TFW we will have a combined anarchist revolution against the state in the near future

Worked great for Spain in 36

...

Anarcho-pirateism does not exist, maybe you should be the one to GTFO

Stay ass blasted kiddo you wont find any support here.
also I use what ever flag I fucking want cuz I'm a pirate and a pirate is free.

Sure. Go for it.

It's not sectarianism if both methods and goals are absolutely different.

What have you guys done except throw a few rocks and vandalize businesses in the past 3 decades holy gee-whiz where is that revolution of yours already?

Fuck off statist scum.

Capitalist workers around the world unite!

Marxist-Capitalism flag when?

daily reminder: there is no such a thing as "an-capism"

fuck off

Pinochet was not a real capitalist he was an evil statist.

Then tell your comrades to stop making ebin helicopter memes about a CIA puppet

these disgusting faggots not only trying to hijack anarchism from anarcho-communists but they also refuse to call those who fought and died for anarchism, anarchists. lol, this much ideology. keep living in your lil bubble kid cause no one is going to take you seriously outside of it.

Sure there is, it is just on the right wing side of the scale.

SHIGGY DIGGY

really? under what authority are property rights defended?

bro… this is getting sad. it's time to go to bed.

Under a mixture of the NAP and my gun.

and don't forget about the good old, anarcho-feudalism, anarcho-fascism, anarcho-imperialism and last but not least, anarcho-stateism.

kings existed before states, it's perfectly possible to be an anarcho-monarchist

...

...

yes because "anarchism" means "anything you do without state ex: anarcho-mafia, anarcho-sex trafficking…". read a fucking book ffs!

if property rights on objects are derived from self-ownership, and property rights are transferable with no taksies-backsies
why can't I transfer ownership of myself?

wew, don't read theory much, do you?

anarchist squatters in europe already form an anarcho-mafia

i am theorist myself

quite a productive 15 years you've led. can you post your written works?

wew what a troll. u did it again boi! 23676/10 perfect meymeying. all interwebz belong to you.

that would have flied if you weren't responding an anarchist who live in europe. bad luck i guess.

stop acting like you know anything about what you are talking about. that's a bad habit and will always be exposed one way or another. that's ok though, you sound like 14 so I won't go hard on you.

it's not summarized yet, i'll post it here once i've done it and it reads like proper theory

i appreciate your skepticism, it's a good trait to have

snownigger, i've lived in a squatted building, they run drug trades from them, and not just small time

Is this the best political maymay of 2016?

can i see your theory

thought as much

How about anarchists and marxists work together to form a democratic vanguard that is only allowed to work towards specific pre-set socialist goals?

here's the thesis of my theory: anarchism is already here, everywhere, due to the symbolic order we can't see it, and when we do we will fall like willie coyote when he looks down

Ancaps only exist on the internet. You are not helpful. Any sort of agreement could benefit only the ancaps.

READ A FUCKING BOOK!!! this is the last time I am going to tell you this. I'm cringing behalf of you right now. gee, I'm discussing with a "theorist" who think "anarcho-monarchism" is a thing ffs.

We have been fighting with drug dealers for more than a century in the streets! It's not your hip, tattooed, small time pot dealers. We have been fighting with cartels in the streets, there have been armed clashes. and we know our comrades in Greece and Italy does the same thing. I am talking about anarchists who are heavily involved with anarchist politics here, you get it? not your "stateless-anything goes" so-called anarchists. do you understand? should i treat you like a retard?

once again STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. if you have tried to spread a misinformation like this irl, you would have beaten heavily. and be sure that your NAP wouldn't save you. so stop it for your own sake. this is the last time I'm writing on this low b8 thread.

WEW

the reality of the anarchy i saw was drug dealing, trafficking, all sorts of nasty shit.. good stuff, solidarity like i haven't see anywhere else. it's not what you want as an anarchy, but anarchy isn't the imposition of your desires, it's a fundamental anarchic state, not a state controlled by the ideology of anarchists

you're right that i would be beaten up for saying this, the truth hurts, upsetting your imaginary realm hurts

I will never ally with you.

No, you wont
Porky pls go

Bitch your ideology is not even on the scale, please leave actual anarchism to real anarchists.

Reminder that if you ignore ancaps, they will actually go away since they don't do anything offline.

...

t. 1917-1991

Thanks for reinforcing my decision.

Now I know at least one nice thing I can say about LeftCom.

Counter-revolution and Communism are slightly different things.

