Is LibCom voluntary?

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 13 2013 11:45
Quote:
Nanner

Have you ever even fucking seen a poor person?
Fuck you, I'm a member of the working poor.

mutually consenting individuals coming together with the plantation-owner paying the free individuals their market value
Which has absolutelly nothing with anything I've said.

Quote:
xslavearcx

given that your whole modus operandi has been to deny that answers to your questions have taken place in the entirety of the thread.

Which is true, and can be deemed false only by people who do not grasp the meaning of an answer.

Its a fucking living tradition, which is subject to change via the struggles and discussions of people within that frame of referance.

So, if the anarchist movement as a "living tradition" goes and "via struggles and discussion of people" takes on the theory and practice of stalinism, it's still anarchism according to you, yes? According to that relativism we should not oppose AnCaps using the word "anarchism" for themselves, why not- it's a "fucking living tradition".

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

Not p. Ideas have definitions. If you change the definition then don't call it by the name of the original idea, especially if there are still people advocating it.

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.

That just means that people have views of that LibSoc is different from all prominent LibSoc thinkers, meaning- those people don't know what they're talking about, as evidences by the lack of explanation of their views when I asked a bunch of times to explain why do they think commodity production (markets and money) is exploitative.

Quote:
Agent of the Fi..

Greenjuice's and as well as every other individualist's theory of exploitation is when one man is literally on top of another man.

That has been the theory of exploitation of every socialist thinker ever. If you get the full product of your labor, meaning- there is no one taking a part of it from you- you're not exploited.

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.

Yep. If you think the employer-employee relation in a capitalist firm is the same as worker-worker relation in a worker cooperative, you have some serious delusions.

blimeybruv
Offline
Joined: 1-12-11
Feb 13 2013 23:02

hypothetical question time: if a society of cooperatives existed without bosses and private ownership, and the surplus within each coop was distributed democratically via negotiation within the coop -- would it be exploitation if those with the greatest bargaining power laid claim to the bulk of the surplus (on account of having a vital skill set), to the point where a low skilled member might as well be receiving a wage?

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 14 2013 04:27

holy crap your actually poor?

Jesus, i'm a bit shocked; that's like finding a every book ever written by Ayn Rand and Julius Evola in the library of Leon Trotsky! It just seems insane.

Greenjuice, this thread has literally become one of my most favorite reads in Libcom for the past couple of days. It's not because I like seeing you intellectualy destroy the cyrptostalinists, it's because it's completely hilarious. From the dishonest quoting of Kropotkin to the sourcing of Wayne Price, I freely assumed that you were some middle-class right-wing ultraliberal right-"libertarian" who defected to being a filthy communist while accidentally maintaining a lot of that silly market-worshipping baggage. If you're working class, I sincerely apologize for my ribbing.

First of all, small businesses are JUST as bad as big businesses. Literally the only thing stopping your mom'n'pop stores from bringing in Pinkertons and hiring paramilitaries to massacre unionists is size. Fascism has drew many a member from this caste throughout history. All workers must be apart of our movement, and all of the propertied classes should have a good reason to oppose us.

A cooperative is simply a capitalist enterprise except everyone working there becomes a capitalist. I'm inclined to support a coop if its members are freely aware of this fact and use the money to, say, bankroll some rabble rousing, but I digress. The point is that the only thing revolutionary about a coop is that the people actually doing the work can take in some of that glorious organic lettuce cash. It's a progressive expirement, but nothong to wacve a red flag over. If I can't afford to buy their organic lettuce, than I'll just have to deal with it.

Libcom has oodles of literature on everything, including coops. They can give you a better reason for not caring for them better than I can.

Also, I feel individualism informs a lot of your inclinations towards markets, so I'm just gonna say it: individualism is really worthless. Go read The Need For Roots, it ain't anarchist but it really does explain a lot of what's wrong with individualism, even though most of the book is just Weil spitting out prescriptions for this or that social ill. Or, better yet, the New Testament. Not joking in the slightest, btw.

