhon, and the rest of his work is authoritarian bullshit or plain bullshit.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 11 2013 14:00

I can argument all my claims, as oppossed to your claims that Mutualism and Anarcho-Individualism are exploitative.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Feb 11 2013 14:50

I don't think mutualism and "anarcho-individualism" are necessarily exploitative. If a society based on generalized commodity production and pure exchange of equivalents could be realized, it wouldn't necessarily be exploitative. But much hinges on the if part, for there are arguments against the very viability of this ideal. If we suppose it viable, there is still the threat, expressed by some of the other posters here, that it would turn into capitalism sooner or later.

But suppose that it's viable and forever fair. I still don't see why 21st century libertarian socialists should care about it or even seriously discuss it as an alternative. We view communism as a mode of production that is superior to any form of commodity production (for reasons that I hope are obvious). If you want "full mutualism", you'd presumably first have to break the resistance of the ruling class and do a lot of expropriation, reorganization and redistribution. The same applies to "full communism". Now, once you've done all that, why stick with a variant of commodity production and not go the full way? Why would anyone prefer to live in a "fair" society but with the pressures of competition instead of a society based on planned cooperation, once that both are possible? Why would anyone prefer to live in a society in which you have to earn money if you want to eat? Why have the apparatus (public or private) needed to print or coin the money if it's basically useless once you can implement a global moneyless economy? Why waste
resources and human effort? And why even waste time discussing these questions?

Fortunately, mutualism will never be appealing enough to make this a real issue. The days of artisanal production are over and there's just not enough freelance web developers, taxi drivers etc. to build a new movement.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 11 2013 15:58

I don't think mutualism and "anarcho-individualism" are necessarily exploitative.

They are defined by abolition of exploitation- if exploitation becomes instituted again in a society, such a society stops being mutualist/ anarcho-individualist. The "potential" for a mutualist society becoming exploitative is exactly the same as AnCom society becoming exploitative, meaning- potential to stop being anarchist society and becoming some other system.

I still don't see why 21st century libertarian socialists should care about it or even seriously discuss it as an alternative.

Because, if we are to take hints from views of some people here, revolutionary forced collectivization seem to be a very real threat.

Now, once you've done all that, why stick with a variant of commodity production and not go the full way?

As I said, people have different preferences. Not everyone would want to be a part of the commune/ collective.

Why would anyone prefer to live in a "fair" society but with the pressures of competition instead of a society based on planned cooperation, once that both are possible?

There are people who don't like functioning in collectives. I know people who are smart and get everything about capitalism and still say they prefer capitalism to a LibSoc system, so, there's obviously lots different people out there.

Why would anyone prefer to live in a society in which you have to earn money if you want to eat?

You'd have to work to eat in Anarcho-Collectivism, too, and IMO, if Anarcho-Communist communes aren''t organised that way. too (with some labor quotas) - they will fail.

Why have the apparatus (public or private) needed to print or coin the money if it's basically useless once you can implement a global moneyless economy?

Because some people would not want to participate in a global money economy.

Fortunately, mutualism will never be appealing enough to make this a real issue.

Many people the same thing as LibSoc as a whole. It's just an assumption.

blimeybruv
Offline
Joined: 1-12-11
Feb 11 2013 23:44
Quote:
Commodity production means making stuff and selling it, as oppossed to subsistence production or production for use. And yes, I'd like someone who thinks that commodity production is exploitative to explain why does he think that.

Do you think that money and economic competition are oppressive and exploitative, and if yes- explain how.

Unless I'm missing something*, there's the argument that workers in co-operatives face the pressure (as the capitalist who preceded them) to squeeze out surplus value from labour, meaning that they'll be self-managing their own exploitation. It's the same law of competition as it is now -- co-operatives would be vying with each other to sell equivalent goods at the cheapest price, and that will impel them to work harder for less.

For that reason economic competition entails exploitation. I think both it and money are oppressive as market forces impose upon the individual a commitment to labour-discipline and money leads to inequality.

*I only have a faint conception of LTV and Marxism in general.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Feb 12 2013 05:05

The dizzying circularity of this thread is astounding. Have we created the anarchy higgs boson yet?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 12 2013 07:22

No serious anarchist thinker postulated the Higgs Boson, yet they all thought mutualism was a form of libertarian socialism. Appeals to the authority of true Scotsman eh?