Some of the most prominent groups that helped to overthrow Dilma Rousseff's government were composed of right-wing libertarians. With the whole "the state is too big", "taxation is theft" and stuff.

Ironically, now they allied themselves to PMDB, whom are pork barrel politics at its finest. Welfare state for the rich, free market capitalism for the poor.

...

...

OK we can discuss

That's not how this works.
Taking a step forward while taking one back leaves you right where you are.

Yeah how about naaaaah

...

...

Dumb planner

...

...

...

No planning = FALC

thanks black flag, I don't need to read theory when I can just live in utopian idealism like you

Mutualists are a mix of Marxists and AnCap in denial. They can pretend to be one only because they don't do practice - theory can be extremely vague.

And if you don't plan, nothing can go wrong, yes?

Read Proudhon

No fucking shit, I'm arguing that it's not magically the most efficient or effective way of doing things. To say it doesn't exist is absolutely retarded, so why even strawman that?

Bad planning does, good planning doesn't.

:^)

I'd rather not live by the whims of the market.
If people as a whole could take part in the planning, I'd have no problem with it.

Sadly it is, as economic planning cant come up with a solution to the economic calculation problem

You have yet to provide a critique worth of arguing about markets, so far you have only replied with feefees

Basically, there is no delimited order in the economy other than workers ownership, chaos is the default state of a market, the difference is chaos does not destroy your whole planning structure

...

I don't think Proudhon supports this AnCap bullshit.

There is no calculation problem. You do not need to plan for every single toothbrush - that's not how planning works.

Are you genuinely autistic or do you not understand feelings?

speaking of "feefees"

Top kek

Keep struggling

wew I didn't know you were baiting me this whole time. good job, I fell for it. 7/10

mises.org/library/problem-economic-calculation

inb4 you're some special snowflake form of ancap

X-)

Read Tucker, Produhon and Margall

Do you think people don't get reported for excessive shitposting?

lel

If I find you trapped in a burning building, I am completely justified under the NAP to demand that you sell one of your kidneys and give the profits to me and then serve me for the rest of your life in exchange for getting rescued from the fire, and if you later renege on the promise in any way, I will likewise be completely justified to sic attack dogs on you for them to tear you apart alive.
NAP is such a meme that I still don't understand how come there are people older than thirteen who take the concept seriously.

...

Alrright, hqve an argument:
On planned and production economies, division of labour, production for exchange and labur itself still have exchange values, as workers who labour on sectors in which not even the produced good satisfies the biological minimum, such as soldiers, scientists, teachers, miners and the like, have to exchange their labour so that they can demand basic goods

Therefore the labour and the good/service itself, which were produced by the labourer, retain its exchange value, as a teacher wont be able to demand all the bread, nor a miner will be able to exchange it for al the meat

On planned economies labour is still commodified, not any different from a market, however labour has to meet production quotas, therefore labour cant be set free

And of course we still have the problem that the automation and development of tools of machinery exists by intent, not by design

Decentralized planning that superseded market anarchism is the GOAT solution.

Lol keep struggling

Poor soul has no clue what is being discussed here

Did the tanky tripfag remove his trip?

There is absolutely nothing to indicate Marx wanted State Central Planning either.

...

sorry lad, not a tankie/stalinst. Just not an anarkiddie that relies on Mises

So why dont we use the information collected from the workers, and engage in production of similar quantities, so thqt we dont hqve to wait or live plan by plan, using demand as a indicator of increase or decrease in production?

What is the point of having to wake up and spend several hours submitting what i want the economy to prodice, and just use the demand of each product as an indicator

There is still SNLT in planned production you know?

Lol, imagine being so clueless you think market anarchism and mutualism = praxeology

Mises = mutualism now?

I can't even keep up with this nonsense

Lol this poor kid still belives the only critique of planned and command economies comes from mises

back to Holla Forums please

Decentralized planning is based around participatory economics, where essentially all the tacit knowledge of everyone involved in the production or consumption is utilized to make decisions regarding production. I generally agree with the ECP, and this is one of the proposed solutions and I would argue closer to what Marx proposed than ML.

No, there isn't. It is impossible for SNLT to express itself if currency is not a commodity. Commodities only express value in other commodities. The commodity exchange in Capitalism today is completely different from the one Marx critiques in Capital.

I should also mention, I think small scale gift economies within a community are superior for trading small and frivolous goods than a market, which preserves subordinating a communities needs to Capital.

