Name one Marxist revolution that actually implemented socialism

Ok, whatever buddy. You can keep painting every socialist as a Stalinist, and the Stalinists can keep painting every non-authoritarian as an anarchist, then you can both fuck off.

You're right. Marxian Fascists got to us every time because we trusted them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno#White_and_Red_Army_attacks

But those are just three instances.
One the other hand there's a hundred instances of Marxists implementing anti-socialist regimes.

Hell, better fail at a socialist revolution than succeed at a fascist one.

You want to implement something that isn't socialism that has never lead to socialism.
Why am I supposed to believe that you're a socialist again?

russian revolution
historical inevitability
can't, and for a good reason

The Cuban Revolution, the Zapatista Uprising.
If the state is radically reorganized so that it empowers the workers' movement as the main engine of the state and the revolution, that workers' movement will overtake the functions of the state, rending the formal state obsolete.
Rojava
Like it or not, Marx essentially formed the socialist movement as we understand it.
Because we have the same goals.
Because you then cede victory to the fascists by splitting the Left.

I have to agree with this comrade.

Worker's ownership of the means of production? Within the limited sphere of the workplace perhaps. Direct and non-exploitative democracy in the public sphere? No.
Thus the state still exploit the worker, just not at an individual level.
Thus not socialism.

Anti-statists. Not Marxists.

When did this ever happen and how would it have to happen?

Yet. Luckily there are no large Marxist movements in the area to fuck it up.

Kek, no. No he didn't.

Your goal is something that isn't socialism that has never lead to socialism and has fought socialism whenever it had the chance.

Or perhaps we'd win over a lot of people who are pretty alienated with the left because of of Marxist authortarianism.
Perhaps we get to make sure that the Marxists never rise again so they may never betray us.

That's a win in my book.

Enough, fagarchists. You continually bitch and moan about how Marxists aren't socialists and how we fuck the revolution in the ass. But I have yet to see one proposal for how to establish communism, one plan for post-revolution society. How would you accomplish communism?

That's some unambiguous shit there bruh

Ancom here. We need all the allies we can get. I will fight with Marxists against the capitalists.

Leftists are already the minority on this planet, it makes no sense to fight amongst ourselves thus weakening ourselves.

OP, you sound COINTELPRO. Splitting the left is a good way to weaken it and make sure no kind of revolution happens.

Not all Marxists are tankies and Marx says that the end game of the socialist revolution is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. We're all working toward the same goal (more or less), and even if there is a revolution it's final form won't be achieved within our lifetime anyway.

Besides, if capitalism fails I will be in an anarchist commune, being busy with life. Probably won't have time to fight Marxists.

Which is still socialism, even if it isn't perfect.
Marxism is primarily a critique of capitalist political economy. Yes, Marx supported the use of a state to combat capitalism, but the vast bulk of his work was analysis of political economy, not theorizing about state-led revolution. I think you can adhere to his analysis of political economy, but not his ideas on state-led socialist revolution, and still legitimately call yourself a Marxist (the Zapatistas certainly do)
The Paris Commune was the inspiration for this idea. There were already signs within the Commune that local and independent worker movements and organization were taking over traditional functions of the state.
They have Hoxhaists literally fighting for them. That's not to mention Marxists that fought alongside anarchists in Spanish Civil War, like the POUM.
Marx was the one who moved socialism forward from its Utopian roots to a complete theory.
I do support socialism. It should also be noted that there were other Marxist revolutions that sought to bring about socialism, but were simply crushed, like the Spartacist Uprising and the Hungarian Revolution.
Not all Marxists are tankies, fam.

pic related

...

If we can use Marxists as our allies, then so too can we ally ourselves with Fascists and AnCaps?
What, we need all the allies we can get! Why wouldn't we do it? Do you really work for the FBI.

What we must understand is that their end-goal is fundementally not the same as ours. They want to implement as system that is not socialism, that has never developed into socialism, and has fought socialism the second they consolidate power.
We cannot trust them, and they'll invade your anarchist commune first chance they get.

There is plenty of anarchist theory, many of which actually achieved socialism until Marxists decided to root it out.

yeah fuck pol pot though

It was coined by Engels.
No, but it was socialist and both Marx and Engels said it was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and something akin to their ideal state.

And by the way, this is what you must understand; there is no "left".
Who are they? Are liberals and SocDems my comrades too? Must I trust them and fight with them because they supposedly belong to some kind of "leftist" political faction that has no inherent merits to them?

"But Marxists are anti-capitalist!"
Indeed! And pro-hierarchy! What about AnCaps? They are anti-hierarchy and pro-capitalism! Are they my comrades too?
Facists make a relevant criticism too, must I trust those as well? Are they a part of the "left"?

I guess coining a term means you invented it. That means DiaMat is not Marx' invention because he didn't coin the term.

Proudhon spoke about the neccesity of science-based theories of economics within socialism while Marx was still in his humanist Bruno Bauer phase.

Something akin to it, indeed. The whole red/black split was over the Paris Commune where Marx held that the state was not strong and centralized enough and was too lenient of dissenters.
Bakunin held that it was the opposite and a shitstorm broke out.

Sort of.
Proudhon also supported free market economics.
Because, lest anyone forget, the Paris Commune was crushed by the French Army.

Are you basically saying that marxists are ebul and will fuck your shit up because they really, really hate nice things and will act against their interest just for the sake of destroying the anarchists? sounds spooky

Which are not in opposition to worker's ownership and and direct democracy in the commune. Sure Markets have their won problems, but being capitalistic is not one of them.

And so was Rosa Luxemburg.

So what you're saying is that we win by not even trying.
We win by not trying to implement socialism from the very beginning. We win by implementing a pointless revolution that will not amount to socialism.

Great. Sounds very socialist to me.

No, I hold that the state will always consolidate power and keep it for the same reason the bourgeoisie will: not because they're evil, but because it is in their egoist self-interest.

how is the state in the interest of the working class?
Besides, after the enstablishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat the bourgeoisie is no more, therefore we can't talk about a "State" anymore, because the state is a "particular force used by the ruling class to oppress the lower classes". Thus, having no more classes and being not a "particular force" but a common force of the proletariat in arms, we can't talk about a "state" anymore, but "semi-state" which already starts to wither away, but won't until capitalism is crushed everywhere

Exactly. It isn't. It exploits the workers, holds authority over them. Thus why capital accumulates amongst the nomenklatura and why the amass more power for themselves and the detriment of the workers.

Thus the state must be considered a class in-of-itself.

What you're spewing is just "war is peace" bullshit, a stupid excuse as to why the state should get to comandeer and exploit us. It's fascist in nature.

...

this nomenklatura thing needs corroboration

Basically this image is saying "Yes those deaths occurred but my form of communism is okay with those deaths and does not make an allusions into thinking that those deaths did not occur."

Marxists are perfect COINTELPRO.
They make the rest of us look like fascist loons. They must be recognized as the anti-socialists they are, or they will eat away at out movement from the inside.

So my friend was explaining something to me, this thread seems relevant. Is what he says accurate?

2016-05-30 03:30:09 grey Portland has rich faggots from Boston and New York buying property here, then jacking up the price just to sell it again to even richer faggots.
2016-05-30 03:30:32 robot same here, a large number of properties are being bought and replaced by high-rises that are sold way above the old market rates
2016-05-30 03:30:38 grey Meanwhile fucking nobody in Maine can even afford to live here.
2016-05-30 03:30:50 robot fair? sure, for the people who got their houses, for the people who own their houses. creates jobs, too.
2016-05-30 03:31:15 robot the communist would say "make everyone live in boring high-density high rises"
2016-05-30 03:31:38 robot the marxist would say "enact rent control or build more homeless shelters / low income housing units/ lock prices into price for X years"
2016-05-30 03:32:09 grey Ohhh I'm seeing the difference.
2016-05-30 03:32:15 robot they're on the same spectrum of giving the state more control to try to grant equality. but one is easier to do within our current system and ought to be tested a bit more i think
2016-05-30 03:32:21 robot you can point at welfare moms and how shitty the projects are
2016-05-30 03:32:50 robot welfare queens, drug lords on unemployment using obama phones, selling food stamps, etc
2016-05-30 03:33:09 grey I have an obamaphone and food stamps….
2016-05-30 03:33:14 grey I hate it.
2016-05-30 03:33:15 robot but the question is, "can the government help more people" and even with the abuse, well i think it helps the people who need it more
2016-05-30 03:33:30 robot i feel guilty about foodstamps. i keep the card upside down and backwards in my wallet lol

This is just sad, tbh. I feel for those people, even if they're kinda dumb.

The state-capitalism criticism is a rich claim coming from a movement whose crowning achievement's production was characterised by loosely coordinated market exchange and overbearing control from hierarchically rigid unions. And until the end of the 60's the former was not a problem the USSR ever had. Claiming the USSR did not represent a genuine form of socialism just because it wasn't a perfectly realised democracy is a dead end unless your definition of capitalism is nothing more than 'when a few people control stuff.' The doctrine of communism is the abolition of private property, and where did such production relations exist in the USSR? Nowhere.

Marx wrote about American slavery and how, in reverse to wage-labor exploitation, under capitalist slavery bondage conceals the labor a slave does for himself. In the Soviet Union workers were forceably allocated to their workplace, but they never worked for any class. You could say the Soviet economy was structured like Mondragon is today. Worker-owned, but not directly worker managed. With managers receiving several times more pay rather than several hundred. Yet, bizarrely, people here will accept such co-operatives as socialistic while rejecting the legacy of the Soviet Union. Especially puzzling considering that the Stalin-era USSR managed to replace the anarchy of markets and senseless accumulation of capital with sane, socialised control of production.

You might want to try a new argument. Endlessly parroting that Marxists are anti-socialist fascists isn't working.

I'm assuming you are referring to CNT-FAI territories during the Spanish Revolution. First off, they all deprecated the state currency in favor of local accounts of production, many even abolished accounting altogether. As you probably know with your infallible theory, a market without money isn't capitalist when it can even sustain itself at all. Calling it "market exchange" because it wasn't centrally dictated isn't doing any favors to your credibility.

The CNT wasn't "hierarchically rigid", either in their unions or militias, as any cursory look into their structure will tell you.

However you wish to juggle your ideological terms around, the USSR was a society structured around alienated wage labor, extraction of surplus for the administration and control of a special class of people, and ultimately the political and economic control of the country answered to the interest of these people instead of the working class, peasantry, or anyone else.

Now, worker coops are supposed to be worker managed. That's the whole point. How far Mondragon specifically succeeds in this effort, I'm not particularly sure. Coops I do know and support are horizontally organized, so stop assuming shit, bud.

As for "sane" control of production, the wasteful projects of the Soviet Union (both in terms of value, lives, and even the environment) are documented, look them up. Their useless canal projects come to mind.

If that it so, then the Catholic Church did not preside over private property in having their laymen work the fields. Such a claim is absurd, and you will get absolutely nowhere with anyone in trying to sell the USSR as some kind of emancipatory institution to anyone. It was the exact opposite.

ITT: sectarians fight over 100 year old events that they weren't even a part of and further divide an already fractured left

The left needs an enema.

At least present an argument as to why history won't repeat itself this time.

kek

Ha ha ha, a top-down system of extracting surplus labour from the workers can never be a class-system xD
If I meme it enough it'll be true!

If you're so convinced that history will repeat itself why are you following an ideology that has failed every time its been attempted?

I believe he has adjusted his ideology to be hostile to marxists, and to that extent has been "fixed".

Every time it failed, it was primarily because Marxists attacked it.
Not Fascists.
Not liberals
Not conservatives.
Marxists.

Thus the lesson learned ought be to never delude ourselves into thinking that Marxists can be allies in any other way than say, AnCaps, can.

...

A state extract surplus labour from workers? How?

On the point of military intervention:
The Soviet Union, the Bolshevik Party and the value of Moscow was saved because the Anarchist Black Army intervened and saved them. No Black Army, no USSR, no USSR satellite states, no Soviet Bloc or any other "socialist" states for that matter, all of which pretty much sucked at warfare skills and only made it because the USSR kept throwing prole-extracted guns and money at them.

Manchuria was fighting two fronts, one rightwing and another marxist, who didn't want the competition. If they could have attended one front only, they'd likely won.

