/pancake/

I knew that but you wouldn't expect them to actually name an institute after a commie.

Yet he doesn't describe why that "to throw off all authority and to establish no new authority, but to combine into free laboring groups" after revolution will just result in private industry, he merely asserts this to be the case. This is the equivalent of anarchists saying the Marxist revolution will result in despotic capitalism with red flags, except without the USSR as an example of that.

plus in Kropotkin's example he was talking about a scenario where the revolution was in place and capitalism was being abolished. It sounds like the Pancake man is saying that anarchist communes are going to somehow recreate capitalism in a postcapitalist society.

Je kunt een groot aantal teksten in het Nederlands online vinden, zelfs teksten die nog niet naar het Engels vertaald zijn, bijv.: aaap.be/Pages/Pannekoek-nl-1930-De-Arbeiders-Het-Parlement-En-Het-Communisme.html. Maar ja, Pannekoek schreef vooral in het Duits, de grotere taal met een grotere bevolking (en dus meer arbeiders), of zelfs in het Engels.

The point being that "decentralized commune" can mean literally anything, from a black market capitalist squat town to an actual post-value society, and because anarchism is complete poverty when it comes to critique of political economy it leaves it up to the imagination following the ideal of lots and lots of freedoms.

Because all Kropotkin does in his texts on the subject is unlike in Marxism show what type of struggle is to result in a particular type of clearly definable post-capitalist society, what he does is use vague terminology that can refer to just about anything.

That is if Marxists had not written texts like Critique of the Gotha Programme, three volumes of critique of political economy, or in the left communist milieu some of the most detailed elaborations of the Marxist hypothesis such as this: marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm.

BTW since this is a Pannekoek thread and the subject is Kropotkin he actually wrote a text rebuking vulgar social Darwinism by putting it against Marx and he mentions Mutual Aid in it, crediting Kropotkin for the "mutual aid" notion as a good argument against them, including many of Pannekoek's own arguments against: marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm.

What’s wrong with drawing up alternative ways of societal organization which would work better for most people then our own.

In actual science, you don't derive a "theory" from deductive logic - you come up with a hypothesis by deduction from existing theories, test it, and from there inductively determine if it is correct or not. Have Pannekoek's ideas held up against the experimental test of actual revolutions? In the Russian Revolution, without even prompting from agitators, the workers spontaneously organized into soviets and factory committees. They did this without a state (I refer here to a state as Marx and Bakunin defined it, not as Lenin twisted the meaning to his own ends). When anarchists failed to be organized in Russia, Kropotkin's worse fears - that order would be reinstated to limit consumption and limit free association, that this would lead to the slaughter of revolutionary groups by progressively more conservative groups insuccession (just as happened in the French Revolution) - came true. In fact, the Bolsheviks only won because Denikin didn't march on Moscow because Makho remained true to Kropotkin's hypotheses and was organized enough to attack Denikin's supply lines. The same thing happened in Spain, except for that many anarchists themselves were complicit in opportunistically contradicting their own theory (while the rank and file of the CNT remained in line with the diagrams of Kropotkin and Rocker, the central apparatus was interested more in the union than in the revolution and so cooperated with the govt to subvert communization). So, in all ways that Kropotkin's hypotheses were falsifiable, they were true. Ergo, by flat out contradicting Kropotkin, Pannekoek is wrong.

Because all Kropotkin does in his texts on the subject is unlike in Marxism show what type of struggle is to result in a particular type of clearly definable post-capitalist society, what he does is use vague terminology that can refer to just about anything.
Kill yourself, you absolutely illiterate moron. You clearly haven't even opened "The Conquest Of Bread", and neither did Pancake Man.

...

