If you want to abolish wage labor why not become an agorist?

if you want to abolish wage labor why not become an agorist?

Other urls found in this thread:


Because SEKIII is a faggot who was beat to his own ideas by Marx when he wrote about "dual power".
I will say though, all that we see coming from the left in the US in this regard is the worker co-op movement, which seems to lack the illegalist ethos of "agorism" (even the anarchist co-ops!). They do their taxes, they play the weaksauce "ethical capitalism" card, it's all very Catholic Woker feeling.. no, dual power in earnest is only done in this way if you are a "keep the hegemony of the state intact so the proles can take it" type ML. If we are being strategic, we simply do what we can get away with, within our worker co-ops, and do so by any means necessary.

Because property rights don't exist. Mutualism is superior.


property rights are useful

i was under the impression we could use agorism to achieve mutualism

What does Holla Forums think about left-wing market anarchism?

Agorism advocates personal ownership of the means of production, what is the issue here?


Marx said under wage labour, all labour even unpaid labour appears as paid.

Similarly, under a market all resources, even those wasted appear as allocated. Having a social market does not fix the issues with capitalism. The advantage of a market is producers being able to act on tacit knowledge quickly to meet demand. This can be accomplished using particatory economics where an enterprise is socially owned by all those involved in production or consumption, where all tacit knowledge can be used instead of just that of a producer. A planned economy using market forces.

Here is some reading for Agorism and Left-Wing Market Anarchism.

There is nothing about free markets that require private property, wages or bosses.

That's what Proudhon was saying.

Shit. Essentializing muh democracy while doing little more to capitalism than changing the structure of traditional autocratic enterprise to a horizontal one. The problem is property and production for exchange as a systemic disease in itself, not the fact that this process involves a few bosses.


there are a few of us around
mutualists and more market-based anarchists


The top-tier choice for markets, Ignore starving central planning retards

totally not because under capitalism the profit is put before the externalities right?

I'm curious.

How do communist anarchists want to structure an economy? What material should I read to learn more?

No, markets can't do proper economic calculation. I fail to see how mutualism corrects crisis of oversupply since the tacit knowledge of a producer can't guage overall demand properly.

there is no need for a precise economic calculation, specially on an anarchist environment where whatever organization scheme is able to supply reliable data about it's population, as such data will be utilized by the firms that co-operate in order to meet the demand

as long as there is a positive ratio between the number of supplys over the demand, and that extra supply is manufactured to be recycled, the system will work

UBI, although I am not for it, and fully automation in the delivery of the oversupplied goods, let's not forget oversupply is very much related to an overuse of finance capital and overinvestment, which mutualists banks oppose

I'm confused pirate, why not decentralized planning. Firms operating to meet demand is a part of it, the only difference is the firms are all socially owned instead of just owned by the producers. I understand how muralist banks mitigate M-C-M', but this doesn't seem that different from decentralized planning if the firms are supposed to have a mutual goal in mind.

It depends. But to answer your questions about "whats wrong with agorism" it's no different than normal ancap. They don't want to redistribute the property which was gained through state coercion back into the hands of the majority of people, and that to me is the same as being apologist for the status quo.

because they are different concepts, Im going to use a Network diagram to prove a point

No, as in a market anarchist environment, specially a left-wing one, the concept of socially owned and producer owned is the same, as the society owns the means of productions, making them producers

I know they're different models. I just don't see the advantage of decentralized market over planning.

what are the advantages of decentralized planning?

that's what I though tbh


Most of the more left-leaning agorists (read: people who actually read SEK3) have no problem with individual reclamation against the state and capitalists, because their fortunes are based on theft.