Newfag here

newfag here

So I just found out that anarcho-communists don't care much for central planning. My question is what will you fellas replace markets with? Also what is decentralized planning?………………….

Other urls found in this thread:

Gift economy.

What? Is that real or a joke?

Does this look like a joking thread to you?

le utopian something something give everything for free XD

decentralized councilist planning


free circulation of memes with pepes as currency

Can you give me a basic description of this?

Idk "gift economy" just sounds like a funny term I guess

So central planning but it's done locally?

Literally a meme. Production and distribution isn't organised through gifts, it's organised through planning. This is true whether you're an ancom or ML. Gifts are just delayed exchanges between two parties. The idea that you can run a functional economy with such a system is the height of capitalist ideology.

Just do whatever. No committees, let people do what they want. Give out guns to everyone.

What do you mean, "decentralised"?

Bro, people will just do things for each other voluntarily and whatever they feel like doing will match up perfectly with what people around them need. And no that's not the same as the hidden hand of the market stop PMing asking why that is.



Sounds incredibly unproductive and inefficient.

How have you not read about anarchist federalism yet when you're on Holla Forums?

What about when a collective decision say, on a regional level, is needed?

Holla Forums doesn't read anything anarchist for the most part.

Yeah because our BO is an actual Stalin wannabe.

BO is a massive faggot who should fuck off, but it's because much of Holla Forums doesn't read anything and relies on memes for opinions.

Because there was never any inefficiency in centrally planned economies right?

Local planning would be far more efficient, since a local body would be far more responsive to the immediate and changing needs of the population and would also have far less to actually plan. Once their plan is drafted then it can be communicated to the engines of economic production to be carried out. Planning can be local while production is centrally coordinated.

Yeah I gotta agree with him. How would an elected representative in your home town understand the social needs of your home town worse than a stranger with external knowledge of your towns situation.

Name one.

That's why there's always subsidiarity, even in the most centralised structures.

This is precisely what "central" in "central planning" means. No one said the central level has to make all the decisions; that would be absurd.

Gee if only central planning involved a network of local public servants and representatives to fulfil this role and solve this conundrum

Except if the actual economic plans are made locally then it isn’t central planning is it. The factories just receive all the production orders coming from each individual planning committee across the country and carry them out.

Yes it is.

They carry them out the best they can, but that requires some form of priorities. These priorities must be set at a level encompassing all the local ordering committees: a central level.

itt. faggots who don't know what central planning means

Why you have to be mad

Why you have to be too stupid to know what central planning means


What exactly does the “anarcho-“ prefix mean to you?

You know what company towns were? Just imagine those but cooperative. Also, not that I support it, but what would be inefficiant about local planning? Every city state in history had some aspect of that.

How would goods and services circulate from town to town?


They couldn't even create unified town districts, let alone connecting whole towns:

Judging how people live and organize themselves by how "productive" and "efficient" they are is part of why capitalism blows so hard. Cut it out.

More of anarchism problem than anything really.

Anarcho-communism is assuming people will stop doing things you dislike out of a necessity that cannot be demonstrated (beyond 'believe me, just do it') talking points instead of out of state force.
If you want to ban people from acting in some manner, you have to force them. The black market will always exist.

Ya know, leftism is not just repressive Stalinism or utopian anarcho-communism.

No, that's not fair. Why should I care about the nuance of philosophies when it comes to leftist rhetoric when the leftist academics are incapable of recognizing nuance when it comes to examining various forms of capitalist philosophy? If all forms of capitalism are the same because of a few commonalities, then you can use the same logic against 'leftism' and Stalinism, too. They both, in principle, oppose "exploitation of the workers" from private citizens.
That is, if you want to be consistent. If you want nuance for leftism, then you'll have to differentiate between differing and, often at-odds, philosophies of capitalism. But I know most here are incapable of this, so…

Rationing scarce goods does not itself make a centrally planned economy. Capitalist countries do this occasionally after all. Neither is what I’m talking about central planning. Factories would produce goods as requested on a continuous basis, essentially the way corporations plan for production, except without profit orientation. There is no overall long term plan for the country, just each industry producing whatever is asked of them by the local planners. If that’s central planning then capitalism is central planning.

Except they do. Nobody in academia seriously thinks that AnCap, social democracy, and neoliberalism are all the same thing. If you honestly think that then you have clearly never actually been to university.

Then this board is not academic, because every time you try explaining that Keynesians have one specific worldview that is different from other capitalistic worldviews in some ways, they mock it as 'not true capitalism haha' but are perfectly willing to extend a level of nuance and appreciation for subtlety when it comes to discussing leftism.