Remember, there's a reason, communists always prefixed the term "individualism" with "bourgeois". It has, since the beginning of time, been a thinly veiled justification for selfishness, arrogance, egotism, and greed - not so much a special snowflake raging against society but a rebel capitalist raging against the better interests of the entire world. And here in the states, it nicely fits in wih racism, elitism, hedonism and other things societies definitely need more of. There's nothing noble or virtuous in the concept of every man and woman trying to find more efficient ways to use each other.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 14 2013 14:32
Quote:
blimeybruv

hypothetical question time: if a society of cooperatives existed without bosses and private ownership, and the surplus within each coop was distributed democratically via negotiation within the coop -- would it be exploitation if those with the greatest bargaining power laid claim to the bulk of the surplus

First of all, there is no surplus-value because there is no boss. No one owns the labor of someone else, but all own their own labor and receive the full product of their labor. I don't see how can there be different bargaining power in a coop.

(on account of having a vital skill set)
You can be omniscient, you have the same vote as everyone else, in an anarchist society (including AnMut and AnInd) everybody's the same. Also, IMO post-revolutionary coops will have "balanced job complex" workplaces (to use the parecon term) being that for a revolution to succeed, workers will have to definetly break with the false-socialist (and false-communist) technocracts that grew out of Leninism, and post-revolution, workers would naturally make sure that such a thing doesn't grow again, by organising workplaces accordingly.

Quote:
Nanner

First of all, small businesses are JUST as bad as big businesses. Literally the only thing stopping your mom'n'pop stores from bringing in Pinkertons and hiring paramilitaries to massacre unionists is size.

Being that we're all anti-capitalist here, I don't see why are you telling me this.

A cooperative is simply a capitalist enterprise except everyone working there becomes a capitalist.

Being that the capitalist and the worker become the same person, the capitalist-employee relation disappears, and thus such a thing cannot be called capitalist, because it has abolished the capitalist relations.

Also, I feel individualism informs a lot of your inclinations towards markets, so I'm just gonna say it: individualism is really worthless.

I always understood anarchism to be about the freedom of individuals, not about some fictional hegelian organic entities whether the class, corporation, nation, or the community.

I was drawn to anarchism and anarcho-communism by stuff like this Kropotkin's quote:

Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests—individual liberty—and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis—economic liberty—without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding—god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his independence, his will, his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formerly made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, "No society is free so long as the individual is not so! Do not seek to modify society by imposing upon it an authority which shall make everything right; if you do, you will fail as popes and emperors have failed. Modify society so that your fellows may not be any longer your enemies by the force of circumstances: abolish the conditions which allow some to monopolise the fruit of the labour of others; and instead of attempting to construct society from top to bottom, or from the centre to the circumference, let it develop itself freely from the simple to the composite, by the free union of free groups.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 14 2013 14:50
greenjuice wrote:
Its a fucking living tradition, which is subject to change via the struggles and discussions of people within that frame of referance.

So, if the anarchist movement as a "living tradition" goes and "via struggles and discussion of people" takes on the theory and practice of stalinism, it's still anarchism according to you, yes? According to that relativism we should not oppose AnCaps using the word "anarchism" for themselves, why not- it's a "fucking living tradition".

ancap is not dirived from the anarchist tradition and have no politics in common with the anarchist movement, the only thing they share is the name

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

Not p. Ideas have definitions. If you change the definition then don't call it by the name of the original idea, especially if there are still people advocating it.

if you believe this how do you justify considering kropotkin and malatesta anarchists when they were? anarchist communists. Communism being something previous anarchists, like bakunin considered to be inherently incompatible with freedom and hence anarchism. if anarchism is fixed by its founders then communists like kropotkin can not be anarchists, to try and use them to defend your ideas of what anarchism is, is to implicitly recognise that anarchism is a movement that changes, not a static set of idea laid down by founding fathers.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 14 2013 15:34

ancap is not dirived from the anarchist tradition and have no politics in common with the anarchist movement, the only thing they share is the name

So you do pressupose that there is a definition of politics of anarchism that one's ideas have to meet in order for them to be called anarchistic?

if you believe this how do you justify considering kropotkin and malatesta anarchists when they were? anarchist communists.