CNT-FAI had one of the most effective military structures until the PCE allied with the Republican Liberals to force them to re-structure (making them abandon a lot of their anarchist principles for it).

This has been pointed out a million times.

This is idiotic. It's basically admitting that there were murders of innocents but Holla Forums is wrong in splitting the different forms of "communism" into separate groups. Because that's the big issue here…

If you aren't a troll then realise that you are an embarrassment to the ideas of communism, and the anarchists are right to hate you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days

I want you to name an anarchist revolution that Marxists did not attack and repress.
The biggest problem is when you rely upon people who are unreliable. If we at least know who out enemies are, we have a better chance.

It can be through involuntary taxes, taking from them exchange value, or it can be through direct appropriation of labour-time, forcing someone to build a railroad, getting them to do labour or perform duties to the state.
The nomenklatura didn't get rich by magic.

I think the problem you anarchists are making is that you paint all marxists as stalinists.

No revolution has ever "implemented" socialism.

A bit of a late reply but whatever.

There were attempts to actually socialise the capitalist economy and of course it went a lot of different directions. The CNT sometimes only acted as a link for industries to aid and coordinate but it also took a fair share of direct control. Either way anything beyond bourgeois-socialism was generally unseen. Their chronic inflation problem even forced bartering in agriculture, of which only a minority was ever collectivized. The economy was hardly this moneyless post-capitalist worker's paradise you try to portray it as.

A strawman only the likes of Friedman and Hayek could hope to rival.

While electing officials at the occasional general assembly meeting is a huge step up from bourgeois autocracy it's hardly the purest embodiment of proletarian democracy. The differences between popular election and closed selection of officials are not so great. Elections have never made a population feel like they were actually in charge.

This is the same shit everyone reads on their first week lurking this board, you've said nothing that hasn't been brainlessly repeated thousands of times here already. The economic interests of this 'special class' weren't even a factor in Soviet politics. Nobody in the planning process had any means to accumulate any wealth at all from production. Even by the 70's, well after communism had been abandoned, the few thousand millionaires that existed in the USSR were not yet able to really personally accumulate all of the surplus-value generated under the firms they managed for themselves.

I'm really not in the mood for thoroughly debunking this for the millionth time so I'll just post Mandel's article again. He may have been a Trot but at least he had an idea of how Soviet society actually worked.

marxists.org/archive/mandel/1979/xx/sovbur.htm

You could also find more than a few tales of mismatches in supply and demand if you wanted too, but the point would be irrelevant. I was only stating the USSR achieved what anarchists failed to do, a post-capitalist economy.

All Marxism leads to Stalinism, much as all capitalism eventually degenerates into authoritarian capitalism or fascism.
Marxists want to implement as system that is not socialism and has only ever degenerated into Stalinism and never implemented socialism.
Therefore, we have as little reason to ally ourselves to them, as to AnCaps who want to abolish the state, but doens't realize that it would mean the rise of capitalist petty-barons.

Both anarchist revolutions literally did.
You can have communism in a jungle-tribe, so therefore you can also have socialism in a municipality, a county or one country.
Another thing is to argue whether it is practical or not, but the USSR and the Marxists didn't even try to implement socialism.

this spooky nomenklatura everytime xD

Those Russians who bought everything just after the fall of the USSR…
Where did they get all their money, and how come they used to be in top-administrative positions within the USSR?

Have you considered that they were trying to reach a point at which socialism capable of surviving was possible?
Seriously, establishing socialism is pointless if it only lasts a day.

You can't just disregard material conditions and treat revolutions in a vacuum, there are mass external and internal pressures which cannot be ignored.

Too many buzzwords. The CNT, as in their syndicates, took control over industry and coordination of production. So far so good. This is "bourgeois-socialism" (no it isn't) because… well you provide no reason, so I assume it's because wasn't centrally planned like USSR. Nothing strawman about that.
As for inflation problems, you might be mistaking inflation with lack of supply of currency, because again, state currency was deprecated, accounting of production was local, and yes, even moneyless industries were formed. Not saying it was a paradise, but it was socialist, and to that extent, "post-capitalist".

The point of CNT structures is that they didn't act on the principle of "electing" but "delegating". I agree that
but that was not the point. CNT structures were horizontal, all decisions were made at the base, and then delegates, which yes were elected, transmitted or carried out the decisions to other units of the federation. This was so for the longest time until the Republican alliance forced the CNT to make adjustments.

As for Soviet Union, you again miss fundamentally the point. The political party class controlled the surplus that the economic process extracted from the proletariat. The proletariat had a surplus extracted from their alienated wage labor. To this extent the Soviet economy was capitalist. Individually, their wealth didn't come from what value they legally owned from that surplus, but by the fact that they commanded the economy and how production worked. They didn't nominally have value on their name, but they had all the economic capabilities and potential of the USSR under their collective control as a class. To this extent they seem different from classical capitalism, but "post-capitalism" is just an illusion, as the state operated like a giant corporation.

Anarchist societies were a million times more post-capitalist than any Soviet power ever managed to be.

It took me till
that I realized this thread needs to die

They literally did not implement socialism. They introduced some worker self-management, but socialism was not yet implemented and could not fully function in such a small area. Most of the """""Marxist""""" nations you bitch about had no interest in implementing socialism and took up the label for other reasons. The USSR could not implement socialism because
1. Capitalism had yet to fully industrialize/develop the encompassing areas
2. The revolution failed to spread. Lenin was stuck basically managing the failure of the revolution and building capitalism. Not to say he and the Bolsheviks didn't make numerous mistakes, but the revolution was doomed.

What followed Lenin was only very vaguely Marxist, if even that, but you seem to lump all Marxists in with Stalinists. I'm afraid you have a very shallow understanding of Marxism and the history surrounding the various "Marxist/Anarchist" revolutions.

If true Socialism has never been tried before then why would I trust any further atempts to implement a fake socialism with my help?

:^^^^^))))))

this tbh

Because peasants are just unwashed pig-people to you guys and they cannot liberate themselves.
That doesn't account for the Kaga-Province, for Ukraine and Rojava. All this is, is religious determinist dogmatism and it's elitist as fuck.
There is nothing to say that a state will not consolidate power over proletarians as well and thus it's arbitrary how developed capitalism was. Indeed, even Marx conceded in his later years that the Russian peasantry had plenty of revolutionary potential.

Quite to the contrary. The logic of the market and capital accumulation is such that competing cooperative firms on a free and open market, like Proudhon advocated for, would slowly but inevitably slip back into capitalism.
She wasn't crushed by the French Army ;)
No, I'm saying that this is the real world and you need to, first and foremost, defend and secure your revolution. The fascists and reactionaries won't care about the purity of your ideals when they're digging your graves.

the truth hurts innit?

Only if there is a state to protect private property. Inequality has to be enforced otherwise it cannot exist. You should know as a Marxist that anarchists, unlike Marxists, do not acknowledge inheritance rights for the very same reason you're pointing out.

Yes, this is the real world where Marxism fights socialism every chance it gets. A revolution without socialism is pointless. Is just more bloodshed so that others, that are not me, may benefit.

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without government interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.

Stalin was more or less all of the above.
Lenin was called right-marxist by leftcoms, was somewhat nationalistic (in his vision and design of the Soviet Union), even a chauvinist in his treatment of Ukrainians, socio-subjectivist, and certainly authoritarian.
Marx and Engels were very nationally inclined towards Germany and Germanics, and their philosophy was a weird mixture of objective and subjective philosophies. Inclined to authority. Engels is specially guilty of all of the above.

Yes, you're right. Fascism is Stalinism with corporations.
In praxis all the other things like consumer protections and unions were true under every marxian state though.
The difference is neglible, and will feel almost indistinguishable to the worker in terms of freedom of association and exploitation.

Stalinism is fascism where the state and the corporation are the same thing.

I never said that faggot. I'm glad most anarchists aren't as disingenuous as you are. The development brought about by capitalism is necessary for post-scarcity production which is a prerequisite for socialism to function. The peasantry have plenty of potential, but the means for socialism had yet to develop. You're so fucking stupid. I'd tell you to read Marx, but I'm afraid having to read theory might trigger you.

Both oversimplifications to the extreme. The Soviet union was a brand of authoritarian fuckery distinct from fascism.

Oh, then I misunderstood which religious dogma you refused to question.
Why do we need capitalism before socialism? Why must we buy into this fixed idea? We can easily have agrarian socialism and mutualist credit unions are may replace the bourgeoisie themselves.

This is all just a very bad excuse to enforce the will of a state and apologism for a fundementally anti-socialist project.

I said they were distinct, and said how they were distinct. Did you read, comr8?

wew lad

Isn't this debate a bit pointless nowadays?

All marxist have, to some extent, nationalistic, subjectivist, authoritarian inclinations, and tend to split internally toward their right-wing. Stalin is just the most extreme example.

Marxism turns to Stalinism the second the bureaucratic class consolidates power and needs to eliminate socialism because it challenges their authority.

You know, what happened every time.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas".

WEW

Pretty broad generalizations. Any sources that all marxists are nationalists?

You don't have to samefag.

We need to transcends this. Either Marxists aren't leftists or I'm not. Our goals are not fundementally the same.

Not in a socialist society (there's no value).

So basically… feudalism. You actually think today's societies can regress to feudalism?

Completely different goals tbh fam. Pretty sure you're COINTEPPRO.

Not all anarchists.

It has nothing to do with private property or inheritance and everything to do with the logic of the market and capital accumulation. There's going to be pressure to out-compete other cooperatives to remain pofitable. This means lowering costs to both lower prices and raise more capital to invest in new machines, infrastructure, etc. There are several means of lowering costs, but the biggest and most reliable is lowering labor costs by suppressing or lowering wages. The cooperatives that will best be able to discpline labor enough to suppress wages are going to be the ones with the least democratic cooperative models, and soon the largest and most prominent "cooperatives" would be almost indistinguishable from capitalist corporations.
Marx never suggested getting rid of socialism, he suggested organizing a revolutionary party, centralizing the decision making process, issuing a policy of conscription and cracking down on counter-revolutionaries within the city.

An-caps aren't anarchists.

No, Marxists want to work something that isn't socialism, has never lead to socialism and cannot lead to socialism except if it is rebelled against.
Sure, some of them are useful idiots and actually want socialism, but their praxis must be resisted at all costs and by force.

You just can't get over this, fam.

Again how would they do that without a state to enforce such inequality? How would they keep expanding without consumers to buy their products?
If all other cooperatives fail, then almost anyone make any money.
Also this argument falls apart when you consider that the democratic element is the important one. Was Athens not a democracy just because it had wealth that rivaled nearby monarchies? Absurd!

You do know all he meant was the ruling ideas (i.e. the ideas of the rulers) corresponded to their class? The notion that the objective interests of the ruling class engendered ideology that permeates all of society didn't come until Gramsci publicized his ideas about Hegemony, or even later with Althusser, who is the true architect behind the "Base-Superstructure" dialectic.
Funnily enough, both seem to be canonically despised from a theoretical standpoint by nearly every marxist I've met or heard of.

How so?
And anarchists projects have? I guess that's why I still live in a global capitalist society. Socialism is a worldwide movement.
Dope crystal ball homie. Where did you get it?

Didn't say that. Stalin is the canonical example of the right-wing of the left-wing, though, and I was pointing out some similarities between Stalin and prior marxists. Then comparing the Stalinist system with the Fascist system. The trace is there.

An you have no argument as to why Marxist Praxis won't turn into stalinism when the state consolidates power and cracks down on "counter-revolutionaries".

Well, they are generalizations. Obviously not every person who identifies as a marxist is a nationalist, but then again, neither are they guaranteed to spouse some ideological or philosophical system, or have a consistent stance on authority or hierarchy.
But, more relevantly, it appears every marxist state in history has promoted nationalist policies.

By having a horizontally structured state apparatus.

Aren't there other anarchists who want to keep money?

As long as there is a state to exploit surplus value, it is not socialism. Marxists want to implement a state and thus their first priority is not socialism even if this is a "transistory" phase.

Every anarchist revolution had until Marxist anti-socialists cracked down on it. Socialism ought be an international movement, but it'll still be socialism regardless of whether it covers a commune or a coninent.

Is it horizontal or is it a state?