None of those academics think that different schools of capitalism are the same. The reason they and we talk about capitalism as a whole is that we oppose the immutable defining features of it with only tangential care for specifics regarding things like taxes, or trade policy.

You are admitting to putting tax policy, trade policy, state intervention, and a plethora of other differentiating features and nuance aside to focus on key similarities while ignoring contradictory evidence demonstrating demarcation. That's what I am talking about. Doing the same to leftism and noticing similarities while dismissing nuance or differences is the flip side, but it's dismissed as 'unfair'. But all forms of state intervention into an economy, or lack thereof, are equivocated on the grounds of similarities while dismissing any differences two forms of capitalism might have. This is a textbook confirmation bias.

Everyone in this thread needs to read a book, except this guy


The fundamentals aspects of social democracy, the austrian school, Keynsians, etc. is the same and that is what we are concerned with. Why would we pick one over the other when the real issues we have are unresolved no matter the choice. In reality we do consider some school comparitively better than others, but only comparatively. Meanwhile the fundamental aspects of anarchism and Stalinism are totally incompatable, hence why nuance is required when dealing with the left, it’s sinply a much much more diverse category.

narchos don't know what they're talking about. most of the people talking about central planning or plans of some sort are about right, or right enough. labor vouchers are probably DOA tho, when Marx brought them up he was thinking about 19th century tech as if communism was going to happen tomorrow. there are better ways to allocate the produce of society and better ways to incentivize difficult or shitty jobs.

you don't sound intelligent when you say this. in fact it makes you look like a retard.

What did he mean by this?

fuck off Varg

But user, Stalinism and, probably, all the "leftism" you illiterate mind is able to think about, ARE forms of capitalism.


Explain what the fundamentals are with a citation of said fundamentals from the schools of thought you mentioned and explain how all of them are "the same".
I'm not asking you to believe in them, I'm asking you to represent them in a fair way. The Austrian school is not 'the same fundamentally' as the Keynesian school. State intervention in the economy is one of the "fundamentals" that they are principally opposed to (each other's policies towards intervention).
Maybe you do, but when anybody points out that Keynesianism is not the same as the Chicago school, the nuance causes hypocrisy to become apparent (in that nuance is ignored for worldviews that they disagree with).
Meanwhile the fundamental aspects of the Austrian school and the Keynesian school are totally incompatible.
Pic related, I just googled the differences. I would say that they "differ on many fundamentals". Or are those fundamentals now irrelevant? Perhaps according to your worldview, they don't matter, but that is not 'the only' worldview.

I haven't said it does. Rationing scarce goods makes an economy.

Yes it was. You fail to see it because you misunderstand what the word "central" entails, but it was.

They cannot just produce everything and deliver everything – at least not at the same time. Choices need to be made. Who will make them?

If you allow yourself to handwave away fundamental points of difference, then I allow myself to do the same. Nuance is a two-way street.

[citation needed]

But that's the only correct one.

And we arrive at the confirmation bias, finally.


No, the citation for the assertion that 'communism emerges from capitalism'. I am asking for a citation of some book that demonstrates this with examples. You don't even have to cite the book: do you have examples demonstrating this?
Or is it…
just speculation? Unfalsifiable, faith-based speculation?

Surely you understand not every theory can be correct, right? When theory A contradicts theory B, only one (at best) is correct.

Capital. Read it or gtfo.

Depends what kind of theory you're talking about. A scientific theory is one that has predictive power. So, if you say this worldview is the only correct one, but it relies on prediction with no supporting evidence, then it's a dogshit theory because it can't be falsified. It's like saying 'it will rain some time in the future'. Sure, it could, but you're just guessing and giving yourself a time period as far out into the future as you want, which is super convenient.

See above.
I'll repeat: do you have any examples of the claim that was made in the posts above? Or is it just an empty assertion?

Convenient how? It's anything but convenient: it allows illiterate retards like you to annoy us with their nonsense and feel like they have found some kind of smart excuse not to educate themselves.

Now gtfo, the adults were talking here.

It's dialectics son, we don't need speculate why capitalism emerged from feudalism. And you're nitpicking so bad, the quote literally just explains how labor vouchers work. Essentially, leftist wanted markets without money since the 19th century.