AnCom is a type of Anarchism, and Anarchism has a fixed definition. You cannot change the definition of anarchism to include nationalized economy with a dictator giving orders to everybody, you just can't do such a thing. If one advocates something that conradicts the defition of Anarchism, that means he's not an Anarchist. And when you do establish a correct definition of Anarchism, it neccessarily includes AnMut and AnInd.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 14 2013 15:43

No, no anarchism has a pretty strong individualist streak a mile-wide that originates from some of its main proponents - it's just thatit's bloody worthless. If you think that a world wherein everyone is an atomised individual who gives zero shits about anyone else and makes relationships for only convenience and self-aggrandizement and anything resembling morality is thrown away go outside. I'm more than sure Kropotkin might rethink his opposition to community if he ever saw what a society without it might look like.

Also, greenjuice, I really don't get your fetish for coops. I mean, so what? The majority of everyone will never be in one, the majority of everyone is producing things the world desperately needs but are tempered from even thinking about that because of the "free market". Do you know companies throw out unsold fruits and vegetables when the Horn of Africa was facing a price-gfamine less than one year ago? Do you know that billioslns of dollars worth of grain rot in India when most Indians can barely feed their families? Do you know that we start wars over finding more Bauxite and colbalt for all these fucking electronic hallucinations when so many people sleep under bridges?

Man, fuck markets- all of them. The wealth of the world should be distributed from each accordiing to their ability to each according to their want, money is just a Marxian fetish that's worth less than the cost it's printed for. I really don't see anything at all revolutionary in self-managed capitalism

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 14 2013 15:54
Quote:
Nanner

Also, greenjuice, I really don't get your fetish for coops.

Fetish for freedom maybe. Non-oppressive and non-exploitative relations must be tolerated in a free society and coop is such an organisation. There is no oppsression or exploitation in not joining a commune and then (by oneself or in a coop) making stuff and them selling them.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 14 2013 23:08
greenjuice wrote:
Also, IMO post-revolutionary coops will have "balanced job complex" workplaces (to use the parecon term) being that for a revolution to succeed...

I think your mixing up a few -isms there.

NannerNannerNan... wrote:
I'm more than sure Kropotkin might rethink his opposition to community if he ever saw what a society without it might look like.

I don't think Kropotkin was opposed to community. After all, he was an anarcho-communist; in favor of the immediate abolition of competition, markets, money-currency, commodity production, etc. Unlike badjuice here, he didn't just only oppose the "capitalist-worker" relationship we see within the vast majority of capitalist enterprises today.

All in all, I think badjuice has done a huge disservice to many thinkers he had quoted or referenced in this thread, including Kropotkin. Not only have he misrepresented their views, but he failed to understand them in the first place. I don't often like to refer to this or that thinker, but why do it when your clearly propagating reactionary ideas that that thinker don't even share, ideas that they may have even criticized as vile and bourgeois? Are you that desperate for back-up to your own reactionary and inhumane ideas?

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 15 2013 12:48
Quote:
Unlike badjuice here, he didn't just only oppose the "capitalist-worker" relationship we see within the vast majority of capitalist enterprises today.