Socialism isn't inherently classless. That would be communism. You're too wrapped up in anarchist ideology.

Will your commune live in autarcy?

Socialism IS communism. It's the first stage of communism.

Posted without the slightest sense of irony.

Socialism is class-less in that it has one class and thus no class antagonism.
It is lower-tier communism. The socialism/communism dichotomy is a new one.

Irrelevant. A monarchy is a monarchy it has a monarch. The number of subjects is irrelevant.

We already had this discussion. If the ruling governing body is using it's force to suppress class interests (the bourgeoisie aren't going to disappear overnight) I'd call it a state. I know you guys like to play games with language and call your transitional "definitely not a state" state a council or syndicate or whatever. At the end of the day, though, you still have a governing body who is acting in the interest of one class over the other.

Yeah but that's not my question. What kind of relations will your commune have with the outside world?

In the initial stages of socialism there will still be a bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie class interest will continue. How will you make them disappear?

Yes and the fact that you don't make this distinction, which is very relevant also explains between socialism and something that is decidedly not socialism. It is exactly this lack of theory that makes you either useful idiots or willing thugs for people who want to consolidate power and exploit through a state.

But enjoy your "totally not capitalism"

Irrelevant. Same with the continent.

If there's a bourgeois class it's not socialism per definition.

There's no such thing as an initial stage of communism. And socialism begins precisely when classes have disappeared.

OK then*: what kind of relation will your commune/continent/whatever keep with the outside world?

The real world is far from that clean and tidy. You aren't going to wave a wand and have the former ruling class go "whelp! looks like they got us this time". A period of transition will occur.

How is this relevant to whether it's socialist or not?

Oh well, I guess all we have to do is sit down and wait because the bourgeoisie (like the state) will magically go away.

No. You have to actively suppress their class interest.

...

They don't have to, at least initially. The general logic is that you're tightening your belt "temporarily" in order to beat out your competitors and benefit in the long run.
You're seriously dragging out this tired "vote with your money" ancap meme? You can't expect boycotts to work forever, or consumers to keep tabs on all cooperatives that might be adopting less cooperative inner structures 'til the end of time, especially when all cooperatives are under pressure to do so due to the logic of capital.
Are you saying they won't have money to buy the dominant cooperative's products? The dominant cooperative will have simply absorbed them.
Democracy is not anathema to all social ills. You have to consider how the underlying logic functions, how it pushes people within that society to behave.
False equivalence. Ancient Greek city-states and competing firms on a free market aren't even close to the same thing. Even then, Athenian "democracy" excluded an absolute ton of people, including women and slaves.

Yeah that's called a revolution. Doesn't happen overnight.

Because the word "socialist" makes sense only if you're talking about a society, and if your commune/whatever keeps trading with the outside world, it's not a society: it's a part of a wider (capitalist) society.
With your definition, a few porky putting their shares in common would be socialist.

Nice rhetorical games famalam. 10/10 sophistry.

I've found that, with anarchists, the definition of what constitutes a "state" expands and contracts based on what's convenient at the time.

Not the question. How do they accumulate capital faster than others without a state to enforce such inequality?

Wasn't what I suggested either. Mine was a consideration of demand and velocity of money: if they put others out of a job, who will have money to buy their stuff?
This is pretty central to crisis theory.

No, but it allows us to figure out for ourselves what is. I know that notion doesn't sit well with your types.

I guess hunter-gatherers living in the Amazonas are not primitive communism because capitalism exists.
I guess Switzerland is not a democracy because it trades with dictatorships.

What tosh.
Modes of production can exists within another mode of production just as capitalism existed within feudalism. Which one is dominating is irrelevant.

Where? While looking for the gerbil that disappeared last week?

If they're hunter-gatherers, they obviously don't buy their food on a market. If they buy their food, they're obviously not hunter-gatherers anymore. In the first case, you have primitive communism (alongside capitalism, not within it). In the second case, you just have capitalism.

Wait, you think democracy (the same that "allows us to figure out what is the solution to every social I'll"?) and dictatorship are modes of production.

And the contradictions ended in a revolution, with capitalism destroying every last piece of feudalism in the entire society. Exactly what you're saying doesn't need to happen to get to socialism.

Because, like in normal capitalism, the inequality is obfuscated.

With the logic of the market, you only need a small few "weak links" to begin the backwards drag back into capitalism.

Like I said, they absorb the other cooperatives.
The underlying flaws in the logic of your system aren't always the sort of things that occur to people spontaneously. Democratic consensus alone isn't going to give you the tools necessary to analyze your society.

By selling more products?

No crisis has ever "killed" capitalism until now.

Arguing with people like you.

First a state is an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence. Then it must necessarily be an hierarchical, top-down structure when you ask if anarchist federations aren't basically that. So on and so forth.

How to they reach inequality without a state to enforce it? Will I really need to quote Adam Smith on this?

How? And who's there to enforce it? You can't have massive inequality without something enfocing private-property rights.

Good, really good. That'd be fine. More members or the cooperative, more get to vote, inequality falls once more.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong if this was the solution. Theres no hierarchy and thus all would be equal.

And I'm guessing you believe yourself worthy of joining the great philosopher kings that must lead us all.
We have a right to foolishness, to stupid descisions.
It is a mark of arrogance that you believe yourself to hold absolute truth and would deny others their right to self-determination.

They're both. Quite simple.
You've encountered people who elaborated.
I know it must seem strange.

fugg

Anarchist federations don't have monopoly on the legitimate means of violence. Ever notice anarchists never have police nor prisons?
Furthermore, your whole premise is flawed: in a situation of civil war, nobody has a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence. To this extent, wars destroy states, the thing is that many parties to such wars are interested in rebuilding such an apparatus.

I don't get your question. You're asking me how one can sell more than another without a state?

Rojava has police, fam.

No.
How are you going to have a lot more stuff than everyone else without a police to make sure noone nicks it or with a direct democracy where people can vote your wealth away?

Rojava is not anarchist, fam.

Fuck outta here

Rojava are (libsoc) Democratic Confederalist and their praxis is far from ideal.

Catalonia had something like civil guards

Theory don't real.

Catalonia wasn't just anarchist, there was a government, trots and stalinists there too.

Catalonia had (anarchist) workers' (voluntary) militias to combat imperialist invasion.

Why do people like OP have to exist and make me embarrassed to call myself an anarchist?

Anyone want to take in a comrade that wants society organised horizontally? I'm sick of being associated with these jerkoffs.

You're in luck, I have just made up this ideology in which everyone agrees with you.
Sign up right now and it will have exactly one adherent.

Have fun being a good worker when the state consolidates power and you get cheka'd

Also, good luck convincing people to join us when we're openly allied with people who advocate for and are apoligetics for totalitarian nightmares.

Solidarty with this ill-defined "left" will kill us in the end.

Totes not a police force guys!

I have no intention of aligning myself with Stalinists and their similar ilk. But considering the seeming lack of intelligent anarchists on this site, I think I'll hang around the libertarian Marxists.

Again, it is a police if it represents a state.
It is not if it is representing the direct democratic will of citizens and is subject to immidia revokation at all times.

Great, nice to see you have no argument save for getting your feelings hurt.
Can you at least try to argue why history won't repeat itself this time or are you too cowardly to question your identitarian belonging to the "left"?

The anarchist dedication to pedantry is astounding.

And your lack of distinction between very important concepts is what makes sure that every "revolution" you guys have will shit itself and turn into a totalitarian nightmare.

You may as well say that the difference between socialism and capitalism is "pendantry".

You are either stupid or dishonest.
That was reported by Voline, so take it with a grain of salt. What Malet actually says on the matter:
>At Olexandrivske its activities had caused enough concern to the congress delegates to lead them to ask for an enquiry: "It has been reported to us that there exists in the army a counter-espionage service which engages in a rbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious … ". A commission was set up, but was lost in the general evacuation of the city shortly afterwards. In Katerynoslav, the offices were in the former Hotal Continental on Zalizna Street … Prisoners were either let go, or ended up in the river - in any case, fairly quickly.

So an authoritative body that is conducting intelligence gathering, searches, seizures, and executions isn't a police force because of some inane word games anarchists like to play?

Sounds like a euphemism for making someone disappear.

Okay, so now you are attacking all anarchists on this site because you don't like one or two of them. You are SO different from them.
Suit yourself. Word of advice, though: I have yet to meet one leftcom who hasn't end up saying that Lenin and Trotsky weren't such bad guys after all.
Any person obsessed with DotP is not libertarian tbh fam

It's an euphemism for executing a captured enemy.
As in, the Black Army took no prisoners (and had no prisons): captives were either let go or executed if absolutely necessary.

I see. Clearly factories are always capitalist because wage-labour and hierarchy take place inside them right now.
That distinction is not important to make.
I mean socialism or capitalism, who cares? It's all just factories.

This.
"Libertarian Marxist" turn almost as quick as "libertarian" rightists do whenever a strong leader emerges.

Woah there, stop projecting comr8

Think for a second if you really want your strategy for polishing your movement to be "I'll split to the most silent faction I can find the second I find a comrade who makes me look bad". Because, you know, the only reason "Libertarian Marxists" (assuming you mean leftcoms because Guerinists don't exist) haven't embarrassed you yet is because there like 2 of them and they don't ever take a stand.

- Bakunin

Right because if I say your pedantic about how you use the word police then I must not think there is a difference between capitalism and socialism. You got me dude.

Soooo what was I being dishonest about?

Rad

Stupid it is.
You said that Malet had confirmed the concerned raised in Voline's account (torture and execution of civilians like the Cheka did) instead of what it actually was (capture of enemy agents, followed by release or the occasional execution).

What I am saying is that if you do not differentiate between a hierarchical organization based upon extracting surplus labour and one that is not, you might as well not differentiate between capitalism and socialism.

I've found that, with marxists, the characteristics that constitute a "dictatorship of the proletariat" shift and flop based on what's (rhetorically) convenient at the time.

We don't have time for this shit. You guys act as if the revolution were at dawn. We're tiny, our influence it tiny and there are way bigger foes to battle ideologically. I told you guys on the other thread: We'll kill each other when we kill our common enemy!!!!

Wait, you actually expected anyone to be swayed by this?

Well. nahh, not really.
Faith comrade. Faith

What if we amputated this sickly appendage we have in Marxists so that we may have broader appeal and noone associates us with nightmarish dictators. Would that not be a step forward?

Or should we cooperate with them and AnCaps too?

There is no such thing as an "an"cap. They're called anscaps (anti-state capitalist). Beside they're just secret fascists don't really even believe in their shit. They have no revolutionary potential and don't do shit at all. They're porkies little bitches, so I don't know how they would be useful. Stop recognizing them.

Anyways, Marxists make good points about capitalism, so they're useful. We should just advocate our own school of thought. We have a lot of history to combat the marxists either way.

I said they were executing suspected counter rev's. Which they did. And you confirmed it.

Malet never comments on the frequency of execution.

And AnCaps make really good points about the state. Marxists, are just like AnCaps, anti-socialists wearing the mask of a emancipatory movement.

We have no reason not to fight Marxists in the streets and we absolutely should in order to legitimize our movement in the eyes of the worker and those who want to end tyranny.

Dude Marxists are nothing like anscaps. Anscaps are really some of the biggest fuckers around. Anyways, this isn't the time for that shit. We're weak as it is damn it.

Are you an ex AnCap?

No, I'm a former orthodox Marxist.

The authoritarian "left" must be rejected or we must find our own path. They are holding us back and we are gaining nothing from cooperating with them any more than we could gain from working with monarchists, fascists and AnCaps.

Well, my mistake, dishonest it was.

Nice try, sneaky shit. They executed captured enemies. Not suspected counterrevs. By which you are trying to convey the impression that, like the Cheka, they got to accuse anyone of counterrev and then torture and kill them at their discretion.

Unlike marxist scripture, unbiased historical accounts feel they need to at least mention the claims that every side makes, nevertheless,

Notice how the right side is pretty much all ad hominem lol

Cheka
Oh, and re:ocassionally I don't remember where I read it, maybe it was not Malet, but the rule for war captives in Black Army was to release rank and file and shoot commanders.
I'd look it up but it is obvious you are not conducting an honest discussion, so not worth the effort.

I'm sure it was all on the up and up.

ITT: COINTELPRO

...