I honestly have no idea of what you are trying to argue here, but Kroptokin is very clear about what he is advocating for and none of this proves Pancake's assertion.
And the first two were published and read by the revolutionaries while Lenin responded to the Leftcoms by calling them infantiles. Yet we still got social democracy with red flags after a revolution whose leaders were students of marxism and certainly aware of leftcoms. Why are we to believe that Lenin or Stalin got it wrong in favor of obscure theorists united by little more than opposition during the 2nd international?

The theory(!) of scientific socialism is not an actual science:

You precisely do this. It's the most vulgar description of materialist thinking you can imagine.

This would be the scientific method, and it's again precisely what Marx attacked, and what Pannekoek (a fucking mathematician astronomer, who knows actual science) reiterates when he says:
Utopians denotes not societies that do not use the scientific method to arrive to their conclusions; in fact it refers precisely to coming to conclusions with such thinking, with zero understanding of social factors, factors which have no linear basis or origin in scientific rationalia. These things have their basis in history and the development of productive forces; the things which we as materialists find out is what stands at the root of everything ruling societies economically, and then elsewhere. Scientism was therefore something Marxism explicitly avoided, and Adorno developed on the reasons why in his Dialectic of Enlightenment; showing that scientific determinism can literally only ever serve to reinforce understandings that adhere to science itself, i.e. things always wholly separate from social reality, where in it finds itself productively and so on, and even worse, it will find itself at the service of the ruling ideology always, because science is but an arm, not a social path in itself.

Okay, you can stop talking like you know your shit now. There are only accounts that these two met each other once briefly (Kropotkin met Lenin more often than he did Makhno FFS, and Makhno never even showed to have read any Kropotkin), and Makhno had no developed theoretical basis outside of anything but its own. He is also frequently tagged an anarchist when Makhno had almost no such affiliations. It is only from the sidelines and later on that he was characterized as such, even though 90% of anarchists find out that even though he was absolutely not a Marxist, his homegrown platformist theory is a thing they've always shunned.

Don't bother doing that if you're just gonna C&P from Conquest of Bread.

Source for this: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm.

And N.B.:
>The theory(!) of scientific socialism is not an actual science:
This is something Marx and Engels made pertintently obvious every time they used the term. It's all over the most paradigmatic text featuring the subject (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific). You can only take usage of the term to imply actual natural sciences if you purposely go out of your way to misrepresent them.

Lol don't try to bring your derelict hovel of an understanding of the early Russian Revolutions into a Pannekoek thread, a thread featuring the paradigmatic theorist on council communism. Workers' councils weren't magical spawns just like that, and the factor of spontaneity in virtually no way at all contradicts his adherence to scientific socialism (in fact it only confirms it; see what the early anarchist movements in late 19th century Russia did versus what the council-forming proletariat managed to do in the early 20th).

Haha, you're kidding, right? I, too, have memorized the unsourced Anarchy FAQ nobody takes seriously. No no, the Petrograd Soviet's militancy had no primary influence here at all, nope

Assuming is also you, or at any rate way since you both try to make a point using political deterministic thinking here, when they say:
I'd be a joker if I were to say that what failed the Spanish revolution was the ill intent or even the poor management of the anarchists in charge. In the same way, you'd have to be a total joker to think Russia became red Taylorism not largely because of a counter-revolution triggered precisely by its isolation, the defeat of the German communists, and its backwardness slowly but surely forcing it to jump on the fast track to regular capitalist development in order to subsist.

I also know for sure the ancom flag is going well out of his way to selectively borrow from Dauvé's Kautsky and the Renegade Lenin here (as he's done before, and that's a good text BTW), and that's disappointing because in the same text it's not political determinism that is seen as the major factor for counter-revolution, but the situation itself. Of course things could have gone differently, but this doesn't by itself invalidate either Marx or anarchism. You also know full well Dauvé is not a dismisser of the Spanish revolution.

