.
1 Guest
viewing this page
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
OP
Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)
Member
Seen
8 days ago
<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>
<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>
Mutualism fam.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades
Member
Seen
2 yrs ago
There are anarcho-communists.
All anarchism means is there is no state. All communism means is that the workers control the means of production (ie property and machinery belong to those who use them rather than those who own them in the abstract form of capital). You can have both.
All anarchism means is there is no state. All communism means is that the workers control the means of production (ie property and machinery belong to those who use them rather than those who own them in the abstract form of capital). You can have both.
2x Like
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
OP
Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)
Member
Seen
8 days ago
Or there could be a government, but its answerable to the people organized based on the conceptualization of societal organization as its imagined. An-Coms organizing around the community who all commonly hold the means of production and operate democratically on what may be described as basically local-level politics.
And then there's An-Syndicalism, which I think is focused on the worker's union as a force of societal organization.
I dunno, it's murky. The far-left is a wild place.
You then have council communism, vanguardism, tankies, left-Libertarianism (and all its associations)...
And then there's An-Syndicalism, which I think is focused on the worker's union as a force of societal organization.
I dunno, it's murky. The far-left is a wild place.
You then have council communism, vanguardism, tankies, left-Libertarianism (and all its associations)...
I'd personally prefer ten years hard labor and scrubbing things with seized, communally owned toothbrushes. If I absolutely have to die ASAP then line me up against a wall with the rest of the white people thanks.
Keyguyperson Welcome to Cyberhell
Member
Seen
6 mos ago
@scribz
My comrade
My comrade
Aint no party like a communist gulag party.
Because a communist gulag party don't stop.
Because a communist gulag party don't stop.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
Keyguyperson Welcome to Cyberhell
Member
Seen
6 mos ago
<Snipped quote by scribz>
"Lefty" also seems misguided. What if the factory is also my house? Why should I give my house away to the people that I hire to work there?
That's why "Me" is presented as better. Because not even personal property should be safe from our rightful wrath. Not only are we coming for your house and toothbrush, we're coming for your cell's mitochondria. Seize the means of cellular energy production.
(But seriously who the fuck lives in a noisy-ass factory next to all of the lesser people they hired?)
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades
Member
Seen
2 yrs ago
<Snipped quote by scribz>
"Lefty" also seems misguided. What if the factory is also my house? Why should I give my house away to the people that I hire to work there?
That's a bizarre circumstance. Usually anything that looks like that actually involves somebody doing the actual work and hiring assistants. In which case the circumstances really don't change, aside from the assistants get the full value of their labor.
Remember it's not the property itself in question, but the value produced by the operation of that property. If you're some really weird factory owner who lives under the machines for some reason, your living circumstances don't change. It's just that the wealth generated by those machines go in full to the people working them. You can still live under the machines, you just have to work them sometimes and actually create value in order to make a living so to speak. You could always give the machinery over to those workers. But if you decide to lock people out, then yeh, there will probably be an altercation, since those machines happen to be the way your recently liberated employees make a living. This would probably become one of those unhappy circumstances revolutions tend to create, in the same sense that employees of the crown found themselves in a bad place during the American Revolution despite most of them being law-abiding and honest people. There are wrinkles in any instance where a society moves from one method of organization to another.
A more practical weird circumstance I thought up while trying to imagine a more realistic petite-bourgeois scenario than yours was the circumstance of a factory I worked at a couple of years back. It was a small place owned by a woman who was wealthy, but not full Mr Burns bourgeois. In a revolutionary circumstance, that factory would naturally become the purview of those who actually worked on the floor. Thing is though, the place was full of dogs, because she was a big part of the local rescue community. Those dogs would be hers of course. In the completely unrealistic scenario of a clean-break revolution where everything changes over a short period of time and no actual blood is spilled, there would probably be an awkward moment where she has to come into the factory she no longer has control of in order to get her dogs.
OP
Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)
Member
Seen
8 days ago
The thing that tends to nag at the back of my brain despite being a filthy commie or Anarcho-Com depending on the time of day is what happens to the distribution side of things, my father being a small-business (hardware store; over a hundred year old establishment now) and how that might effect such places as those. Presumably if the target is only manufacturing then not much would actually change for the retail distribution network, at least at a scale as small as my dad's. No one's really working on owning the means of production at Home Depot, they're just working to get the end-product of another factory organized on the shelves so they can be distributed out the populace on the presently used as-needed basis under the rules of capitalism.
But at the ultimate end, I suppose employees of Walmart, Staples, or Home Depot or what not would end up taking ownership of the stores they work in and taking full ownership of the warehouse/storefront and being able to dictate what product comes in, how much of it, and all the other details of working retail or just consumer-level distribution.
The situation for my dad may not actually change much, since he's either the only person working at the store, or the people that work with him are practically on the same level of operational hierarchy and the only notable difference between he and them is an official legal recognition that he pays all the bills and taxes.
But at the ultimate end, I suppose employees of Walmart, Staples, or Home Depot or what not would end up taking ownership of the stores they work in and taking full ownership of the warehouse/storefront and being able to dictate what product comes in, how much of it, and all the other details of working retail or just consumer-level distribution.
The situation for my dad may not actually change much, since he's either the only person working at the store, or the people that work with him are practically on the same level of operational hierarchy and the only notable difference between he and them is an official legal recognition that he pays all the bills and taxes.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades
Member
Seen
2 yrs ago
The thing that tends to nag at the back of my brain despite being a filthy commie or Anarcho-Com depending on the time of day is what happens to the distribution side of things, my father being a small-business (hardware store; over a hundred year old establishment now) and how that might effect such places as those. Presumably if the target is only manufacturing then not much would actually change for the retail distribution network, at least at a scale as small as my dad's. No one's really working on owning the means of production at Home Depot, they're just working to get the end-product of another factory organized on the shelves so they can be distributed out the populace on the presently used as-needed basis under the rules of capitalism.