What do you guys think about this:
youtube.com/watch?v=1mmqeP6xvaQ

Don't like it, tbh
It's not even the fact that he is defending Marx, it's just that he is falling for meme propaganda.
Notice he hasn't even studied Marx properly, he is going off on what post-Marxist pseudo-libertarians told him about it.
The fad about caricaturing and over-supplementing Marx to twist him into a libertarian of sorts is not helpful, it will waste some of the actually worthwhile things he had to say, and obscure the reasons for why he heired the movement that he did. Plus it makes careers for a bunch of intellectual hacks cashing in on the popularity of anarchism among the left.

Did you read the comments?
He debated some Marxists here youtube.com/watch?v=k2Mex1TrTw8

Hahaha, good one.
Your point? He debated a Trotskyist at some point from an Anarchist standpoint a long time ago. So…?

I wasn't saying anything. I was just asking a question and linking a video. Sheeesh

No need to be so touchy, comr8

Haha I mentioned the comment section because he made some more remarks there that could give a bigger picture as to where he comes from. I don't really know why I linked a video. I thought maybe it could interest you. I wasn't saying that you had to or you didn't know what you were talking about.

KRONSTADT BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

This is why i converted to marxism you niggers can't read.

Ok guys the jig is up, let's be real now. I, for one, can't wait to stain my bayonet with anarchist blood.

Kameraden let us purge!

Even Trotsky admitted it was exploitation but called it a "caste" instead of a class because he wasn't honest enough.

I'm just gonna wait for marxists who disagree with you (any of the ones itt who allegedly disagree would do) to have the outrageous reaction in defense of their comrades that they expect all anarchists on this board to have whenever any given anarchist criticizes marxism.
Just in case, I won't hold my breath, though.

I'm just gonna wait here for all the marxists who disagree with you (any of the posters itt who allegedly disagree would do) to have the outrageous reaction in defense of their comrades that they expect every single anarchist on this board to have any time any given one of them says anything in detraction of marxism.
Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath.
I am not joking, by the way. If you honestly want marxist-anarchist relations on this board to improve, this is your chance.

This fucking site, man.

They don't give a fuck. They can't wait to fuck us over but if we suggest that maybe we should fight them and keep them down so they can't screw us over later they turn around, call us sectarians and appeal to solidarity and unity.

You simply cannot argue with this level of delusion

Just kill yourself already if you want to keep the left so divide and weak that it will never have a chance to challenge porky before he destroys the planet.

Pure Ideology.

you are either cointelpro, on the spectrum or off your tits on prescription drugs aren't you

Nobody ever gets shit 100% correct, or should be believed 100% of the time. Instead of being so autistic about specifics maybe come up with a way to reconcile both ideologies and move forward synergistically.

Also you really gotta stop generalizing in every post you make.

has the right attitude.

Yes, let's really tap into that good synergy that the Marxists may give us like…
Association with totalitarianism and shit economy.
These guys are really a boon to us, that is, when they don't outright purge us, which they will have every reason to once the state consolidates power again.

Your way traps us down here in the mud with them.
They'll thank you with bullets later.

This is what I'm saying.. I'm an anarchist. All of these people don't know how fucking small they really are. We have a bigger enemy. We'll never get shit done with this amount of sectarianism. We can never win fighting so many battles at once. WE should form a sort of alliance.

This is about the fifth time I say this, but… LET'S KILL EACH OTHER AFTER WE KILL THE RIGHTISTS!!!!

I'm anti Marxist and on the extreme end of the right, in any case I shall be playing devil's advocate.

Soviet Russia/Soviet Union

Unless your argument is that they used state capitalism which isn't socialist, you must consider realpolitik. It is impossible for a nation to operate on the global scale as a socialist entity and not at least a state-capitalist entity.

Again, while I do not agree with Marxism, communism or the like the theoretical aspect clearly says that all nations must become communist and eventually over a long period of time the state shall be phased out of existence.

This comes after capitalism has reached its peak of efficiency.

The Spanish revolution seems like it worked out pretty well all things considered.

We fascists opposed Russia in the Second World War, even if the invasion wasn't successful it effectively weakened and drastically slowed down the spread of the red menace. If not for us fascists, even more of Europe would have been wrecked economically.

There is no reason, except for the common morality and common enemy ideals often used by the left.

If you reject leftism you don't have to have a coalition with them, but you have no option considering your brand of the anarchist ideology.

Depends on your brand of anarchism, have you considered Anarcho-Fascism?

In any case it is foolish to ally with Marxists who are the only group to have ever implemented a truly totalitarian regime, when your goal is the abolishment of state and the like.

Calm down comrade.
Right now isn't our time for us or the Marxists. Focus on reading anarchist theory and strengthening it through modern analysis of society.

Quick question? Should we cooperate with AnCaps too? Would rejecting them be sectarianism. What about Useful Idiotists? How unseemly must our allies be before they're unacceptable.

You've said this a million times. Anscaps are a whole different thing.

You see this fucker who doesn't know shit about leftism and even names "anarcho" fascism, this uneducated prick is what we should be pushing against.

Why not nib them in the bud so that we are the only leftist movement that has room to grow? Why must we risk getting fucked over again and again, when even on this thread we have Marxists talking about doing it again?

Anarchist Catalonia was crushed by the Republicans you fool. We have enough misinformation to deal with among leftists. Get out.

PURE
FUCKING
IDEOLOGY
Let's just ignore everything, all the material conditions, historical circumstances and the very fact that there were marxists denouncing all the shit Lenin and everyone who came after him did. Let's also ignore the fact that people can learn from history.

Just off yourself already if you are going to let the right wingers this easily.

And you've provided no answer. AnCaps oppose the state on paper. Now their ideology has in praxis never lead to a stateless society quickly being replaced by robber barons.
Marxists support socialism on paper. They want to implement something that is not socialism and has never lead to socialism.
They are both equally anti-socialist in praxis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

You can't fight nature. If Lenin couldn't shape man with all of the totalitarian power of the state how do you expect a stateless society to stay stateless and socialist?

Marxists support the very same approach that allowed a figure like Lenin to consolidate power.
They have no excuse. The support state exploitation, while AnCaps support bourgeois exploitation.
I for one see no difference in who robs me as long as I am robbed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days

Were the republicans Marxist?

If not, your post is meaningless.

Who was it backed by? Who prevented industries from going into the hands of workers? I think you need to read more about the history.

I'm guessing prescription drugs, or maybe just having a bad day?

You seem to be displaying some very Holla Forumsarizing opinions in a strong manner.

Yeah, that isn't fascism.

So can you perhaps stick to the merits of my arguments rather than calling me a J.IDF shill because I challenge your identity?

I really don't see what you're getting at. Understand that right now you're just on the internet. There's no prospect of leftist change in at sight at all. It's even worse. Nationalism and economic disaster are emerging. If you want to kill Marxists then go kill other humans,get locked up for the rest of your life and make us anarchists look like shit. I'm sure you'd be of great service to the cause.

Who talks of killing anyone. No you just beat them up and make sure they don't organize. In the meanwhile we have fertile ground for a class-conscious base to grow once more especially in America but in Europe to.
We have to be ready for this. We have to move beyond our past so that the ghost of Lenin does not scare people away

Socialism isn't "implemented". It emerges from a worldwide-wide transition. Various revolutions have taken steps in that direction though: Russia, Spain, etc.

No real Marxist talks about seizing the "state" and the "state" withering away using the same definition of state an Anarchist would. The proletariats' "state" is not a state in the traditional sense, it is a state because it is an organ for class rule. It is used to pin down the enemies of the revolution, but it is not the center of civil hierarchy like the traditional state. It does not ensure the present relations of production, it is a tool to enable the 'transformation of the relations of production. The more the productive relations are transformed (i.e. the closer to communism), the less there is such a thing as a "worker" (as economy is subjugated to the rest of life, rather than the other way around), the less there is any such a thing as "class", the less the "state" has any political functions.

The Spanish revolution was more or less doomed from the beginning, it was more than anything else the dying whimpers of the international communist revolution. One could talk about the "betrayal" by the anarchists who entered the Barcelona and Madrid governments, but this misses the point of the failure of the revolution at its roots - the movement of the proletariat to abolish wage labor. The biggest manifestation and, dialectically, the surface "cause" of the failure of the revolution in spain was the redirection of the proletariat towards Anti-Fascism, rather than the proletariat presenting its own program, which is equally opposed to Liberalism, Fascism, and Stalinism. The ease of the redirection being of course an effect of the extremely nationally limited scope of the outburst of the international revolution in Spain.

As I explained above, "Anti-Fascism" was lethal to the communist revolution, and actually paved the way to the triumph of Fascism, which can only take place over the corpse of the working class (historically, the working class being killed [metaphorically speaking] by placing the interests of the liberal bourgeoisie above its own.)

They shouldn't, frontism is cancer.

The problem isn't "totalitarianism", the problem is that Leninists have no goal but some version of nationalization, and will, as much as they can, structure proletarian activity towards that goal (keeping them inside unions, bourgeois parties, etc.). The problem isn't "authority", it is the (lack of) change in the productive process.
Communists (however they label themselves) should openly fight the descendants of Social Democracy at all times and places. (Although I'm not sure how productive a violent fight will be outside of any larger working class movement)

Again neither your ideology, nor that of your opponents is the determining factor, although it is a factor. The determining factor is activity, if a stalinist, for some reason or another, fights for independent proletarian activity (albeit, this being incompatible with stalinism), this should be encouraged, as activity is what shapes consciousness. In the same way, your fighting against "authoritarians", as merely an ideological gesture, is largely irrelevant. Fighting against the things they advocate, however, is not, and is absolutely necessary.

I will defend my stuff. I could even afford to pay some guys to defend it; I'll call these guys "police".

Wait, is there a market, or do people vote the distribution of goods?

anarchists man

this isn't a strawman

this is a next-level ADVANCED strawman

For Leninists, Socialization = Nationalization with a "workers' party" at the head of the state, with or without (depending on the flavor) a democratic system underneath, or beside the party.

Either way, or whatever the various deviations from that, socialization is equated with nationalization by the workers' state (the controversy for the various branches of Leninism being whether or not various self-proclaimed "workers' states" throughout history were actually controlled by the workers [for some, via the party])

No real Marxist talks about seizing the "state" and the "state" withering away using the same definition of state an Anarchist would. The proletariats' "state" is not a state in the traditional sense, it is a state because it is an organ for class rule. It is used to pin down the enemies of the revolution, but it is not the center of civil hierarchy like the traditional state.

Then aren't you just an anarchist who refuse to make the distinction between a state, a monopoly on legitimate force that is top-down and exploits labour, and a federation, which is not that, and thus not a state?

Why do you refuse intrgrate this theory into your theoretical framework and mystify the issue even further, leading to the exact kind of right-wing deviations like Leninists?

Why not just call yourself an anarchist if that is indeed that you are?

Repeating your strawman won't make it any less of a strawman.

Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

Because that's a fucking stupid definition of a state based not on a materialist understanding of history but a definition based on a timeless critique of reality in how it differs from muh feels ethics

Because if there is no substantial change in the relations of production, the change in political superstructure is meaningless, and the capitalist relations of production would cause a very traditional state to reappear.

I don't care about democracy/federation/etc. if all that is being regulated by is self-exploitation.

If it is an instrument for class rule, it is just ignorant to not call it some form of state, and can lead to very bad things happening if the "not a state" degenerates and, blinded by ideology, workers refuse to take action against it.

I guess capitalism and socialism is the same because there is no difference in the productive superstructure.

The state itself is base - it has it's own relations of power and exploitation, just like capitalism, and thus why this matters - and why no socialist state has ever melted away, but instead exploited workers itself.

See, the thing about the federation is exactly what you say - it is not an instrument of class rule. Anarchists reject all dictatorship, even of the proletariat. Therefore it would certainly have to degenerate if it should become one, for if it became a tool of class rule, it would be a state.
The problem is though, that "the proletariat" cannot ever wield the state unless you intend to bring millions of people into parlairment.

Which indicates that you lead a very muh privilegedd and pampered life. To any slave, the thought of self-ownership is a great gift. Hell, I would pay an arm and a leg if only I could get to exploit myself.