Can I ask if I'm getting wew'd right now?

marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm

This is Pannekoek's analysis of trade unions, historical and theoretical. I advise any revolutionary trade unionist (or syndicalist of you like to use this fancy French synonym for it) to check it out, because it basically concludes that trade unions are inherently limited to doing nothing more than establish collective bargaining with capital's functionaries, or to substitute minority functionaries with themselves and thus proceed to keep capitalism alive but in trade unionist/syndicalist form. The second they go beyond it is the second they cease to be a trade union, and this is also the second in which they become the enemies of trade unionists' livelihoods and come in full conflict.

I'm afraid not, shocking as it may seem in a board with over 1k posters some have similar opinons.
My original point was anti-deterministic, namely that Pancake's assertion that following Kroptokin's suggestions would result in private industry is unsubstantiated. I used the example of Marxism ending up as red capitalism because that is a common charge used by anarchists, not because I agree with it.
Not by me.

Sometimes people switch between flags and the same angle seemed to have been taken, which is why I followed with "at any rate" because my point would stand.

I notice I didn't address another part of your post:
Clearness has little to do with whether or not a socialism is scientific or utopian or not. In fact in a sense it's precisely an emphasis on a type of clearness that typifies many utopianisms, the ones like the Chartists and Saint-Simonians. Marx noted that we are quite rigidly bound by our own circumstance in how far we can imagine a future socialist society; we can only hypothesize some very elemental things, perhaps some likely scenarios with a type of system we may find in it. The dominant wing of utopians were precisely the type to in full detail want to constantly design the future society, and especially in the case of the Fourierists, who Marx praised for this, they were perfectly capable of addressing the capital and wage relationships as such. The point here was that they were doomed to fail nonetheless because all their focus went on making reality adhere to this blueprint rather than drawing the essential few things from them and instead focusing on where the revolutionary working class is and what it can actually do. Kropotkin as such of course knows to identify wage labour as an essential feat of capitalism, as well as private property and so on, the point is again as I said before that this does not in any way instantly make this theory of socialism scientific. Lacking all the things critique of political economy Marx uncovered to see where things could head and what they would look like, Kropotkin comes to a still vague view of socialism, and particularly when Kropotkin rebuts Marx on the labour notes subject by saying they'd be money does it become clear. Kropotkin also fails to understand what Marx means by the centralization of the means of production into the whole of society; since he is so focused on decentralization, it becomes fetishistic, not realizing that "decentralized planning" precisely describes the behavior of ordinary businesses on a market.

Yes I have been here since 2014 and am very much aware of that. However even if flags are different the liklihood of two or more people with similar viewpoints is much higher than samefagging, especially in a "serious" thread.
I wasn't aware an ordinary business operates as a gift economy that doesn't produce commodities.

Yeah it was a quick suspicion, nothing more, I realize there's no way to really have a solid basis in implying this. You can disregard it and I think my explanation overlaps for both cases.

A gift economy is a society of delayed commodity production, and involves property. Reciprocity completing cycles of valorization.

There are historical examples of them (see actually the ancient modes of production in ancient Thailand, or even palace economies). They surfaced in fragile situations, where no clearer arrangement was possible, and direct trade wasn't facilitated yet. It is just an inherently more unstable version of trade, reciprocity is needed to maintain it, and given the correct circumstances it will develop into normal commodity production. It's peak utopianism to want to go back to that. You'll even find this on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy#Reciprocity_and_the_.22spirit_of_the_gift.22
It is only when you don't have separated producers anymore, and render impossible the establishment thereof by completely centralizing the means of production into society as a whole, that exchange and thus capital can be sublated, because ownership completely vanishes. As I repeat ad nauseam, "decentralised planning" is the best description of capitalism, it is precisely the behaviour of capitalist firms.

