Hello friends, favour to ask, could somebody please proofread my manifesto...

You should get a trip like 'Tonguebox poster' or something.

also

Please

when were his methods ever put into practice for the aim of anarchism?

Many a bomb thrower. This is why we have this reputation. Lenin was even a fan of the catechism

bomb throwing and direct violent confrontation isn't in the catechism.

I bet Stalin was :^)

Oh come on. If the catechism of the revolutionary doesn't actually promote violence what does it do?

" Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution."

entryism and manipulation

the violence has to be sprung from the people for the supposed revolution

October Revolution happened pretty much without violence

not sure if this is some clever sarcasm or serious since I haven't studied that history

Anyway, since we got to the point of talking about him, my point is that his methods are good guidelines, this should be obvious since he is never explicit, for doing revolution. I don't support nor think it will lead to better results, but it's sure as shit useful and practical at doing irreparable damage to the status quo, if anyone has the patience to play the long game as the "Doomed Man".

The actual revolution was largely without any violence. The Storming of the winter palace etc, the violence only happened afterwards when the whites revolted.

I just think his ideas are based in this kind of revolutionary romanticism.

These days we have only millenials to work with. Only Islamics and hillbillies have anything close to fervour.

You have to convince millennials that they will still get to be reasonably /comfy/ or they won't do fucking anything

Living life as a doomed man is there last thought

And that one, yes.

There are free programs like LibreOffice that come with a spellchecker. In case your interface is in a different language: You can download spellcheckers for several languages.

Now what tiny thingie is missing here? Remember the last thread about this?

-_- You are going to keep that, aren't you.

Another thing: You are saying indeed 17 times, which is a bit too often.

I have open office mate the spellchecker is wank.

Thank you so much for doing this. That sure is a whole lot worlds I spelt wrong.

Nah genuinely thought I had got all of these out.

Just under once a page, you are right.

I was trying to just get the ideas down. Thank you for helping me out with the style and presentation

and you actually took the trouble to do this, obviously read it pretty closely, what do you think of it as a strategy?

This is a manifesto for ancapism. Wage slavery is the very basis of capitalism. As long as wages and the worker/owner paradigm exists, capitalism exists.

mmm but it is taken under democratic control in order that it may be abolished, if you continue reading. The co-op is a tool, not the end goal.

I wonder how the co-ops are supposed to link up with each other, aside from some vague words that they will help each other. It seems to me they are treated too much as self-contained entities. The idea of leaving a lot of room for decisions to people locally seems to lead many to this conclusion that each co-op needs to do a lot by itself (though it may receive some financial help from the other co-ops or through some mutually controlled bank).

The proposed change of society needs people who are more empathic towards each other than usual. What sort of circumstances make people empathic towards each other? Living and working together is a big one. If I am asked to help another people in another co-op who are basically strangers to me I'm not going to be particularly enthusiastic about that. So, what I'm getting at here is that this separateness must be avoided already very early on. The people in the different networked co-ops have to visit each other all the time and work together, not just send some products or money to faceless strangers.

I would try as much as possible to separate the issue of decisions who you are going to work with (can be a very local decision) from the decision who is allowed to work with collectively-owned means of production for which goals (can be the result of a highly centralized computation).

Of course, this is part of the idea around the group community projects, as I put in. The idea is that in collaborating on projects networks of solidarity and support will be formed, between co-operatives, between workers within those co-operatives, and between the network and the community the operate in and hope to help out.

I don't quite get your last part could you maybe unpack it?

Not sure if the whole "collective property" thing would sound too scary to some people, is it worth maybe rephrasing it as "common property"?

The ideas of mutual aid and a transition to a gift economy are mentioned throughout the document - have you actually read the whole thing?
I suppose the praxis itself could be compared with the praxis of some ancaps - to supersede the state with private businesses but here, the goals and values very clearly distinguish it from ancapism.

too many words, nobody's gonna want to read that shit. cut it all down to half a page at most

We need a fully formed one. Half page summing it up to hand out would be a good idea though.