"One of the key tasks in the socialist development of society is the collective, social ownership of the means of production and the elimination of industrial competition within society – this begins with the state ownership of the means of production."
"It is the nationalization of industries, under state ownership and workers’ control that guarantees both the social and nationalized character of industry."
marxist.com/workers-control-nationalization-part1.htm
"Take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy. Run them under the democratic management of elected representatives of the workers and the broader public. Compensation to be paid on the basis of proven need to small investors, not millionaires."
socialistalternative.org/about/
"No to austerity—make the rich pay for the crisis! Break with the irrational chaos of the capitalist free market. Nationalize the Fortune 500. No compensation to the millionaires, only to those in genuine need. All nationalized companies to be run under democratic workers’ control and management, integrated into a socialist plan of production to meet the needs of society. Consolidate the nationalized banks into a single, publicly owned and administered bank to protect workers’ savings and guarantee affordable loans to all."
socialistappeal.org/what-we-fight-for.html

"Socialism in the USA would be when the working class owns and operates key industries" [paraphrased]
"What is Socialism? Join the PSL!"
youtube.com/watch?v=XXqV1bZLJxo
pslweb.org/

u wot?

So, to you, "capitalism" and "the state" are two separate networks of exploitation and power?
Fuckin kek

I don't give two shits about "relations of power", "relations of power" are determined by the productive process.

There is no "socialist state" the proletarian state is an instrument to get to socialism, but it is itself incompatible with socialism.

Yes it is. It is either an instrument for the rule of the bourgeoisie, or the proletariat, there is no middle ground.
It depends when, where, how, why, etc.

Sure, in ideology. But in Spain, for example, the Anarchists set up the beginnings of a DotP, which in many ways was more advanced than the one in Russia (until it was destroyed by about '21), but in many (more) ways was less so.

The term "state" =/= the current bourgeois state.

The bourgeois state apparatus must be smashed by the proletariat.

I feel bad for you homie

"political superstructure" when talking about something that excerts power and exploits labour is as meaningless as calling production "superstructure". You can only draw it up from unreflected dogma.

Absolutely. The state itself exploits surplus labour often in the same way that the bourgeois does, but it can also be by direct appropriation of labour-time itself. The state is in-of-itself a class and thus why it has always consolidated power and never melted away.

See this is the kind of unrelflected dogma that has lead to totalitarian nightmares every time. The whole point of abolishing the productive process as it is right now is to get rid of the relations of power within it.

Absolutely not. It is not an instrument, it is a class in of itself. It is wielded by noone but itself. It's interests is to ally itself with classes that wield private property, because it needs to exploit and subjugate and the bourgeoisie allow them to do so. They are allies of, not a tool of, the bourgeoisie and even clash with their interests at several points, especially in states where the bourgeoisie don't directly finance politicians.

It is exactly this unscientiffic approach to the question of the state that has doomed all branches of Marxism to lead to Stalinism and thus why we unfortunately must regard them as anti-socialists.

>If I really really really want it not to, the state does not exploit surplus labour, just like the bourgeoisie

The state doesn't, except for how the economy is affected by it (how the superstructure maintains the base) and when the economy affected by is centralized within it (i.e. public enterprises / the doctrine of social democrats / tankies).

At those times, the state is even less independent of the productive process and is even more at the behest of the law of value.

"State capitalism is not a subjugation of capitalism to the state, but a firmer subjugation of the state to capital"

The regulator of "power" is capital, the process of the self-expansion of value.

I don't? … ???

In state enterprises, sure. But that isn't inherent to the state itself. It is not a separate "base", it is determined by the economic base (the relations of how society produces for itself and reproduces itself, and the development of the forces of production).

Let me get this straight: the state functionaries aren't a class, the state, itself, is a class?
topkek

No, it is to free the forces of production to be used by society to produce for itself in a way not regulated by value, and where economy is reintegrated with the rest of life, where the condition for the development of society is the development and growth of each person, as an element of that society. To free humanity from the chains of having all of life being regulated by labor, rather than the other way around.

The state only appears to be an imposition upon the rest of society from above, in reality it exists because of the objective requirements of the way society produces and reproduces itself (the mode of production).

How exactly do you think the state is "exploiting" labor?

You keep trying to pinpoint the state in the productive process with words like "exploit, but give no hint of what this could possibly mean, and then accuse me of being the dogmatic one.

It does. Even in a relatively free society without state-industry (which most if not all states have) they still tax you, thus taking away from you surplus labour that you do not recieve back in some other service. This is appropriation of value.
Likewise, in many other cases, you have obligations to the state, meaning that the state can make you do things and punish you if you do not. This is appropriation of labour-hours and thus also of value.

You really have to jump through a lot of mental-loops in order not to regard the state itself as a hierarchical apparatus that indeed constitutes a class of its own.

The regulator of "power" is subjugation. Power may exist in its own paradigm, and this is a huge hole in Marxian theory that they do not take into account. If someone surrenders to me and lets me dominate them, I have power over them regardless of whatever capital I may own.

Let me get this straight: Rich people aren't a class, the function of the bourgeoisie, itself, is a class.
Topkek.

See I can meme too. It has no substance. Stop just repeating dogma when you have no argument.

If you think that is the point, you're not starved for freedom or muh privilege.

The point is to finally, after thousands of years of toiling and killing each other, to finally get rid of the bosses. It is exactly this divergence in mentality that points out why we can never be comrades. You do not fundementally have the same insatiable thirst for autonomy that is necessary.
It is not in your nature and thus your revolution is not mine and indeed, you would try to repress mine.
Thus I must repress your movement every chance I get.

That's not what surplus labor means. And there are intrinsic limits to how much can be taxed, from whom, etc. Again, the whole process is determined by the needs of capital.

"Surplus labor" is created in the production process, it is the result of the fact that a worker puts out more labor than it takes to reproduce the worker who is laboring. The capitalist may very well pay the worker the worth of his labor power (his ability to work). It isn't simply "stolen" in the way you are imagining, it is created by the worker throughout the entire period of production, appropriated by the capitalist in the form of the finished commodity/ies being his property to realize the surplus value through selling the product (the value successfully expanding itself, becoming capital [being accumulated by the capitalist]).

Taxes, at the end of the day, actually come from capitalist enterprises, as they are the ones who pay the wages, and must continue to accumulate capital. Taxes cannot fly in the face of the needs of the total social capital, and while specific capitals (largely, though not only, through the political factions which represent them) with more influence over the state will obviously have more influence over the actions of the state, the determining aspect is the needs of the total social capital.
The state cannot increase taxes to the point of inhibiting the accumulation of capital by enterprises without undermining its own raison d'etre and pushing capitalism further into crisis.

The bourgeois state acts on behalf of capitalist enterprise. It may centralize enterprises within itself, but it is still controlled by them. The state is not a source of social ills separate from capital, it exists because it is the instrument of the rule of capital.

Because it is the instrument of capitalist class rule, a tool of capital to maintain its ability to accumulate! It is the apparatus of dictatorship by capital to repress the working class!

Wot? Subjugation is just the inverse of power. "Subjugation" isn't the regulator of power. That doesn't make any sense. "Subjugation" tells us literally nothing about the movement of "power" or the processes involved, besides that if one is in power, then another is subjugated, which is a fucking meaningless truism.
Huh?

Lets see if I can nudge you in the right direction:
Ask yourself these questions:
Why did they surrender to you and let you dominate them? What were the relationships involved beforehand, during the process, and now? What were you doing before? What might have caused the war/battle/fight in the first place? What might have structured the battle itself, and the decisions taken by each side? What might have caused one to win and another to lose?
Why is that power without conditions and not influenced by anything else?
If you use that person in a certain way, does that person become or relate to capital in any way?
What is your relationship to the production process?
Even if you don't personally own capital, do you have any relationship to the process of the accumulation of capital?

(cont)
You're trying to make word salad to strawman my argument in order to try and make a point that I strawmanned you, but unfortunately you made several errors in doing that,

Class is a network of interests based upon relationship in and to the productive process.

The "rich" are not a class, the controllers of the application of living labor, the bourgeoisie, are a class (traditionally by owning dead labor, and so for living labor to be applied to anything the laborer must sell his labor power to the owner of dead labor). Those who do not own dead labor (the means of production), and thusly must sell their ability to labor to earn a wage, constitute the working class.

The bourgeoisie, particularly the lower strata of it, may in fact be fairly poor. Many workers may be very well-to-do. Wealth is not the determinant of class, position in the productive process is.

There is no point in eliminating the bourgeoisie if you are keeping bourgeois society. No point in taking over the factory if you are going to continue to operate it just as before. You will soon just be democratically deciding to lower your own wages, lessen your own number of vacation days, worsen the working conditions of your own workplace, etc.

The social relations which make up the particular mode of production (the social relation being more than worker←->boss, but how we all relate to each other in society's reproduction and growth), this is what must be overthrown.

Are you guys still going at it?

Just going to shill my own here because it's relevant.

It's beautiful, isn't it?

Honestly black-flag, from anarcho-fag to another, leftcomposter knows his shit. Not to sound patronising but I think your heart is in the right place: you just don't seem to have a good background in theory atm.

That's why some of US anarchists have to get more serious and read and construct theory.

Wow, you really are full of petit-bourgeois ideology, ain't you?

Oh no, I know my shit too.
But it is exactly when theory does not reflect reality and we still spout it woithout questioning it that is becomes dogma instead.
Therefore, I am consciously and willfully straying from theory which has only shown to have no actual historical predictive power, unless modified.

Likewise, there is a limit to how much surplus labour the boss may extract, because the state want there share too. Of course the bourgeois may choose to give the worker nothing, whus fully appropriating the labour-value of the product and thus nothing may be paid in taxes, but this would fundementally violate the agreement between the state and the bourgeoisie: indeed, in many countries like my own, the workers taxes are paid by the work-place directly, thus they are integral to the labour process; taxes, while being an exploitation realized in exchange-value or money, is an extraction or value from the labour of the worker just the same as the surplus value extracted from the work-place. Just because the nature of the value-form in which both are being extracted are different, does not mean that both are not extractions of value that you are not fully compensated for, and thus exploitation. The distinction is rather arbitrary and no commoner is going to feel the difference.

Mainly because, even at a 100% tax, capital may still accumulate, as capital reinvested in production is not actually taxed.
Thus capital may still acumulate and the powerful still get more mighty, just not in a money-form in this case.

Certainly, the worker-consumers may not be taxed at a 100% because that would mean a complete nullification of the velocity of money. That would mean that the system would have to revert to chattel slavery, but even this both the state and the bourgeoisie may accomodate for.

Of course, if the state wants to appropriate all value, you'd need to abolish the bourgeoisie.
Thus Stalinism. Thus why Marxism, which eliminates power of the bourgeoisie, opens a power vaccum in which the statist class may take over all power.

repeating this won't make it true. The state itself appropriates these labour-hours, not the bourgeoisie. Your view is very americanocentric, believing that the only kind of state is the weak kind of state that exists in the US. However, many other places, the balance of power tips in the other direction, with the state having more power than the bourgeoisie.

The reasons are arbirary: they may believe that I am the Son of God! Thus they believe I have power and authority, and thus I have power and authority! They surrender themselves and thus I have won! No productive process or capital is necessary for that at all.

However, capital may be used to coerce someone into subjugation: "Don't want to starve? Work in my factory!"

However, this coercion based on capital is not the only way to amass power and frankly its absurd to claim so

Exactly. And the state has a productive and exploitative process of its own: it might either own capital itself, gain a share of the surplus labour extracted from a worker, or command direct labour-hours itself, expoiting that way.

That way, as a function the state is just as the bourgeoisie as a funtion.

This is based upon nothing.
If all workplaces lower their own wages to radically, they have less means of consumption and thus there is less room for expansion in the economy.
Thus this trend has a natural cap in a mutualist economy.
You cannot argue that a company may expand into markets with no available consumers. Thus, for each cooperative, lowering their own profits in order to reinvest and compete will mean that they cannot reinvest and compete as all others do it. Thus, as they cannot expand, they raise their shares instead, untill the market can be expanded to once again, in a pretty much constant loop.

Automization is the key to breaking this.

As the process get automated, the workers may decrease their labour-hours and no concrete cost their ability to compete (might indeed make it better) untill we have reached such a point as automization basically have made the cooperatives into units that need so little work that we can make them public at no real loss to the coop itself, thus arriving at communism.