Gift economies always in the end up with gifting becoming mandatory, in which case it's not gifting at all. I like the idea in principle, but it has never worked before as intended and I don't see how it can. Maybe I'm mistaken, since I only really know about gift economies from the historical perspective, so feel free to enlighten me, but for now I remain sceptical.

Participatory economics is good but at the end is just a less efficient market, it follows the laws of supply qnd demand, how do you decide who keeps a scarce commodity? What if the demand for a commodity is low but its SNLT is high so its production in excess is a requirement as to not run out of it?

Lol wat, it will take more time to build a house than to create candy, which means they have different exchange values

I was completely unprepared for realising the full extent of just how fucking stupid this lad is.

I'm not super familiar with gift economies. I've just read bits about them theoretically, and how they were used in the past (though I was under the impression that it wasn't "mandatory", so much as it was strongly encouraged which I have no problem with). I also said that I only wanted to use gift economies for frivolous goods produced more on a local scale - like the issue of, "one day I like eggs for breakfast, the other day bacon". How do I reconcile this with the fact that production even if it is always produced as a surplus to keep up with demand, is more or less "planned". The answer for me seems to be a gift economy.

These are my thoughts, but if you have anything you can show me to convince me otherwise, likewise I will become skeptical.

Supply and demand as a rule is an eternal law, it's not something you can do away with. I'm arguing about controlling production in accordance with social need, rather than predicating production on uncontrolled expansion which is what a market does.

Commodities can only express "values" in Capitalism through each other. This is what Marx lays out in Chapters 1-3 of Capital. Time is obviously an important component of production time, but "value" as Marx describes it as a social relationship under Capitalism needs the universal equivalent to be a commodity.

What's the bloody difference?
In practical terms that will simply make said frivolous goods serve as a kind of currency as it happens every time in a gift economy.

Personally I think we should have a decentralized planned economy as a stage of stateless socialism, the goal should be to produce abundance. Gift economies are something that should be fostered in the background while the workers experiment e.g. automation is used to reduce the amount of time, effort and resources used in production (I see communism as a goal to work toward). Technology can easily be used to find out how much is being produced and how much is needed.

I agree with this person, if you organize production around need and if the workers truly do own and manage the means of production then it would only make sense that they would try to make their own jobs easier.

If it's strongly encouraged because the community acknowledges we are mutually dependant on one another, and as a result of you abstaining from gift exchange people are indignant, then this is your own fault. If you do not like it, leave the community. No one is forcing you to stay, and this "you must be completely collectivist or liberal" meme is annoying.

Are these frivolous goods being used to purchase means of production? If not, I take no issue with them.

So there is no difference. You are acting in bad faith.
Have you actually done any reading on gift economies? Yes. Yes, they are. Indirectly, but inevitably.

For me, "mandatory" is having someone put a gun to your head and tell you that you need to do X. If people do not want to help you out, and you have bad social standing because of this, I do not view this as the same "mandatory" like paying taxes is "mandatory".

Considering the MOP would be distributed through decentralized planning, they're going to need an awful lot of bacon, and they're going to need to convince an awful lot of people (like I said - every involved in production or consumption would own the MOP being employed) to sell it to them.

So a house has the same SNLT as a piece of candy? And you call anyone idiotic? Lol

You are literally unanle how you still engage in production for exchange in planned economies

Only if the market is controlled privately, if there is no demand for something, why would workers produce certain good to begin with?

Worker co-op can focus instead of producing something which does have demand instead

On the contrary, a planned economy would produce according to the command of whoever has authority over it, be the central authority or the commune, therefore the production cannot happen in mass, meqning it will be harder to automate or develop technologies to reduce the SNLT of the commodity

No, because if I want to automate the production of something, i dont have to ask permission to nohody to labour accordingly

Yes, and this exist under planned production, both as design, since my labour accoundt only for a certain amount, as as a teacher I cant demand more value than the one i produced, meaning it has an exchange value and through black markets

Literally an ancap.
You never actually did read anything about gift economies, did you? Go RaFB.

Since when is there "no demand" for something?

wat

Why? I don't by the whole, "markets r only way to innovashun", people have incentive to pursue something based on mutual aid.

No it doesn't, this is fundamentally different than what Marx outlines in Capital volume 1. He actually says in the Grundrisse than there will come a time where the organic composition of capital will be so disproportionately constant, labour will cease to be the measure of value.

Literally Proudhon.