That's why I went for 'the private property of the people'

I guess you walk the line between using euphemisms and not sounding too commie. As far a possible I tried to make it about freedom and democracy rather than collectivisation.

I guess the whole tension of previous socialist movements has been in the process of collectivisation, taking land from private hands and into public hands, it is this problem this strategy aims to address, so maybe we could come up with another apart from collective property or collectivisation.

Maybe just democratisation?

can you post the corrected version? I sorta try to save all the pdfs I can get my hands on, and I imagine this'd be a rare piece to have.

Yeh I'm just finishing off the corrections now

...

There is it, but if you wait a little another user is going to make it sexy with graphics and whatnot

I mean it as I say it. When people argue for centralizing the economy and others argue for decentralizing it, they are often speaking of different aspects of the economy. You can have both. Decentralization makes sense to me when I think of individuals having a lot of influence over which tasks they do, which hours they work, with whom they work. And central computation makes sense to me when I think about how to organize the resources and machinery, the material dependencies. (Free markets with private property also have these dependencies, so treating each business as responsible for its own thriving or demise is based on a legal fiction.) Central computation does not imply that there must be an elite of rulers (for positions that are only occupied by one person we can use better voting methods and term limits, for committees we can use sortition).

I don't want that the way the co-ops are to interact with each other is a choice between either treating the other one just like another business or treating the other one like everybody is best friends forever, gift economy, and so on. Some quantity of money being associated with a particular quantity of some good doesn't convey much information about how it is made, so I am not a fan of co-op2co-op relations aping capitalism with maybe some friendship magic thrown in. People spontaneously doing some things for free or maybe not is not a way to plan and act in a coherent manner.

So, what I want is a tool set for measuring and reckoning about facts of the production structure that works without everybody being a 100 % unselfish and honest person, and that this tool set is used in how the co-ops interact with each other. This tool set should work in a way that avoids the feedback loops that are typical of capitalism: that obtaining wealth gets easier when you have wealth, that servicing a debt gets harder the more you are in debt, and that there is an absurd pressure to work more and more that is quite independent of anyone's desire for expensive flimflam.

I agree.

But it isn't friendship magic. The whole idea is to use the co-operatives to pool together resources for community projects, through these projects people become connected and solidarity can flourish.

Did you read the whole thing? I want to start small, build solidarity in a few places, then gradually build on that. It isn't about suddenly everyone helping each other at all, its about building the structures to help people in the immediate, organising your whole movement around that.

The projects necessitate the building of these structures and so groups to organise production and distribution.

The point is, to create structures around which mutual aid becomes the driving force.

Read the whole thing. We take control of the wages in order to abolish them

Third version he posts, and he still doesn't know how to spell committee.

Too vague. What is the co-op2co-op relation, formally? What rules do they have for interacting with each other?

You sound mad, have I pissed you off in some way?

I'm fully aware my spelling and grammar is atrocious. Which is why I ask helpful anons to help me.

If its down to just committee then I'll count that as an improvement.

>formally

Whatever formal agreements they set up between themselves, which will mostly consist of mutual contributions to community projects.

>rules

Whichever rules they make for themselves.

I think you're missing the fundamental concept. They would form relationship as and where they felt they were necessary, not according to some central authority.

This is built on the belief that, for the most part, given the power and opportunity most communities will help each other out of their own volition. It is only within capitalism that this is not allowed to happen.
The entire idea is that there is not strict rules, its self managing. What I have laid out is the way I believe such a society can be achieved, by starting with small pockets of solidarity and agreement and building.

It isn't an over night idea, its designed to take time, so that it can grow sustainably and to have solid foundations for the future. I don't believe this foundations can currently be built with violence, although I accept that at certain points in history they definitely have been.