Unlike some stalinists here, Kropotkin wasn't for forcing people into communes, but he rightly saw as a part of Anarchism the neccessity to tolerate non-oppressive and non-exploitative behaviour, some of which are not joining a commune, making stuff by onself and selling that stuff.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 15 2013 18:50

tolerating non-oppressive and non-exploitative behaviour (Anarcho-communism)

making stuff by onself and selling that stuff ('Anarcho'-capitalist)

And it isn't Stalinist to say so, however many times you take it out of context and underline it.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Feb 15 2013 20:16

10 PRINT "is libcom voluntary?"
20 GOTO 10

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 16 2013 13:33
Quote:
And it isn't Stalinist to say so

No, it's idiotic, being that there is nothing capitalistic in commodity production, it existes in slave-society, it existed in feudalism, it existed in capitalism, it existed in socialism (in both societies where socialism was instituted) and will exist in socialism, the only for it not to exist post-revolution will be by imposed collectivization, which would invalide that society as socialism (let alone libertarian socialism/ anarchism), or by creating a mind-altering machine that will make all people want to join communes, that is, make everyone not want to make stuff and sell them, which I don't think is likely that such a machine will be made.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 22 2013 15:20

Most ahistorical statement ever. Just what bourgeois economists would say. Bravo eplesaft!

prettykewlguy
Offline
Joined: 21-02-13
Feb 24 2013 19:40

The end-goal of libertarianism is to free the individual from subordination and social hierarchy in every conceivable facet of human relations. We understand that the nature of authority is such that authority does not diminish or undermine itself and that it is inherently self-serving. We reject authority, whether it emanates from the state or from the capitalist, because it imposes one individual's will upon another. We have no interest in the existing state of affairs because we see the many forms of authority stifling liberty.

Libertarian socialism is not a rejection of the individual in favor of some abstract herd instinct ideal; it is the only social and political system that is entirely consistent with the ideal of freeing the individual from subordination. If we want to be consistent with the principle of liberty, then we must respect the voluntary associations of other individuals, whatever form they may take. This does not translate into respecting the phantom of private property or respecting the capitalist's 'right' to make others subordinate to his will. But what it does translate into is respect for mutualist market-based communities or communities instituting any of the various forms of anarcho-collectivism.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 25 2013 10:07
Quote:
The end-goal of libertarianism is to free the individual from subordination and social hierarchy in every conceivable facet of human relations.

You mean like the market?

Max_Anarchies
Offline
Joined: 16-10-12
Feb 25 2013 13:18
Quote:
or by creating a mind-altering machine that will make all people want to join communes

IMMAH CHARGIN MAH AnCom LAZER!

This thread makes me question so much of my authoritarian imposition of anarcho-communist values on the oppressed capitalists. I'm gonna change my name to MAX_FREEDOMZ and then not oppress capitalists any more. Because its all about FREEDOM!

GreenJuice - Because Stalinism is restricting the freedom of people to develop relations of exchange that DEFINITELY WON'T develop into hierarchical capitalist systems because it DEFINITELY ISN'T in the intrinsic nature of relations of exchange.

Max_Anarchies
Offline
Joined: 16-10-12
Feb 25 2013 13:20
Quote:
Fetish for freedom maybe.

Sometimes I touch myself whilst I read Ann Rand.

prettykewlguy
Offline
Joined: 21-02-13
Feb 25 2013 22:00
Chilli Sauce wrote:
You mean like the market?

Well, markets are not exploitative in and of themselves. Markets also predate capitalism. Sure, it's a shitty arrangement for a free society because it subjects people's lives to external forces even if they're not being directly exploited by capitalists.

prettykewlguy
Offline
Joined: 21-02-13
Feb 25 2013 22:01
Max_Anarchies wrote:
Sometimes I touch myself whilst I read Ann Rand.

Freedom = Ayn Rand?

I must be missing something here.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 26 2013 11:25
prettykewlguy wrote:

I must be missing something here.

Irony?

Tim Finnegan's picture
Tim Finnegan
Offline
Joined: 16-05-12
Feb 26 2013 11:57
prettykewlguy wrote:
We reject authority, whether it emanates from the state or from the capitalist, because it imposes one individual's will upon another.

So does direct action. So that doesn't seem like a very robust basis for an anarchist politics.