Good thing I'm not proposing a full on gift economy because I agree that's stupid, and advocating for a small one to take care of the shortcomings of a planned economy. Would you propose this to be done on a black market (which will inevitably popup in a planned economy), or a gift economy? Even if this deteriorates into cases where the "gift economy" is more along the lines of direct barter, the social dynamic that would emanate from the gift economy would create a more favourable environment than a black market.

I'm usually skeptical of people who can't put into their own words the content of a book they are requesting me to read, but I will do that at some point. Is it similar to Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years"?

There is no demand for something if thqtnsomething only exist as an idea of an individual, as an example, the majority of the people demand faster horses, but only a few think of creating an automobile

Market anarchism means both the people cqn breed faster horses and people cqn experiment with automobiles

If we only follow the demand of the people, without letting the indibidual develop their ideas, you stop an important part of human development

I'm not seeing the problem here. If it has that little effect, why do you care?

Also

Peak idealism

Because you will be forced to work according to what the "people" demand

Fuck you, I wont work in a meat factory just because everyone decided to eat mass produced meat

And before you imply anarchism will be the same, in a decentralized economy, you first have to convince everyone of engaging in a less abusive mode of producing meat, whereas in a market economy based on co-ops, all I need to do is form a co-op capable of supplying meat at a lower price to drive demand outside of mass produced meat

Same with fuel, cars, clothes, mining and so on

...

Division of labour is not just another word for production for market exchange. If it were, there wouldn't be a dispute. Nobody here is saying that everybody will have nano machines to produce as an individual what is needed for living. Your confusion as to why people who disagree with you are oh so stupid that they can't see how obviously wrong they are mostly comes from having your own private definitions of terms completely at odds with what is in Marxist writing.

Crappy planning is exactly what shows that people don't produce for market exchange. You are tasked with doing a particular activity. You make an educated guess that the activity is pointless and write a report about that, while still doing what you are told to do. Turns out doing that was indeed stupid and pointless. Guess what, you still get allocated food and shelter. You are not in some company that can go bankrupt (or grow and acquire others).

That would be a wee bit dishonest. When I misplace my trip for some reason (cookies), I link a post with a trip.

Because Planning as we know it wasn't a developed concept until Ballod's work in 1898 (and even then it was a bit of a mess - Central Planning was properly developed in 20s and 30s).

Other than that, Nationalisation + Industrialization are right here:
> The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

That was an immediate reformist measure to make life easier for the proles, not "this is communism". Not only that, but Engels says that the end of Section 2 of the Manifesto was more or less, a historical artifact. I know catposter misled you, but he does state:

The "centralization" part in Volume 1 of Capital is very explicit in identifying the potential for a "national capitalist". Engels also said in Anti-Durhing that nationalizing industries did nothing in of itself. "The Communist State", was a very vague concept and it could just as easily refer to council communism as it could to central planning.

that in the Preface to 1872 edition that the end of Section 2*

Okay. I'm slow to answer and I didn't really understand your point.

Apparently, you are trying to prove that "to everyone according to his contribution" was a thing in Planned Economy. And this obviously was the case (it even got written in Soviet Constitution). But I don't really understand what it was supposed to prove.

Socialist Planned Economy is not Communism. Nobody said that it was. You know that, right?

I would argue against it being immediate and reformist, but - yes. Not Communism. Your point?

That's not how it sounds. He says "you can deviate, if necessary". He doesn't say that everything is obsolete. He even clarifies right before your quote:

I.e. Engels is saying that Manifesto doesn't put enough emphasis on Proletariat keeping power over the state. Not that central control over MoP is something that is no longer relevant.

Additionally, "4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." (measures against French royalists) is one of the clearly obsolete things.

The idea is that Planning without democracy is meaningless, not that Planning is meaningless.

What exactly are you trying to say? That Marx wanted Central Planning in 1848, but then decided against it?

Or that Planning shouldn't have lasted more than a few months/years? (you didn't actually say it, but I've seen similar statements - and I have to guess what you meant)

Statism will win. The State will never end.
Suck it, anarchists.

It was reformist - Marx and Engels were writing it for the Communist party, a political party with parliamentary aims.

Right, he says "general principles" - I would not consider the measures at the end of Section 2 to be general principles. Moreso theory of class struggle.

I disagree completely, but if you wanna read it that way it's my word against yours.

We never said anything about planning, we're talking about central planning.

No, because those were immediate reformist measures. That is to say, how the society should be reformed now.