Nah.
Some might say people are already doing that.
The issue with capitalism isn't just that assholes exist. If that were the whole problem, the non-assholes sticking with each other would be the solution. Capitalism creates inequality even without anybody having bad intentions. What people will do when they act without any other guideline aside from don't be evil is doing what they are used to do, that is replicating the system.

You need to come up with a system of accounting and decision-making that doesn't have an automatic drive towards inequality and work-time expansion.

I think what you might not be fully understanding is that this a strategy for the seizure of the means of production, essentially by good advertising, not the entire revolution.

The growth of co-operatives is really the first stage. You might say, this is the recruiting of the militia. This is the organisation of the supply lines and the strategy.

The 'battle' will be when we are assembled in a federation, and have the power to destroy one by one each feature of the capitalist system within that federation, through common consent.

In the traditional revolution, the means are seized by force of arms.

With strategy, they are seized by sheer solidarity. I deny that sheer solidarity is not the most basic revolutionary force. It has been the foundation of every revolution and will be the foundation of every revolution to come. A revolution without the solidarity of the working class is no revolution at all.

This movement aims specifically and only to build solidarity. It is our distinct aim to provide services free of charge as an act of solidarity to our compatriots. When we vote together on the running of our business we will practice solidarity among ourselves like no hierarchy can. When we are deciding between 10 different co-operatives, how best to help out the community around us with the 100,000 grand we have, we will be practising solidarity. At the same time, practising the communal ethic that we work for the community, and that we give our 100,000 grand willingly and ask nothing in return, save perhaps one day day starting your own and practising your own solidarity.

^^^ not gonna count how many times I said solidarity there

*just 100,000

I understand all too well.

A feeling isn't a strategy.

What I don't understand is how this is more than three pages. For a text of that length, it should really spell out how the decisions are made, and don't just be like Nestor Makhno and say everybody does what they feel like doing, and when in doubt, be nice to each other. Capitalism has power concentration and drive towards longer work for mathematical reasons. Come up with some procedures for managing resources and then try to figure out whether your procedures have the concentration issue and the drive towards longer work.

It isn't a feeling, its a practice. Solidarity is something you DO. Are you really denying the power of the unchained united worker? If so why are we bothering?

Decisions are made by democratic collectives, collaborating voluntarily. I don't know how much clearer it could really be. Obviously I am not going to dictate to them how they do this, as very probably the situation and nature of the business will dictate just what form of democracy their business takes.

You keep referring back to this like

a) Anywhere in this document does it even the word use 'nice'
b) Generally people aren't nice to each other in localised areas

>for mathematical reasons

I'm sorry but unless you are going to show me your working for these mathematical reasons they are not reasons.

>Come up with some procedures for managing resources

What do you mean? This is what I have spent 20 pages talking about. You want me to repeat all that?

Initially- Co-ops,

Second- Co-Ops together building small community projects

Third-Co-Ops, buying out all the land on which they sit, so they no longer pay rent.

fourth- co-ops use this profit to start building hospitals, housing, schools, to start buying up farms, etc

fifth- co-operatives do away with the wage system gradually, those working within it are provided with more and more for free until they need nothing from without, while at the same time using surplus to help those not part of the co-op system.

I am not arrogant enough to assume I can in detail describe the minutae of managment of each stage of all that. It isn't actually what I set out to do with this text, as it says within the text. That is job of the peoples whose job it is to do. It is not the job of a central authority, but a series of agreements that cannot predicted unless you are close enough to the conditions in that moment to understand them. Which a central authority is not.