As described by Kroptokin, property doesn't exist and neither does commodity production, delayed or no. This isn't how an ordinary business operates on the market fam.
And we have a historical example of what anarchists aim for with their gift economy in Spain, albiet with vouchers. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives#toc50
While it certainly is far from a perfect example given the civil war, it certainly isn't the same as the ancient gift economies nor is it how a firm opertates on a market.
And it is the existence of the firm, not planning or (de)centralization, that is capitalism. A commune planning out it's production to account for needs independent from other communes isn't the same as GM planning it's production for sale, despite "decentralized planning" applying to both. Afterall if we were to consolidate all production into one firm while retaining wage labor and commodity production it would still be capitalism, even though it would now be "centralized planning".

Stop this meme, ancom doesn't work like that.

It's shorthand enough to explain what it is and I'm not going to go off on an autistic rant to every god damn person I meet to be 100% accurate you twat.

no, gift economy is the biggest meme ever, you cannot organize housing, heavy industry, healthcare, education etc. on such principles, only very small-scale production and services like bike repair

As opposed to replying "abolishment of wage labor and commodity production" and when pressed "I dunno predicting the future is utopian lol"? You're going to have to have those conversations anyway and starting with "gift economy", flawed descriptor as it is, then fleshing out your position is a lot easier than spewing out a 10-minute diatribe off the bat.

"Gift economy" literally doesn't even begin to describe anything communistic, dude. Communism is the abolition of all forms of property, meaning by consequence wage labor and commodity production which are the reproducer of and consequence respectively of property.

You're not even trying anymore.

A gift economy is what would occur with the abolishment of capital in that the market would be gone and people would no longer buy goods, instead being "gifted" them from the community.
It's absolutely true and you know it.

"Britain's working class will never have the right to vote!"
-leftcom, 2017

No, I fucking don't and neither do other anarchists. Read the damn Bread Book.
Kropotkin was a scientist too - an evolutionary biologist. The difference is that he applied his scientific findings directly to his political ideas.
Good thing I'm not a utopian. Read the Bread Book (at least - Mutual Aid and some modern theory would be good as well) before you try to ascribe positions to anarcho-communism which it rejects.
No one advocated that. What I said was that Kropotkin's ideas were scientific because they were scientifically informed.
I already read Marx. What's your point?
Bullshit and bullshit. Stop repeating tankie memes and read.
libcom.org/history/makhno-nestor-1889-1934

They really were. They arose as strike committees and then came to take on more functions until they became, in some areas, the organs of popular government and managing communism when the rest of society fell apart, cutting them off and forcing them to confederate from the bottom up on a production-for-use basis - just as Kropotkin had predicted.
Where Kropotkin takes off in The Conquest Of Bread is describing expected social formations in the instance of revolution brought about by the material conditions which he describes in the beginning. From there, he describes what anarchist readers must do to defend these and their communistic nature from counterrevolutionaries advocating such schemes as the collectivist wages system and reestablishment of centralized authority, as these will lead back to capitalism. It's all very methodical and, most importantly, conditional, not determinist. It can be seen as a set of if-else statements regarding material circumstances and what changes will beget particular further developments.
ditext.com/nomad/makhno.html
Makhno attacked Denikin's rear, inadvertently saving the Bolsheviks holed up in Moscow. Via Makhno, Kropotkin's ideas shifted the course of world history. If it hadn't been for both, the Bolsheviks would have been defeated and the Tsarist monarchy reinstated. They got repaid for this with a stab in the back, when Lenin ordered Trotsky to crush Makhno and ended up resorting to terror tactics not dissimilar to modern counterinsurgency ones.
It isn't
I don't. Learn some reading comprehension and read Kropotkin.
History certainly has a sense of humor

I guess we'll never know if it would have turned out that way or not because Lenin and Trotsky made
You're the only one being a shitposter right now, intentionally misrepresenting what I said and revealing your complete ignorance outside of Marxist theory, along with your uncritical acceptance of ideologically-motivated misrepresentation. I expected more from a leftcom.

Forgot to put pdf after "History certainly has a sense of humor"
libcom.org/files/Stalin-moon.pdf

Bump for response

Bump. Would like a response from the councilists to