It is convenient to the claimant because it provides an indefinite time period to substantiate the hypothesis. That is unfair because you can use that time period for anything. I can make as many outrageous claims and state that they will be fulfilled in some indefinite period of time: those hypotheses are called unfalsifiable, nobody is going to wait around some indefinite period of time until evidence pops up. You need to make a valid prediction which includes a time frame. Otherwise it's just like a Nostradamus prediction: a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Not what I said, that's retrospective knowledge. I'll ask again: do you have any examples of the claim that was made in the posts above?
It wasn't that capitalism came from feudalism, it was that communism will emerge from capitalism.
Or is that just an empty assertion?

Class determinism is not the only lens with which you can examine and analyze historical phenomena or social circumstances so purporting it as some universal lens (while mentioning two examples that aren't even properly elaborated upon to show how the example is unique to the argument being made) reduces everything to one factor.

If capitalism emerged from feudalism, then what's your best guess of the type of economic system will come after capitalism? Do you believe capitalism will always and forever exist? What do you think the countless historical socialist revolutions were about?

So, what's your alternative?

Which is not convenient at all, for I would love to substantiate my hypothesis that way.

You do. All the time.

No, retard. Experimental results are not the only way to prove a theory is incorrect.

Actually yes. Humanity is going to wait around some indefinite period of time. If the next world war doesn't make it go extinct, that is.

Absolutely not.

The clock of history doesn't describe circles, it only goes forward: once the hour of communism has come, it won't go back to capitalism.

That's where you come in with examples. Are you asking me to fulfil your burden of proof when you're the claimant? I said that it could be, it couldn't be. People who say it will never, ever happen are incorrect because they lack evidence for future events which have not happened. People who say that it is inevitable are wrong for the same reason.
Nope, I dispute people asserting inevitability with no evidence. Pointing out the lack of evidence for communism being the next emergent system doesn't mean capitalism will last forever.
I am not going to let you deflect from the question I asked. Some user said it would 'emerge from capitalism'. I ask for the fourth time: do you have any examples of the claim that was made in the posts above?

Feudalism lasted a good thousand years before capitalism. See you then. In the meantime: gtfo.

It is entirely convenient if you want to be irrational. That's what I mean when I said it was convenient: it's convenient to create indefinite time periods for yourself if you want to be make claims that will rely on proof "some day".
When have I done this? Please quote me. I have not purported any hypothesis without evidence, I have not even put forward a single hypothesis ITT.
That is the only way to prove a theory correct. If you lack evidence, either empirically or otherwise, then the 'theory' lacks any predictive power and is just a coincidence, which is why I said a broken clock is right twice a day. Did you mean empirical results instead of experimental? I would agree with you then, empirical evidence is not 'the only' type of evidence. I am waiting for a single shred of evidence, any type, demonstrating the 'inevitability of the emergence of communism from capitalism'.
So there is not even a possibility wherein the waiting period would be for something else. This is pure confirmation bias that cannot accept anything contrary to the worldview. Sad.
Then you enter the realm of post-factual talking points. Predictions with open-ended time periods are unfalsifiable. If you just tell the other guy to 'wait' for some arbitrary time period, the evidence that comes forth is just a coincidence. If I asked you to wait until some time in the future for it to rain, then the fact that it rains is not related to my guess because I did not predict anything, I just guessed and it, coincidentally, happened to rain. Get this through your illogical head: a broken clock is still right twice a day. That doesn't mean that the wild predictions it makes all the time are indicative of anything BUT a guessing mind.
It isn't literally meant to describe circles. See:
Again, present a shred of evidence demonstrating this to be true.

Do you have any example of a Big Crunch ?

So what's your alternative again?

Moron, learn 2 read.
I ask again: do you have any examples of the claim that was made in the posts above (inevitability of the emergence of communism from capitalism)?

The difference is that it admits to being speculative and NOT inevitable/'the only way'. It admits to the absence of knowledge to lead to claims of certainty. Asserting that communism will inevitably emerge from capitalism with certainty but without proof is not admitting to its own absence of evidence. Now, that doesn't mean that it is evidence of absence, which is not what I am asserting: I am simply asking for the evidence that, at the very least, admits to being speculative, at best. Nobody ITT has done that, they've all been making positive assertions with full degrees of certainty, using phrases like 'inevitable emergence'.

You asked to set a time period. I did. Why are you still here?

Can you demonstrate how the workers owned the means of production in those examples (so as to become socialist) beyond one image? And then tell me how this relates to the inevitable emergence of communism if all those instances are no longer around. If it was so inevitable, it would always pop back up.

A time period for a prediction does not mean examining what has already occurred. Time is linear.

And we admit that you can hypothetically come up with another theory as plausible as ours. Good luck.

If I was as misguided, I would. I don't believe in making claims that I believe are certain without offering any evidence or at least being honest enough to admit the speculative nature (of the claims).