But at the ultimate end, I suppose employees of Walmart, Staples, or Home Depot or what not would end up taking ownership of the stores they work in and taking full ownership of the warehouse/storefront and being able to dictate what product comes in, how much of it, and all the other details of working retail or just consumer-level distribution.
The situation for my dad may not actually change much, since he's either the only person working at the store, or the people that work with him are practically on the same level of operational hierarchy and the only notable difference between he and them is an official legal recognition that he pays all the bills and taxes.
In pure Marxism, these details and the obvious complications is where the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" came in. Thing is, Marx was only into arguing that the revolution must occur, and doesn't predict the exact details of it. His schtick wasn't to discuss the problems of Communism, which he was leaving for future generations, but rather the point out what he saw as fatal problems in capitalism.
I feel like Marx's place in modern society is more about giving a second perspective. Clearly his doomsday didn't go down quite the way he assumed it would, but because he didn't ace the test doesn't mean he didn't have some perspectives that should be taken into consideration. Modern socialism I feel is looking at a different set of problems, namely the twin problems of economic stagnation in developed countries and the looming threat of final automation. Because the Marxists failed, after all, doesn't mean that Capitalism is the word of god for all time and always. We gotta look at the problem from all angles instead of, like the An-Caps do, hunting for virginal sacrifices to feed to the Volcano god called capitalism. Or, like the liberals do, assume it will be CURRENT YEAR forever.
Mind rephrasing this? Because it sounds like they're not only getting paid, but also profiting from the sale. If they voluntarily agree to a contract that limits their compensation to one of those forms, is it not ethical to hold them to their word?
Because they didn't have a choice. The contract was coercive in the sense that they either sign the contract or die of starvation. If you are freezing to death and wandering from house to house, and everyone requires you to emasculate yourself before you walk in the door, would your inevitable castration be considered truly voluntary?
If you're compensating others to do the work on your behalf, why do you need to work? For all we know, the owner-resident of the factory could be mentally and physically incapable of operating the machines, but still be capable of fairly managing labor and distributing compensation.
What you are saying is if the guy is good at sitting down and receiving money, shouldn't he be allowed to sit down and receive money? I mean, sure. I'd like that gig too. I'll sit down real good and you guys can give me millions.
My issue with this scenario, and the American Revolution incidents in the higher quote, are that the workers are forcibly and illegally taking away property. It's one thing to say you're going to create a new society that's based on voluntary transactions, and another to say that while you're basically stealing property from others.
That's a matter of perspective. The American Revolution was an illegal taking away of property as well. All revolutions necessarily are. The King was not allowed to choose whether he renounced ownership of the North American colonies. You might think this is a funny comparison, but legally speaking, it's the same deal. If we are going to argue for the rights of aristocrats, we need to be consistent.
OP
Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)
Member
Seen
8 days ago
<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>
In pure Marxism, these details and the obvious complications is where the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" came in. Thing is, Marx was only into arguing that the revolution must occur, and doesn't predict the exact details of it. His schtick wasn't to discuss the problems of Communism, which he was leaving for future generations, but rather the point out what he saw as fatal problems in capitalism.
I feel like Marx's place in modern society is more about giving a second perspective. Clearly his doomsday didn't go down quite the way he assumed it would, but because he didn't ace the test doesn't mean he didn't have some perspectives that should be taken into consideration. Modern socialism I feel is looking at a different set of problems, namely the twin problems of economic stagnation in developed countries and the looming threat of final automation. Because the Marxists failed, after all, doesn't mean that Capitalism is the word of god for all time and always. We gotta look at the problem from all angles instead of, like the An-Caps do, hunting for virginal sacrifices to feed to the Volcano god called capitalism. Or, like the liberals do, assume it will be CURRENT YEAR forever.
Which I guess is the ultimate beauty of the Left. There's a lot of discussion on how to go about these goals and differing oppinions. You can call them all part of "the Left", but then also can't quiet all think of them as the same thing.
Unlike, you know, fascism perhaps where the only difference is whatever ultranationalism for whatever country and whether or not white people should marry Asians.
OP
Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)
Member
Seen
8 days ago
<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
My issue with this scenario, and the American Revolution incidents in the higher quote, are that the workers are forcibly and illegally taking away property. It's one thing to say you're going to create a new society that's based on voluntary transactions, and another to say that while you're basically stealing property from others.
Ultimately what all revolutions lead to is the "theft" of property of one power and the redistribution of it to another. Whether that be to the people or the parties that backed your revolution in the first place. The very act of revolution is as much theft as war is murder. It's just what happens when these things occur.
From a Right-Libertarian perspective and AnCap perspective, all welfare and taxes is theft as much as paying for public services. So really, the theft point is moot because however you look at it even what we do in the modern liberal democratic country is stealing from one class of people to give things to another, this usually boiling down to building an army, paying for schools, building and maintaining roads, train stations, airports, and dockyards, sewage, electrical, and medicine, and scientific grants to kick-start programs in any science of engineering field.
But we're willing - as a majority - to re-brand taxation and fees as theft because it goes to some greater good, like Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The empowered pay in the most because they got the most to boost the less empowered to equalize society in welfare programs, and the whole rest of us pay out in income taxes, millages, and property taxes to pay for local, state, or federal services. At it isn't a voluntary exchange like going to a story to buy an apple: it's a required obligation to pay into nation building and maintenance.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
1 Guest
viewing this page
of
6
© 2007-2024