Also
The Gestapo and NVKD were oh-so democratic too. So were the show trials.

It was called Communist League, and - before I'll discuss anything else - I'd like you to either retract this statement or support it with evidence.

When Marx says "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State", the way I am reading the "battle of democracy", is the battle of democracy in the parliament.

More explicitly however, Engels said this:

Also:

This is also corroborated by the disagreements between Marx and Bakunin at the International whether the relief of the working class could be achieved through parliamentary reforms (which is what Marx believed), or through unionization and secret societies (which is what Bakunin advocated for).

Is this a joke?

Yes. It needs to be organized somewhat democratically for Revolution to have a chance of success.

It says nothing about actual Reformism. It is talking about preparing statesmen (Vanguard) for the Revolution. People that will be known and have some experience managing things. It it neither method nor goal.

And where were election held for Communist League, if it was a regular SocDem reformist party?

Okay. This is low-effort trolling.

Also from the "Principles of Communism" from 1847

And this was then followed by the planks.

What are you talking about? "To send to Parliament men of their own order" - he's advocating for the working class to organize a party, and send members of that party to be active in the English parliament. I can try and explain my point, but I can't do anything if you have a sub-80 Autism Level and thus, extremely poor reading comprehension.

Well considering it was active for approximately 2-3 years and most of that time was spent drafting up a coherent party platform (the 10 planks) - it did not take place.

Regardless, Engels pretty much says the 10 planks were intended for reformism here . I don't need to prove anything more, considering you misread something as simple as "send their own men to Parliament" as "prepare a Vanguard party".

Your entire post-history is low effort trolling.

Regardless, the vanguard set up by Lenin wasn't remotely democratic. It repressed the constituent assemblies, which is what Rosa criticized him for.

...

...

Your stateless capitalists not anarchists as you don't reject unjustifiable hierarchy.
And your barely that since a mini state of sorts would appear rather quickly when the man with the largest private army carves out his own peice of land and has people pay rent or tax on their homes within his vicinity.

...

Nobody said anything about abolishing all hierarchy but instead hierarchy that cannot justify itself.
If I child runs across the rode and a car is coming at him it is fine to drag him out of the way of the oncoming trafic the use of force here is of course justified.

a*

forth image
I've literally never said that.

I think ancaps are fucking moronic, but it's not an oxymoron.

but the kid has self-ownership and if you don't recognize self-ownership you can't make arguments because nobody would own those arguments and they'd just be soundwaves or pixels on a screen

I dont think a child of the age of 3 say even understands the concept of self ownership.

burden of proof faggot. you need to justify the abolition of hierarchy if you want the general populace to play along.

they're all ancaps until they are spanked

Jesus if your going to ask a question as broad and as central to anarchist theory as that why not go away and read a little

theanarchistlibrary.org/library
/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

Also
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq#toc10

...

Well it really isn't if you want to even get a grip of the basics it would be far better for you to do that yourself than me lecture you with paragraph after paragraph

And what hierarchy can justify itself, especially when material conditions are great enough?

Let us see: can the anarchocapitalist understand the need for greater material conditions (which capitalism does not give unless it can find a way to reinforce itself, being the memetic and structural virus it is)? Will the anarchocapitalist's dream system provide for it?

Indeed, you and your kin deliver lectures to us about voluntary hierarchy, but what hierarchy justifies itself in the face of the ever-shifting, never-completely-common causes of individuals? You will find that the answer is only that which involves the changes of material circumstances. Whilst Stirnerian spooks can be dismissed at will, one cannot dismiss the shot from a gun when it enters one's flesh. Similarly, submission to someone else's cause or even a completely alien cause is only necessary when one's survival and/or wellbeing depend on fulfilment of that cause. You say it is "voluntary" but it can only be so as long as people are held in chains by their material circumstances.

This is precisely the argument which we use against your system. If there is no social mobility - which the market cannot provide, especially when there is no state to regulate the economy and stop monopolisation - there will be hegemony.

Scarcity is a fact of life. When there's a surplus of resources to go around, people will start breeding more and more until a new equilibrium is reached.

Almost the whole of the 20th century has shown that Malthus's models of population growth are inaccurate: decreased scarcity in the long term actually leads to population decline. Once societal development and resource distribution hits a threshold, population growth declines: we see that in almost every country that hits that point regardless of geographic location, cultural background, etc.

Once again, the """""an"""""caps continue to oversimplify to the point of absurdity. Here's just one scenario that maintains monopoly

Forgot pic