Based on the experience of what has already occurred, I give you this time period for Marx's prediction: 1000 years. Again: see you then.

Every prediction is of speculative nature, you idiot.

What leads you to believe that the past experience allows you to assert with near certainty (or inevitability) that communism will emerge?

Not the same as saying "predictions are not speculative". Be honest and don't use words like 'inevitability' or 'emergence' when it's all speculation. But that means rebuking the dogmatic worldview where it's communism or bust, which is tough for ideologues…

The 1000 pages of demonstration Marx provided in Capital.

We speculate the inevitably of communism's emergence. Again: making a prediction is speculating by definition. There's nothing to "admit" here.

None of which demonstrates inevitability or near certainty. If it did, his predictions would have been fulfilled already, it's been well over 100 years. Things have gone in the opposite direction after the Industrial revolution and the advent of the Internet.
Ah, so you admit that your speculation is not infallible, that Marx's work is not gospel actually demonstrating certainty, and that there is a dearth of evidence to actually lead you to believe the conclusion which we've all been waiting for for over a century.
Interestingly enough, many times it was attempted, communism was always subverted into something different and turned the opposite of what it set out to be. Yet the near-certainty persists…

Owning the means of production isn't the only condition for socialism. Those revolutionary examples are attempts at creating a more fair system. The USSR probably came the closet and some would argue brief movements of actual socialism.

Because the alternative to socialism isn't an option considering it's causing a social and ecological disaster? And let me point out it's only been about three decades since the USSR dissolved which is a blink of an eye compared to the existence of human civilization.

But if the workers don't own the MoP, it is not socialistic. That is the one precondition that must be fulfilled. I never said it was the ONLY one. I said "Can you demonstrate how the workers owned the means of production in those examples (so as to become socialist) beyond one image?"
That's one sure-fire way to know that it wasn't socialist: if the workers didn't own the MoP. There are no socialist examples where the workers didn't own the MoP.
Can you demonstrate how socialism is the opposite of this? You seem to be inferring that socialism reduces social and ecological disaster. Do you believe this to be true? To what extent does it reduce these disasters and can you provide examples of this being the case?
We are discussing the modern world. You can justify literally any practice because we 'used to do it' in prehistoric times, like cannibalism or ritual sacrifices. With modern civilization, if your policies suck, your civilizations are less likely to be as stable or survive.

I am a communist and I don't think those anons are doing a good job arguing with you. I don't think communism is inevitable, nor final. There's a tendency on the left (and especially on this board) to treat Marx' work like gospel. I think it's extremely unlikely that capitalism will last forever, but predicting what comes after capitalism is speculation, of course.

Another thing: the inevitability of communism depends on what you define communism as. Some people would say that communism is a global stateless, moneyless society without private property, production for exchange, etc. Other people would just say it's "the real movement that abolishes the present state of things", and by that definition, communism could be pretty much everything that comes after capitalism. (You could say communism is inevitable then, by the last definition, but that's a pretty meaningless thing to say then.)

I agree with the point that capitalism will not last forever, and I agree with the point that the absolute certainty of Marx's predictions is not accurate.
That's my understanding, which is why I am hesitant to accept inevitability especially when global change of any degree is not something that occurs overnight, with rare exceptions. Abolishing production for exchange after decades is easier said than done.
Which is why it is easily asserted.
In that case, you should just call it post-capitalism.

aka money

They don't necessarily need to own the MoP, it can be socialist if society as a whole benefits from it, everyone and no one owns its. The other condition is related to production and if's based around use or exchange(and thus capital accumulation). The point was they never achieved a socialist economy, there merely examples of class struggle, shot down by imperialism. This is my argument to your claim that communism isn't inevitable; Every time capitalism collapses society turns to either socialist and fascist causes, socialism being the obvious choice because fascism is an evolved form of capitalism.

Because capitalism is an economic system for profit and socialism is not?
recent example:
more general example:
And I don't know, us currently living a predominantly capitalist economic system and being in a mass extinction event?

Can you go fucking kill yourself you nitpicking faggot, literally the most annoying person I've ever talked to.

Labor vouchers don't circulate.


Those schools are not calitalist ideologies they are schools devoted to “improving” capitalism in some way. All of them support capitalism and all that entails, and we are therefore in irreconcilable diagreement with them. This isn’t hard to understand.

What if something other than socialism comes after capitalism?

It the centralized bureaucracies that are famous for being inefficient and ineffective.

What do you have in mind? Fascism? Quite possible.