Not doing a good job of proving it famalam.

...

I think you are confused because you are conflating capital with the persons that make up the bourgeoisie. Particular functions and actions of the state might go against the interests of particular bourgeoisie (and thusly specific capitals), but this isn't even remotely contrary to the fact that the state acts on behalf of the whole social capital (which is, in turn, composed of rivaling components which can never completely unify in the same way communism, the movement to destroy capital with the self abolition of its opposite [the proletariat], can - which is why various factions compete for more control of the state [but this does not nullify the fact that, as a totality, capital controls the entire bourgeois state, it is the very essence of the bourgeois state]).

In fact, in the imperialist stage of capitalism (beginning to be theorized in the invaluable discoveries works of Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Nikolai Bukharin), where - in order to support the humongous amount of destruction, devaluation, and restructuring of capital and innovation of technology (in the form of inter-imperialist war) required to restore the profit rate - a huge state apparatus is required, and everywhere the tendency is towards state capitalism. So, even this huge increase in the activity, and, if you must, "power" of the state, is directly determined by the evolution of capitalism. The state is the superstructure. It does not, at the end of the day, determine the evolution of and activity of capital, it merely maintains it and shapes sections of it in the interests of the whole social capital. In fact, in state capitalism, as I said before, the state is even more subjugated to capital than before.

To explain why proletarian doctrine is very much fact and not just "dogma" and why ideology which envisions an independent state is worse than just unnecessary:
The state is not a separate entity with a separate production process. It is an illusion that the bourgeois state is a neutral entity imposed from above which mediates the contradiction between labor and capital. It is, in reality, an arm of capital. The state engages in activity which isolated specific capitals cannot do on their own (e.g. build infrastructure), but this activity is not separate from the self-expansion of value (which is what capital is). This activity does not accumulate capital itself though, in fact, the capital which is used by the state for its various activities (except in the case of state run enterprises) ceases to be capital, as the value does not expand. It is done to pave the way for the accumulation of capital. If the activity by the state does not enable capital to accumulate enough to outpace the spending by the state, the costs of the state's activity show up as a growing debt, the state cannot sustain itself separately from capital. We are in the capitalist mode of production. Pic related cannot continue on forever.

tl;dr the state might act against the interests of particular, or even all, bourgeoisie in a specific nationstate, but this does not mean that it is acting against the interests of capital. Society, in this historical epoch, can only reproduce itself by also expanding, by accumulating capital, by producing and realizing surplus value. The state cannot do this simply via taxes. Capital requires a state to maintain its rule. Because the state cannot magically conjure and provide for itself out of nothing, capital must provide and structure resources for the state to use and run on. This does not mean that the state has its own process of production and reproduction which rivals and is independent of the capitalist one.

not the same guy, but this is what a friend of mine had to say on the matter.

Ignoring of course that nobles and the bourgeois were very much two different classes that both were based on capital and very much competed

...

um, nobles were not "based on capital"

The only meaningful difference between Capital and Land is that capital can be increased through human labour; even so, it's a lie to think that the Feudalists did not invest in new technology to lower socially necessary labour time.
They did less so than capitalists, bu they still did it.
While he perhaps misspoke, the important part that both are based upon appropriating value from the workers and private property still holds true.
This minor distinction is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here, and is a way from intellectual snobs to dismiss an otherwise legitimate argument.

it's not worth fighting them comrade, they are a lost cause. Conformists that they are, they'll blend in fine when global anarchism is implemented though.

...

How will they without private property?

Sure, exploitation will always occur as long as we have states, and states will always pop up as long as we have private property, but they are fully dependent on each other.

If you have neither, neither will arise.

Disaster is inevitable, and some people will always try to brainwash others through fear and anxiety. This is the foundation of any nation.

No.
All states have arisen in the wake of private property.

I wonder how anarchism will stop a new regime of private property from forming. How will you prevent the emergence of neo-feudalism in the absence of a referee state to ensure the continued democratic ownership of the productive means? Our capitalist ruling class has shown that it has no interest in being constrained by the laws of morality or society, so how will you stop a population that has internalized the capitalist worldview from setting up local systems of property to secure economic advantage and power over one another? You won't be able to just wag your finger at them and say "sorry, this is an anarchic state now, none of that!"

I think many socialist tendencies share your goals, but when you say that we should skip to the end without providing for the historical development of communism, I get the feeling that you'll be about as successful as the Bolsheviks were in their initial attempts to take Russia directly from feudalism into socialism without going through a phase of capitalization. We would do far more good by simply putting ourselves back onto the path towards a better world. And I believe that will require using the state as an initial instrument of revolutionary transformation as well as retaining a reduced socialist state to play referee and protect human rights.

By having a federation crack down on it if they believe its a threat?

How does that work?

People take a vote. "Hmmm, do we want to crack down on the people who are instituting slavery and might threaten us next?"

After that they arm themselves and go smash the state.

But people vote where? By what mechanism? Arm themselves how? And without some unchanging set of principles and guiding values, you are relying solely on people's continuing enthusiasm for anarchism without having built the cultural values necessary for total democracy.

What happens when the reactionaries grow to become as powerful as the anarchists? Will you arm yourselves to crush each and every one of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of little fiefdoms that will pop up among American capitalism enthusiasts? And in this state of perpetual warfare and armament, it seems likely that you will only create a new reactionary movement that will seek to restore the "safety" of the old capitalist regime.

I agree with your goals and your vision for a better world, but all paths are not equal simply because they share a common destination. You want the best right away, with no waiting or work to get there. That is not a strategy that will lead to a successful revolution against capitalism.

You people should at least try not to contradict each other. Either the state has an independent nature and can generate private property, or it is generated by private property; it can't be both.

The two highlighted statements are not contradictory

Let me elaborate; when one ruling class has taken over from another, they have never destroyed private property or exploitation, neither did they in Russia.
But it is exactly that when there is a state to exploit, appropriate and accumulate capital that you have not gotten rid of private property, even if those work-places are cooperatives.

You're avoiding the point. Was there a state in USSR because of private property, or was there private property because of the state?

In their case, it was mostly private property because they had a state. In some cases collective property arose, but was exploited and eventually taken over by the state. Private property still existed in the form of nationalized industry, though.
One exists because of the other. You cannot abolish one without abolishing the other.
If there us a state, there is private property. If there is private property, eventually there will be a state.

By the way, I never said that the State generates private property, that private property arises under the state.
What I said is that as long as you have a state, you have private property.

So indeed, if you removed private property the state would disappear, but this is impossible, because as long as the state is, so is private property.

A For Anarchy!

Holy shit I think the mods are deleting posts.

I posted some things here and they are gone.

Because it's more efficient, effective, and less dangerous (to us) to just smother them in their sleep with a pillow in a shared barracks.

If we don't they may grow faster that what's good for us and then ultimately we might not be able to smother them at all.
That is simply a too big risk to run.

wrong flag

Ancom here to say that I agree with Marx and do not think he is supporting a state.

Have a look at this.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-what-is-anarchist-communism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

Marxism is a damn philosophy. He himself did not advocate a state. He gave us a method by which to see conflict in society: peasant and lord, proletariat and capitalist, oppressed and oppressor. He then went on to tell us how we could possibly see society without the oppressor. One who subscribes to Marxism is not a Marxist-Leninist.

Marx himself even described the Paris Commune as exemplifying "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat was ruling because there was participatory direct democracy and no capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time." - Karl Marx

you might be interested in thread I made on this topic:

gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm
leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-11-09/marxism-and-anarchism
youtube.com/watch?v=-qn4W_5v1zQ

fix ur site

Buddy, if he didn't support a state, what was the whole 1871 controversy between him and Bakunin about?

see :
gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm

The superstructure which is the political manifestation of the proletariats' movement to abolish itself and capitalism is the DotP.

The bourgeois state exists because it accomplishes tasks that the rest of society cannot and stabilizes the mode of production.
If the bourgeois state machinery is destroyed, but the rest of the bourgeoisie is not kept down, the contradictions within society will cause the state to re-emerge, as the state takes a top-down role of mediation between the contradictions so that society may be stabilize, but as "mediation" between material forces ultimately means being tied to one side or the other, the state, stabilizing society to allow the free reign of capital, is a tool of capital, and will re-emerge even if the old machinery is smashed.

I don't know why you keep insisting that all anarchists are AnCaps or that organization can only happen top-down.

Anscaps aren't anarchists to begin with

When did I ever do that?

I didn't say that, I'm saying that it isn't necessarily the determining factor in the nature of the particular organization, whether it used by capital to reinforce itself, etc.

Depending on the situation (most especially, what is being "cracked down on", and what is being threatened), this may describe a DotP.

Stop pretending you're doing this for other people and not for your own ego trip.

These are not created equally though.

One has never lead to socialism or even just worker's ownership of the means of production, lead to terrible inefficiency both in industry and in the military, and the other is an anarchist federation.

plz see:

I'm not going through a gish-gallop.

Nothing changes the fact that top-down states have been inefficient and thus are less capable of defending a revolution. No theory that happened before the fact will do that.

The fact that you think the correct solution is to do the same thing again but to have it happen all over the world, shows that you're mostly just a LARPer.
That's never going to fucking happen, and we'll have to see how we can make it possible at smaller scales.

there's a particular text where this is argued but I can't remember which one. Was it Bordiga?

Do you know which one?

You are just plugging your ears and yelling "la la la la la la", if you even skimmed over the posts I linked you would know how completely false that is. Either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting everything I said (rather than the typical memetext exaggerations).

You think I am dodging your devastating refutation of my points by simply bombarding you with irrelevant, unconnected, arguments?

If we are using bourgeois liberal New-Atheist meme logic and meme labels for flaws in positions and logical and/or polemical errors, then let me put it this way:

Do you think that just maybe it is a possibility that my answer to your points needed to be complicated and require a background of corrections to build up to it because your post was an example of fractal wrongness?

Holy shit, didn't see that post before! (speaking about the one you are commenting on, not you comrade)
Talk about fractal wrongness!

Yeah! You're right it was Bordiga. If my memory serves me correctly it was in "Doctrine of The Body Possessed By The Devil", but of course, they argued it much earlier, in journals and such, but I don't think the first article they argue it in has been translated.
marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm

If you can't put something into simple terms then you don't understand it well enough.

Different guy. I read it, and I didn't see you address the his concern that centralization is inefficient. As far as I can tell, you're advocating decentralization but calling it centralization.

chomskek plz go

It. depends. on. the. context.
The. primary. question. is. what. they. are. doing. not. what. is. the. organization. they. are. doing. it. with. to. do. it.

Content and form are certainly interconnected. as any good dialectical knows, ultimately though, it is content which determines form, so, again, the most important thing is "what is the activity being organized?", which is the more important question than "what is the form of organization?".

You can't simply critique "authoritarian" forms simply for being such, and upholding "libertarian" ones simply for being such, and ignore the content which makes them so.

The outburst of the proletarian revolution may very well not be out of or using democratic forms of organization, nor will it necessarily be organized as a single centralized organization, even if the ultimate tendency will be centralization towards a bottom-up world organization of proletarian dictatorship.

at what?
btw, the past guy said "top-down" organizations, and centralized doesn't necessarily mean "top-down" in the sense you are thinking
which, supposing he thinks I am advocating a DotP as a strategy, which is wrong, and that the DotP is "top-down" in the sense you are referring to, which is also wrong (but these being the assumptions I have to make if I am to assume his statements are thought by him or you to be relevant), and gets the whole process ass-backwards.

These errors rest on many points of misunderstanding:
"The revolution" is imagined to be more or less just seizing the economy from the bourgeoisie and thus the only question is "how get done?" and "how keep done?", the primary concern then being strategy and tactics, viewed as questions which can be posed completely independently of the actual processes and movements of reality ("centralization bad", "decentralization good" / "[unjustified] authority bad", "liberty good", "how we organize with maximum good, minimum bad?" "fuggin ebil state or muh federalism").

The question is not "how do we organize?", but "what are we organizing?"

Again, fractal wrongness.

It's people like OP why I'm growing to hate anarchists more and more each day.