People already collaborate voluntarily in capitalism.
Maybe you can't find it because you got the spelling wrong.
People are only raped on the internet, and never in their local communities?
OK.
What procedures do they use?
They buy it with the money they blew on community projects? And if they are dead-set on buying it no matter what because that is the plan, guess what price the owner will ask for? If your intent is to own land it makes more sense to initially search for land you can buy rather than first set up a co-op at a specific place and rent and then tell the land owner you intend to buy for sure that land.
The profit that they blew on community projects and on buying land (and somewhere in the text there was also something about attractive wages), all that fantastic amount of profit that is left is used for building hospitals and stuff?
Giving out stuff for free is usually in conflict with doing things efficiently. So, as you start out giving stuff away for free because you are productive enough, you will start losing productivity. Not because everybody is super-greedy and won't work at all, but because you will cease to have useful data.

I know, co-operatives do work within capitalism already, that's the beauty of it.

Yeh probably you will be nice to each other after all of that bonding.

Already conceded I have shitty spelling, yet here you are still carrying on about it like it matters..

Point me to where I said this.

Forming a group of delegates or a simple assembly of co-operative workers, assessing their area for what will be most effective, then deciding between themselves how to act.

So switch buildings. The point is your democratised something. Unless you are suggesting an instant cabal of landlords who suddenly up the price of the land astronomically just for us.

Where are you going to get the money to buy land from? Out of nowhere? It is much more expensive to buy raw land than to rent commercial property and also a much bigger risk. Sure, money would have to be raised to start a co-op but nowhere near as much as buying land. Although buying land in the immediate could also be an option if the conditions were right.

See, these are the kinds of things that would be left directly to you. Isn't that a good thing? If you think I'm retarded you can have your own form of democracy. So long as you are gonna chip in to the mutual fund and get on board with the projects. You can buy land instead of starting a co-op, then later we can federate and buy healthcare.

>The profit that they blew on community projects and on buying land

This is specifically at the stage after that, once we are reaping the profits of buying the land.

Come on man at least read what I wrote at this point you're kind of just being facetious.

No actually it is incredibly efficient, you make stuff, you give it out. You don't bother with markets or having to refer to a hierarchy.

We are no just handing out things willy nilly. we start with the basics, housing and so on. Then we build up. Once we own them outright, the only cost is in maintaining them.

>you will start losing productivity

Why? We will have been giving away a big chunk of our earnings from the beginning? Why would it only take effect just now? There are plenty of businesses out there that exist like this right now. All I have really suggested is bringing them together to pool resources, try to tackle larger community issues, and to form situationist solidarity groups to advertised this.

You already made a thread about this. You only changed the text minimally and barely fixed any of the typos that were explicitly listed and then made this thread, and half-way through it you post at the version that fixes most typos. Why should people pay attention to your text if you pay so little attention yourself? Your text needs an overhaul, it's not that you are badly communicating your ideas, you need re-working on the conceptual level. Here is what you are saying:
This is quite agreeable. Then there is a description of the steps getting from point 1) to point 2), and the order of the steps looks pretty arbitrary. There is nothing compelling about it.

You got this question in the last time you made a thread:
You still haven't answered this.

If you want to keep your text as fuzzy as it is, two pages should be twice the amount a good author needs to convey this.

what manifesto?

dude read what the text actually says. I HAVE answered these questions, and this is a thread specifically asking people to help me proof read it. I think you are confused about what thread we are in.

which I went back through and changed, the corrected one I posted up there was pre full edit.

Lol I would love to see you break all that down into two pages.

Have you actually read this?

Tbh the fact that you are so willing to jump in with crit without actually reading the post leads me to devalue this crit.

Particularly If I have already answered the questions.

What is arbitrary about it exactly? Your use of the word arbitrary is pretty arbitrary at this state.

this is a subjective judgement lacking any real substantiation

I have answered this.

I'm the person who gave you the word list in the last thread and the current one as well. Contrary to what you said about spellcheckers not working, most of those did show up in LibreOffice.

Your text is not convincing and, aside from the typos, you are not improving it. You take offense whenever something is asked or suggested, and instead of improving it you try to "win" the debate. If you want to improve it, show that you have read what was said to you by paraphrasing it in a neutral way.

If you think your text is great as it is and you want to have the last word, you can have it.