Dog we gonna turn the economy into a god damn Oprah show. Free mother fucking shit for everybody

Nah but in all seriousness the idea is to plan through councils in as democratic a means as possible. An example would be how Medieval cities handled trade and resource allocation. Recommend reading Mutual Aid or some of Murray Bookchin's work on libertarian municipalism if you'd like a better explanation.

Do you think it's confusing how Bookchin's communalism is called a type of anarchism when it's really some sort of minarchist system because of the councils it calls for?

Government =/= state in the anarchist sense. Councils or similar organs are perfectly compatible with ancom.

Guerilla gardening.

Well, I mean, it's actually happening right now…


But also worth considering that communalism IS NOT anarchism, it is within the umbrella of libertarian communism. Bookchin broke from anarchism, quite explicitly.
Nevertheless the idea behind anarchism is not utter chaos, the primarily goal is to create a society that is as decentralized as possible. That implies that society itself still exists, which obviously indicates there is some structure. Nevertheless councils can be entirely democratic, see colonial New England for an idea of how this was organized.

How can everyone and no one own it? You're speaking in conflicting truisms.
So the workers don't necessarily have to own the MoP for it to be socialistic? Then who does? Everyone and no one? How does that make sense? Either everyone (one being the workers) or no one owns it. Can't be both.
Yeah, it keeps on failing. My counter-argument is that the inability for these systems, as inevitable as so many claim they are, to propagate themselves or even property defend themselves is indicative of the inability of said systems.
That's a false dichotomy to say that it becomes either socialist or fascist. Can you provide all the examples that were either socialist or fascist? Finding any one contrary system that prevailed rebukes this dichotomy as being false. Also, fascism is not 'evolved capitalism', again you dismiss the nuance when it comes to discussing capitalist rhetoric: even within the Austrian/Keynesian school, capitalists are principally opposed to one another on the issue of interventionism. Fascisms epitomizes state interventionism and might as well be another language of capitalism. But removing all nuance and calling it 'evolved capitalism' still denies any contextual arguments to be made explaining different types of capitalist thought.
No, that doesn't answer the question. How is socialism the opposite of this. How is not producing for profit anti-disaster? There are subsistence farmers making goods for their own use who pollute all the time.
How is this related to producing for profit? Natural disasters that occur as a result of changing climate activity? I think your gripe against capitalism is that it has industrialized the world to magnify human activity a thousand times over, so to speak. The reverse claim would be that socialism would revert us back to a time where our carbon footprint would be inconsequential because we would not even have properly industrialized our civilizations enough to affect global climates to cause hurricanes.
What capitalists?
Read your own sources before posting them. They do not posit this as an inevitability or assert certainty:
"the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution."
I am in full agreement with conditional statements using 'could' as the ones they make. That is worlds apart from making assertions of certainty and that communism will fill the void.
Which capitalist economic system? This only highlights the inability to recognize nuance in capitalist debate by calling it 'all capitalism' while affording leftist dialogue with levels of nuance not afforded to capitalists. It certainly isn't the Austrian or Chicago economic policies. It can be described as neo-Keynesian in some senses, I guess. But many capitalists are split on their flavour of capitalism versus others as being legitimate capitalism or not. Depends how much you care about private property rights and the ability of association within a marketplace. Some support intervention, others do not.
Ah, so you refuse to debate honestly. Got it.

le triggered ecks dee le libtard snowflake
le reading klub hates words, what else is new.
They used to do a lot of things we have improved upon, too.

But they literally are, by definition of ideology as a system of ideals. It isn't about 'improving' capitalism, it is about describing it according to their worldviews and principles.
Not the same format or implementation, no. See:
Some might as well be on the opposite side of things.
On fundamental aspects of freedom of association, or state intervention, many capitalists are principally opposed to other forms of capitalism other capitalists agree with.
Yeah, that doesn't make it all the same format of capitalism so denying nuance in capitalist thought is still disingenuous when you afford nuance to other economic systems.

You reach levels of retardation I didn't think were possible.

Things have gone exactly in the direction Marx thought they would.

There's nothing to admit. No speculation is infaillible, ever.

Of course it's not.

Marx's demonstration makes his predictions as certain as it gets. Is it infaillible ? No. Is it way better substantiated than any concurrent prediction? Yes. Has anyone ever found a loophole in his demonstration? No. Is it, as a result and for all intents and purposes, a certainty? Yes.

There's all the evidence you need. 1000 pages of it. You chose to dismiss it to suit your narrative.

Communism is not "attempted". That makes no fucking sense.

Yes it does.

We don't deny nuance in bourgeois thought. We just don't care.