>organizational structure does not matter because books that were written before it was made clear that organizational structure matters a lot said it wouldn't

Is this just a religion to you?

kek, you hear the religious asking people to look closer at the material facts of the situation and what our actual practical activity is all the time:

Because socialism isn't an ethical construction with the directive "ebrywan b nighze to eech oder… ogay :DDDD"?
It is a mode of production which requires a particular development of technological development as it is only with such an amount of development of the productive forces that, since so much of the productive process is dead labor rather than living that the abstraction of labor is no longer society for society to successfully reproduce itself, the process can be socialized and put back under the control of the rest of life.

Read "not socialism".
There is no point in getting rid of the bourgeoisie if you are going to keep bourgeois society.
The problem is value (its essence being abstract labor), not the class which is currently its tool of self-expansion.

Before the aforementioned conditions are met, there is no material driving force for getting rid of abstract labor, and products will (no matter how you try and dress it up), not simply be use-values, but be given the social contradiction of a use-value and value (read "be a commodity"). The point isn't the emancipation of labor, but the emancipation from labor (I usually use the term "work" for simplicity's sake).

The most educational thing about posts like these is how much they show that both modern "Anarchism" and "Marxism" are descendants of the same Social-Democratic cancer.

Yet, those Anarchists who think that you can have socialism not merely in one country, but in one region, are so totally internationalist.

All those Anarchists flooding to the "peoples'" "revolution" in Rojava attempting to cement a new nation-state, completely oblivious to the necessarily imperialist nature of such a task in this stage of capitalism.

Stalin wasn't actually that right wing. You are missing the point that the "left-wing" is the left-wing of capital.

Do you think that there might have been materialist explanations for the triumph of the Stalinist counter-revolution, and that maybe the war wasn't a completely ideological one, having no basis in the material forces (including the movement [or lack thereof] by the revolutionary class as whole)?

*as any good dialectician knows

How about the lack of class struggle?
Again ou have not mentioned a single reason why we need capitalism before socialism.
We might as well have mutualism.
Meaning that indeed, peasants can develop socialism.
That an agriarian revolution is not "doomed to failure", that indeed, the way we organize a revolution does matter.

All this other talk about how they cannot bring about a revolution, just because it goes against the "stream of time" the "path that is destined" is pure religious dogma.

You can't just sidestep the issues when people bring up criticism and expect people to take you seriously because you like to gish-gallop.

I'm sorry we are busy at least trying something rather than complain how reality sucks because it does not conform to dogma.

that would be a con, not a pro.
people less likely to fight against their alienation and exploitation = bad
How about, you know, not skipping over the first half of my response to you?
I feel like we missed a step here
- You ignoring half my argument
- Praising mutualism
- ????
= Peasants can develop socialism?

I am lost.

I agree, that in specific historical circumstances, there were periods where it was possible for the peasantry in some countries to have socialist potential. But, that time has passed.

An example of a time when capitalism could have been "skipped" was in the late 1800's because of the communal nature of the russian agricultural relations in the mir., as Marx pointed out. But, again, this was in the context of an international revolution.

See the reason there was ever the opportunity there was because of the particular social relations and the movement / direction of change of those relations in relation to the productive forces over time

Different parts of the world developed differently, there genuinely was a chance before for much of the world to skip capitalism, but that opportunity is over a century passed.

Again, the reason it was possible at all was because of the particular social relations in a substantial amount of russian agriculture. In the west, for the possibility of communal relations to re-emerge, capitalism was necessary, because of the way capitalism re-organizes the production process over time (it socializes it). It lays the path for labor to become directly social again.

It wouldn't necessarily fail, it may very likely succeed, just not at anything that has at all to do with socialism.

peasantry who individually own property have interests in growing that property, not in abolishing property

Of course, but it matters not a bit when the thing being organized has not been decided yet.

pic related

Stop sidestepping the issue.

Name a reason why mutualist banks cannot fulfill the same role as the bourgeoisie historically did in investing in capital and technology.
For all the textwalls you spam you consistently fail to answer anything I ask.

We're against personal property now?
You do realise that Marx would not have considered this private property, right?

And just to cement my point:

When "the direct producer" is "the possessor of his own means of production" then he is "a non-capitalist producer." This is "a form of production that does not correspond to the capitalist mode of production" even if "he produces his product as a commodity."- Capital III: 735, 1015
"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker." When the producer owns his "conditions of labour" and "employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist" then it is an economic system "diametrically opposed" to capitalism. Capital 1: 938, 931

So unless there's some kind of mode of production that is not socialism but still "diametrically opposed to capitalism" that Marx just never bothered to mention at any point in all the texts he wrote, then such individual ownership for personal sustinence would indeed be socialism.

Why is this fucking thread still alive? How many times do anarkiddies have to showcase their ignorance before they actually sit down and read Marx.

...

I didn't say they can't, I'm saying it is not a good thing.
Read the second and third paragraph of

Are you not referring to small farmers? If you are referring to wage laborers on farms then you could've said that instead.

Either way, though, actually, yes. We are not against individual use of means of consumption, but this taking the form of "personal property", is something that will fade away during the transition period (labor vouchers entitling one to access to means of consumption is temporary).

many forms of production may exist within larger modes of production which are not entirely composed of that.
Simply commodity production is compatible with many modes of production.
In the latter section you are talking about he is obviously talking about the development of capitalism, not its destruction
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm

Just because something preceded capitalism (like commodity production) does not mean it will or even can succeed it (unless there is some catastrophic amount of destruction of the productive forces)

If there is "ownership" at all, then it is not socialism (save for the temporary perpetuation of bourgeois right in the form of labor vouchers with which to purchase means of consumption). In fully developed socialism, there is no such thing as "ownership", therefore neither is there "personal sustenance". And this personal sustenance is impossible not because it is too "libertarian", etc. but precisely because it is "diametrically opposed" to a mode of production based on directly social labor of free and equal producers where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

In socialism, labor is directly social and is subjugated to the rest of life, rather than the other way around. Individual sustenance is contrary to this. It also is contrary to the fullest free development of the individual sustaining themselves, even in terms of access to use-values, as no individual can provide themselves with use-values that can only be provided socially.

Capitalism develops the productive forces and socializes production which paves the way for communism, no other mode of production can come after capitalism. A mode of production consisting only of individual sustenance is not only not a particularly good thing, but impossible at this stage of the development of social relations and the forces of production which sustain them.

In communism, individual enrichment is not only possible, but necessary. The fulfillment of one's needs in communism do not appear as a separate act from society which infringes on the possibility to meet the needs of others, but is precisely the opposite. The enrichment of oneself in communism is enrichment of yourself as a social being.

This is not because of particular principles or relations of power, but because of the way that society produces and reproduces itself in communism, the only option ahead of capitalism, because of the particular development of society in capitalism.

Again, the point is not "workers' control" or the liberation of the worker, but the liberation from work.

Oh, so… You're saying that it's bad because people might like it and then they wouldn't rebel against it. That sounds pretty okay to me, actually.

Jesus Christ, couldn't you just have said that by "socialism" you mean, unlike all other socialists I have ever encountered, high-stage communism rather than lower-stage?

Curious that Marx doesn't name the mode of production with worker-owners when he mentions this many times, wouldn't you say?

No you're mixing up two different points.
That is the opposite of what I said. I said people would be doing the things to themselves in competing enterprises, and that would make it more confusing and harder to rebel against.
(See any critique of co-ops ever.)

Socialism and communism are the same thing. Communism/Socialism has a lower-phase and upper-phase, but it is still the same mode of production. So, as far as relations of production are concerned, the upper-stage and lower-stage are the same. The abstraction of labor is not a part of the production process in either.

Because it isn't a mode of production.
pic related.
When you can even use wikipedia to answer the question concretely, and you still think you have some kind of devastating question, there is a problem.

If it is not a mode of production, then how can it be "diametrically opposed" to capitalism, a mode of production?

And besides meme-reasons why would it be harder for workers to realize that competition is bad, especially when they get to decrease their work-days because of technology?

The whole point of class-consciousness is realizing that you're in a competition with your boss. There is no reason that an anti-work position could not likewise be reached in a society emburdened by competing, even without class-struggle.

Btw if this is true, then I am neither a socialist nor a communist.
One if the properties of property is liberty.
If you can waltz into the garden I maintain and care for for my own leisure, I will not support that system. If you can rob me of the painting I painted solely of the enjoyment of me and my beloved ones, then yet again I am robbed. If you can enter my house and violate my privacy, then I am humiliated and molested once more. If you can take from me what I hold dear then I am not free.

If robbery, humiliation and oppression is socialism, then I am not a socialist.

It is a mode of production in an extremely limited sense. Yes, Marx uses the term "mode of production" to describe it, but it isn't the same way as one would talk about "modes of production" for the most part, I don't think his usage of the term in that context was particularly clear.

Maybe it is a mode of production and I've missed something, but because I'm too tired to go exploring a point that isn't really central to the discussion I'll skip to what is important:

Either way, capitalism has destroyed the conditions which gave rise to simple commodity production.
Can you please read the fucking page you took the quote from. I already linked it to you. It is in a section on how the political ecnomists imagine colonization. You know, primitive accumulation and all that jazz.

Simple commodity production can not emerge as a stable mode of production after capitalism, capitalism has completely negated the conditions which gave rise to it. It has developed the forces of production and socialized production to the point where any kind of market economy of co-ops could only wreak more terror on workers for the short time it lasts.

That's not how value production works. Workers would be cutting their own wages, decreasing their own vacation time, leaving themselves in unsafe working conditions, etc. Why? Because the law of value still holds. There will still be a fall in the rate of profit, which will divert capital to financial speculation and bubbles of fictitious capital, and even if wages themselves didn't go down, living standards would fall for the simple reason that society isn't reproducing itself. Again, the only solution would be large scale imperialist war (eradication of excess capital [starting with variable capital {read "workers"}], through waste production and destruction), increases in technology and restructuring of capital led by the state, and all in a context where competition is suspended globally.
Why would it be harder to struggle against?
Because if it was done collectively and consciously by those who it affects it would seems even more like an inescapable natural law. Again not that this could happen anyway.

For all you accusation-throwing of me avoiding your points, you refuse to answer my points about how "mutualism" is impossible, not just "bad".

Why would I fucking want to?
please read the second half of

Things you do for your leisure like you said are a part of how you maintain yourself as a social being. It isn't because it is a right that it won't happen, but because it actually goes against others' material interests.

Especially the painting shit
is something which won't be as much of a thing as you think it will. Everything will become more collective.

In so far as it is applicable though, the use-value of the painting is specific to you using it, and again, no one would have any reason to take from your home and wipe their ass with it or some shit (unless there was some dire need for material for fire or everyone would die or some shit).

You are imagining that your consciousness and motives will remain the same as in capitalism, which is not the case.

You are completely misunderstanding what he said. No one is going to steal from your garden or your shitty art.

that was some wacky timing.
0.o

If there is no possession, then nothing is mine. If nothing is mine, it can be claimed by others.

Why? There are no classes and thus nothing to indicate that compensation won't follow productivity, thus ensuring that the organic composition of capital does not shift. Coops tend to have equalized pay, and will have to hire more hands to expand production, almost no matter how valuable the basic commodity is (the diamond trade, for example, is very profitable but requires a shitton of labourers)

Even if the organic composition of capital should shift we'd live in a world were the cooreratives are subject to the will of local direct democracies who could just redistribute the wealth and thus ensure that consumers may once again consume.

That is much better I would say than a system where you may enter my house and crash on the sofa and jizz in my grandmothers ashes wether I like it or not.

Instead of using your word bank that you seem to have to use to explain relationships as if they never change, address what I said.

I don't even…
Do you understand how productivity gets increased?

Irrelevant
Remember that whole "productivity" thing you were talking about. Yeah. I don't know if you figured this out yet, but investing in constant capital is part of expanding production. It can also increase productivity by making workers work faster and more efficiently, etc.

The problem isn't just the realization of surplus value, but the production of surplus value itself. If, by expanding production, and increasing productivity, the growth of constant capital outpaces the growth of variable capital, the rate of profit falls. The realization of this surplus value is a whole different problem. In fact, redistributing "wealth" could make the crisis worse, as then there would be even less for each cooperative to invest in production with.