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 12 2013 07:40

who is this 'marx' guy anyway, some sort of comedian? anyway, anything that's ever needed to be said ever i get from my research center

*~poot~

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 12 2013 08:47

First, does anyone else find this "AnCom" abbrevation really annoying? I've always used "AnCap" as a bit of a perjorative, because it's utter bullshit to associate capitalism with anarchism.

It seems there's been a string of posters on libcom recently who've gone on about "AnCom" and "AnCap" and "AnMut" and "AnInd" as if there's these equal terms in the historic and contemporary anarchist movement. Which is obviously not true.

Quote:
The "potential" for a mutualist society becoming exploitative is exactly the same as AnCom society becoming exploitative, meaning- potential to stop being anarchist society and becoming some other system.

No, it doesn't. They're be pressures and social relations within a mutualist society that wouldn't be there in an anarco-communist society.

Quote:
Because, if we are to take hints from views of some people here, revolutionary forced collectivization seem to be a very real threat.

Of course, come the revolution, I don't really give a shit about the views of capitalists. You can bet your ass we'll collectivize the hell out of the means of production whether they like it or not.

Quote:
I know people who are smart and get everything about capitalism and still say they prefer capitalism to a LibSoc system, so, there's obviously lots different people out there.

I don't thinnk you understand anarchist arguments for communism or have much of an idea how we envision a revolutionary movement developing and functioning.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 12 2013 13:22
Quote:
blimeybruv

Unless I'm missing something*, there's the argument that workers in co-operatives face the pressure (as the capitalist who preceded them) to squeeze out surplus value from labour, meaning that they'll be self-managing their own exploitation.

First think, the workers receive their own suprlus value, there is no one extracting it from them, meaning there is no exploitation, therefore it cannot be managed in any way, by themselves or anyone else.

It's the same law of competition as it is now -- co-operatives would be vying with each other to sell equivalent goods at the cheapest price, and that will impel them to work harder for less.

Which has nothing to do with exploitation. It is impractical, but not exploitative.

I think both it and money are oppressive as market forces impose upon the individual a commitment to labour-discipline and money leads to inequality.

I don't how can it lead to ineqality, if there is no hierarchy.

Quote:
Joseph Key

Appeals to the authority of true Scotsman eh?

Countering misrepresentation of LibSoc views is not an appear to authority, nor true scotsman. If someone says that I say A, and I said B, and then someone corrects him by saying I actually said A, he is no appealing to my authority, he's correcting the misrepresentation of my words. And if someone things that he can be LibSoc and have different views about what LibSoc is then the people who defined LibSoc, he's an idiot on the level of capitalists calling themselves "anarchists".

Quote:
Chilli sauce

No, it doesn't. They're be pressures and social relations within a mutualist society that wouldn't be there in an anarco-communist society.

And thoe pressures can lead to capitalism exactly how? By magic?

Of course, come the revolution, I don't really give a shit about the views of capitalists. You can bet your ass we'll collectivize the hell out of the means of production whether they like it or not.

Well, if you consider AnMut, AnInd and AnCol capitalist, that just makes you an idiot and means you're not an anarchist (/LibSoc).

I don't thinnk you understand anarchist arguments for communism or have much of an idea how we envision a revolutionary movement developing and functioning.

And understand whay you think are arguments for communism would make me realize that there would no people not wanting to participate in the commune, but revolution will magically make all people want to join a commune, no one would to be in a bakuninist collective or organize in mutualist or an anarcho-individualist with other people? You seem to believe in magic very much.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 12 2013 13:57

"Doctors, physicians, psychiatrists, anesthesiologists, engineers, computer programmers, investment bankers, small business owners, politicans, scientists, academics, CEOs and a whole bunch of really smart and successful and clean looking white people really think capitalism is a rational system that rewards those needing it!

"Meanwhile, you have all these... less fortunate individuals screaming at me for revisionism from their dogma. Huh, weird isn't it? I... I think I'm startin' to see some correlations here..."

Have you ever even fucking seen a poor person? Is all of this anarchism stuff to you some sort of academic thing that you REALLY had to think about? Jesus Christ how middle-class are you

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 12 2013 14:02

Oh, and I just fucking love this idea that the secret dreams of every poor, working class individual is to own a fucking plantation with a volley of migrant workers slaving on it.

Wait, sorry, I meant "mutually consenting individuals coming together with the plantation-owner paying the free individuals their market value"

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 12 2013 15:05
Quote:
Countering misrepresentation of LibSoc views is not an appear to authority, nor true scotsman. If someone says that I say A, and I said B, and then someone corrects him by saying I actually said A, he is no appealing to my authority, he's correcting the misrepresentation of my words. And if someone things that he can be LibSoc and have different views about what LibSoc is then the people who defined LibSoc, he's an idiot on the level of capitalists calling themselves "anarchists".

Youve got a cheek putting forth the charge of misrepresentation of peoples views on this thread, given that your whole modus operandi has been to deny that answers to your questions have taken place in the entirety of the thread.

As for appealing to authority, the way you have gone about things is to 'correct' people on what libcom or libsoc or anfaq or anfuck is by grabbing some quote from some historical figure in the tradion and saying "see x says this so your conception of libcom is wrong it does allow for markets haha!" This is an appeal to authority fallacy as your attempt is to get the assent from representatives of this tradition of thought (ie members of this forum) by showing what the founding fathers said contradicts what is being said by people on this thread.

I can see where you are coming from since it seems that your underlying assumption (as demonstrated by your continual x would not happen because y is by definition z; or if x happened then it could not be attributed to y because y has the quality of z) is of some kinda quasi-platonic universal definition, the highest of whiches instantiation is that which can be drawn from the sacred tomes of anfaq, and from that pov of course we should all bow down to the authority of whoever bearded person has come out to play....

But heres the big but....

Its a fucking living tradition, which is subject to change via the struggles and discussions of people within that frame of referance. And what makes this whole fucking escapade totally farcical is that you must somewhere hold that assumption likewise by THE VERY FACT OF YOU ASKING THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

So what is it? P - a fluid tradition not bound to particular 'founding fathers'
or NOT P - a static tradition bound by 'founding fathers'

Because to hold both P and Not-P is a contradiction - and i know you love your logic.

Edited to ADD - im being a wee bit silly there with the logic stuff so maybe the choice ought not to be so stark - even though those seem to me to be what can be read from greenjuices contributions.

But anyway greenjuice, even if we are going to be more nuanced between those two positions, you really ought to try applying a non-universal quantifier (like some or most) when talking about what anarchist thinkers state, because all it takes is for one to have a different take and your argument falls to pieces - and given that most on this thread have stated differing takes on markets than the people you cite shows that you cannot justify your universal quantifier without looking somewhat foolish.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 12 2013 15:15
Chilli Sauce wrote:
It seems there's been a string of posters on libcom recently who've gone on about "AnCom" and "AnCap" and "AnMut" and "AnInd" as if there's these equal terms in the historic and contemporary anarchist movement. Which is obviously not true.

There's something especially annoying about "AnInd".

Greenjuice wrote:
First think, the workers receive their own suprlus value, there is no one extracting it from them, meaning there is no exploitation, therefore it cannot be managed in any way, by themselves or anyone else.

Greenjuice's and as well as every other individualist's theory of exploitation is when one man is literally on top of another man. They can visualize, like through the diagram of a pyramid, one man exploiting another man by being on top of him and extracting surplus. All we have to do is get that man off the other man, put them face-to-face to each other (the abolition of hierarchy), with all of their feets planted firmly on the ground, and have them interact freely with each other through contracts as "mutually consenting individuals". And the story will end happily ever after.

Talk about abstract and scientific thinking. Their method by the way is called 'dialectical idealism' and 'historical idealism'. Their explanation for the economic crisis is as follows: a group of men got on top of another group of men, and extracted unearned incomes (profits, interests, rent, etc.). We need to abolish this exploiting group of men, put them on an equal footing with the other group of men, thereby allowing all incomes to flow exactly to where it all belongs. This will unleash a century-long boom. The End.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 12 2013 15:31
Chilli Sauce wrote:
First, does anyone else find this "AnCom" abbrevation really annoying? I've always used "AnCap" as a bit of a perjorative, because it's utter bullshit to associate capitalism with anarchism.

It seems there's been a string of posters on libcom recently who've gone on about "AnCom" and "AnCap" and "AnMut" and "AnInd" as if there's these equal terms in the historic and contemporary anarchist movement. Which is obviously not true.

yes but thats because all these various 'ans' on their own logic do not seem to sit right. But there is one way to resolve all those ans so that we can get to the pure 'AN', through a process of abstraction, transcending and including the various conflicting suffixes,

This process is called ...... the ANFAQ

God i need to stop scratching this itch!