And as for governmental intervention, this too is not something which floats in midair, and is regulated by the law of value. Planning, when a society based on value is being reproduced, will necessarily be controlled by the law of value. Actual planning is only possible once abstract labor has been abolished. Any "democracy" will only exist in so far as it acts as a tool to make sure others don't look outside the system for change. It will be discarded the moment it presents a hindrance to the accumulation of capital.

Fucking shitcakes, READ WHAT I SAID.

OTHERS WON'T BE DOING SUCH THINGS! NOT BECAUSE OF "MUH RIGHTS", BUT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO OTHERS' MATERIAL INTERESTS! WHICH IS MORE THAN YOU CAN SAY FOR YOU IMAGINARY CO-OP LAND.

SAY IT WITH ME:
CHANGES. IN. OUR. SOCIAL. RELATIONSHIPS. BRING. CHANGE. IN. OUR. CONSCIOUSNESS.

Still waiting…

Ah, I see. Your utopian religion believes that people will become super-rational actors. Every single human being. No more mental illness, sociopaths or even just people doing mean shit out of spite

No, in magical pony land… whoops - full communism - I won't have the right to protect that which pleases me because I don't need to protect what is mine because bad thoughts and sadness has gone away! Truly Marx, peace be upon him, was a herald of the messaic age, for it seems that the abolition of work would be the abolition of Evil too! Will we also all grow wings and halos once that age hits?

Any representative democracy, perhaps, and only because it is built to be corrupted. By which mechanism does a direct democracy without capitalism degenerate?

Ha ha! Leave it to a Marxist to invoke supply-side economics to support his argument!
Perhaps this might have been up for discussion before the 1930's but the great depression proved Hayek wrong.
As means of consumption are redistributed, the organic composition of capital shifts again, increasing the velocity of money, thus increasing the rate of profit.

To deny this is do deny what historically and demonstrably happened in the US.

But I know that religious doctrine and reality doesn't always fit neatly together.

Just remember that when I shit in your fridge because you want to live in a world where every individual has to submit in the face of a violation, who cannot defend their own hard passionate work from theft, where no one can stand up for themselves in the face of humiliation.

Just like the fascists. Nice thread btw.

Marxists and fascists agree on one very important topic: anarchism must be fought and supressed at all costs.
Thus the Marxist must be treated like the fascist.

Top tier logic.

No I agree. Even if we're to ignore history itself, you're right. It's not like it would change much on behalf of Marxists anyways.
Come out from your circlejerks and come fight us.

Because what the left needs is more pointless bickering and the renewal of bad blood by spilling it in the streets.

Fuck me, you're all stuck in the past.

Pointless bickering?
Howhat will Marxists prevent another Lenin? What do anarchists gain from associating with people who are associated with absolutely brutal totalitarianism? How does allying with people who are in the public discourse associated with Stalin?

Pointless my ass. The harder and the more violently we strike at the Marxists, the more potential we have to spread to the common people.
Marxism, regardless of whether it's the superior method will never recover, nor should it.
Now it must to stamped out before the cancer grows again.

Communism.

Nice strawman, I already explained the mechanism:

psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200907/play-makes-us-human-v-why-hunter-gatherers-work-is-play

You again assume that people somehow will somehow magically be prevented from being affected by market illusions, People will vote in their own oppression, and when they don't, the direct democracy will transform into less "democratic" forms.

giant strawman.exe
Hey, remember when I said:
Plz do that

1. Not relevant.
2. Hayek was an austrian, not a supply-side, economist
3. The great depression proved crisis theory right, especially the fact that the economy didn't recover until the biggest war history had ever seen.

The organic composition of capital is the ratio of dead labor (constant capital) vs living labor (variable capital) in a given process of production. The means of consumption don't enter the picture.
You have some weird, fucked up, brand of underconsumptionism, that should be embarrassing to anyone even slightly familiar with LTV.

I literally could say the same thing to you, but that wouldn't be very helpful now would it?

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please read the links I gave above

Also:
still still waiting

plz see:
gci-icg.org/english/freepopstate.htm
leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-11-09/marxism-and-anarchism
youtube.com/watch?v=-qn4W_5v1zQ

Which, again assumes that all people are super-rational actors that will always act in their own material interest no matter what. The fact that we don't live in socialism right now indicates that indeed, people can act against their own material interests and often do.

So the question is; even if I don't have to, can I defend what I want? Can I claim for myself what I make and why pleases me? Let's say a madman breaks into my house, one that certainly isn't rational and so therefore does not follow his own material interest; can I stop this madman from violating me and the things I care for? The things I have made?

I not, then I am violated and robbed.

If I can, then I have possessions. I have property.

So do I have property, or can I be robbed and violated? Am I a slave to others or am I free?

You still depend on supply side economics, here. Look at the 30's. Sure, the war has something to do with that, but the largest part was absolutely the doctrine of redistribution which caused the rates of profit to increase, just as I said it would. You said it would make it worse, and that might be what your Great Torah says, but history and they very graph you brought up, indicates the opposite.
AND THIS IS EVEN IF large scal accumulation is even possible in a mode of production with worker-owners, that don't have a seperation between workers and shareholders, meaning that any successful industry would also have it's proceeds shared amongst what is likely a lot of workers at that point. This means that if growth in compensation diverges from growth productivity, it does so much slower than it would in a mode of production with seperation between owners and workers.

You have made no point "proving" that mutualism is impossible. Only in the sense that Capitalism is "impossible", and only on shaky grounds where you at first refused to acknowlege it as a mode of production.
That's not the point.
The point was whether or not it is socialism, and to shift the conversation to wheter or not it is impossible, is again an attempt on your behalf to shift the focus. Much like how you weazeled your way out of adressing how state-centralization is inefficient by just spamming text-walls instead. Congrats, you argue like a creationist.

How do they "vote in their oppression" when there is no state for them to vote their oppression into? How does this direct participatory democracy degenerate to that point?

I never said anything that will require people to be super-rational actors, I'm simply saying that, on top of basic empathy, the social relations of communist society don't threaten your fucking portrait of poo.

Can you crisis theory?

why don't you look at the graph again…
Besides not making logical sense, your bullcrap is empirically wrong.
The RoP only was restored during depression followed by imperialist war
It immediately dropped after.

see above

If it isn't, then neither is reproduction of the society.
If it is, then it will soon turn back into typical capitalism.

You are avoiding my point about what heightens productivity in the first place.

see:
first half of:

the last half of:

and all of:

Ok, then it isn't socialism, here is why:
The mode of production which follows capitalism must solve the contradictions within capitalism, because of the particular placement of the working class within capitalism, it has no property of its own, and thus its revolution will not create a new mode of production inside captialism, but it will emerge as a whole during a transitional period of flux.

The abolition of abstract labor is the only solution to the contradictions of the highest stage of class society.
The overcoming of the anarchy of capitalist production with central planning.
The negation of the contradiction between the economy and the rest of life, by subjugating production to play.
The engagement in labor as an enrichment of the self, providing use-values for others, labor being social in the most immediate instance, rather than only realizing its social character in exchange, meaning that labor is done according to ability and use-values distributed according to need (in the higher-phase, in the lower-phase bourgeois right is kept and a system of labor vouchers is used)

These are the pre-requisites for something to be called "socialism"

"Mutualism" meets none of them.

Again, "socialism" =/= workers' control
socialism = the abolition of our existence as workers, something which only we can achieve through ceaseless class struggle and the abolition of abstract labor (which is the essence of value, which is one side of the contradiction within the commodity [the other side being use-value]) in an association of free and equal producers.
Instead of the administration of people by labor, economy becomes the administration of things by people doing labor, and in that sense truly ceases to be an economy.

If society is to be reproduced maintaining commodity production, certain things must happen (expanded reproduction, enough capital accumulation to enable this, and everything that implies). How exactly this happens and what it looks like cannot be foreseen, but they aren't going to look pretty.

Nice dodging of the issue.
Can I defend the painting with force from the Madman who does not know of his own material interest?
yes or no?

If Yes, there is possession.
If No, then it is tyranny, it is violation,.

When did the RoP increase again and when did the WWII begin? Not at the same time.
That indicates that the redistribution of wealth had a lot more to do with it than the WWII.
Look at the graph.

Okay.
Then I am not a socialist, and I will at every every turn seek to destroy those who wish to take control and ownership away from me, a worker.

Ahhh… It's a self-evident truth. I see.
I must happen, because it just must. Society can't look a new way under a new mode of production because Marx (PBUH) never mentioned this example.

You aren't going to get a straight answer because it isn't a straight question.
The question simply wouldn't be posed that way.
You are imposing our mindset in capitalism onto other modes of production, where they just simply don't apply. Again, please read the links I gave in
They definitely aren't by a Marxist, in case you are afraid of bias or some shit.
If you can handle discussions by radicals, then I suggest:
libcom.org/history/hunter-gatherers-mythology-market-john-gowdy
libcom.org/history/humans-lived-anarchist-communist-hunter-gatherers-100000-years-how-did-primitive-communi

uhhh….
Depression + war = pics related
No u

I'm not saying "no" to workers' control, I am saying it is not sufficient in and of itself. You conveniently skipped over the
parts

Again, the term "ownership" is not applicable.

What you have described is not a new mode of production.
The bourgeoisie are only needed insofar as the personify capital, if you can get the co-op management as a whole to do that, then good for you I guess.

no
Did they help ease some aspects? Yes, but that's about it.

*it help ease…

Yes, I understand how property relations worked in a world where every individual the human being interacted with, was he human being they knew.
That is no longer true, and neither will it be under FALC. There simply is no way to hold an individual accountable in the same way as during the paleolitic stoneage, and this is also one of the reasons trade began in the first place; because we couldn't trust that debts would always be repaid.

So I ask you again:

Can I protect what I hold dear from those who wish to infringe upon me or not?

That graph shows that the RoP increases already in the early 1930's and it pretty close to hitting it's extremum in 1941 going down as WWII is going on.

The 1937 recession as you're showing was due to a lack of redistribution as it states it was because of a tightening monetary policy.

Let us not forget that Lend-Lease was not until 1941, so to claim that the WWII takes the Lion's share of getting the RoP up again, doesn't hold up.

If I cannot own, I can be violated and transgressed against. What is the difference between that and capitalism, if I am still not free to own my own property and enjoy it in the fullest for my own purposes?

It's a new way that new classes interact with the means of production in a new way.
That's a new mode of production.
it was also called "diametrically opposed to capitalism". In order to be so, it must exist on the same level as capitalism, and thus be a mode of production.

The growth of the forces of production is why communist social relations can be re-established. Humanity's productive forces and creative potential can now only be fully realized in communism. Unrestrained by being regulated by the law of value, production can be controlled consciously and intentionally.

So I ask you again:
Will you please learn to material conditions?

That's how cyclical crisis work. It hits its height then goes down as the surface manifestations are still building. The RoP fell before the manifestation of the crisis as the depression started, only with depression and war could it get out (there was some depression after the war). But then it evened out for about 20 years. Then, the crisis in the early 70's hit, which we are still seeing the effects of today, precisely because there have been various state management schemes trying to prevent all out depression and imperialist war.

Learn 2 anarchy of capitalist production

Remember when I said:
That is why war is required.

That isn't what monetary policy is, so I doubt that is the term you meant, because if you did then that would be the monetarist (think Milton Friedman) argument.
Notice how I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not just strawmanning you and screaming "HA! LEAVE IT TO AN ANARCHIST TO USE MONETARIST ECONOMICS AS AN ARGUMENT!!!"

I also explicitly said it was the combination of depression and imperialist war.
You are missing a premise somewhere in there, your conclusion doesn't follow just because LL was not 'till March '41

What you are saying simply isn't applicable. If you asked some member of a hunter-gatherer mode of production if other people took his special stick, he would say no, but he wouldn't say it was because he "owned" it.

It's like saying "If I can't be sure I have the protection of the local Knight, then what is to prevent me from being raped and pillaged?" It simply doesn't fit the context.

That's the thing, you can enjoy it in the fullest for your own purposes, because acts to reproduce yourself as a member of society are, in communism, obviously in everyone's best interest. Property simply doesn't factor into it.

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly, if some other user can help me possibly phrase it better, because maybe I am just not articulating myself very well, that would be much appreciated.

No, its not, what you are describing is a mixture of simple commodity production and capitalism. But with a magical spell to prevent primitive accumulation.