Is LibCom voluntary?

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 6 2013 12:01
Is LibCom voluntary?

LibSoc is obviously for abolishing the state and capitalism being that they are oppressive and exploitative, that is- based on coercion and theft.

Is LibCom volutary and what do you think about forcing people into communes, is that ok or not? And if you are not for forcing people into communes, what other forms of organization you think shoud be tolerated beside the communal one?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 6 2013 12:24

Yeah, people should be free to develop their own forms of organisation. But ones based on exploitation, domination and violence would not be tolerated.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 6 2013 12:28
Quote:
It's not about forcing people into communes

what other forms of organization you think shoud be tolerated beside the communal one?

Quote:
Yeah, people should be free to develop their own forms of organisation. But ones based on exploitation, domination and violence would not be tolerated.

So which ones would be tolerated?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 6 2013 12:44
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
It's not about forcing people into communes

what other forms of organization you think shoud be tolerated beside the communal one?

Quote:
Yeah, people should be free to develop their own forms of organisation. But ones based on exploitation, domination and violence would not be tolerated.

So which ones would be tolerated?

I would have thought pretty much any ones not based on exploitation, domination or violence!

I don't think there's much point crystal ball gazing. If this does happen at some point it is a long way off, and the rapid pace of technological change alone could open up possibilities we can't even imagine today. For example, who would have thought 100 years ago that we would have the technology now to have electronic voting machines we could all carry around in our pockets all the time (i.e. mobile phones), or that we would be able to conference instantly with people across the world (Skype) etc?

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Feb 6 2013 16:04
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, people should be free to develop their own forms of organisation. But ones based on exploitation, domination and violence would not be tolerated.

So which ones would be tolerated?

Hahahaha, I love this. Someone answers your question and you just come right back with the same question. At least the trolls that have appeared here in the past had the decency to dress up the question and make it appear as if it was a different one. What a disappointment you are, libcom...can't even get quality trolls anymore. wink

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 6 2013 18:33
Quote:
I would have thought pretty much any ones not based on exploitation, domination or violence!

How about anarcho-individualist, anarcho-mutualist, and anarcho-collectivist (parecon is type of AnColl, I think), ideas about organising- do you consider those three oppressive and exploitative? If yes, then what other types besides the communistic one you think should be tolerated? It's a concrete question, and I'd appreciate a conrete answer.

Quote:
Someone answers your question and you just come right back with the same question.

If I ask "if communism isn't going to be imposed, what other types of organisation will be tolerated" the answer "any types of organization that are non-oppressive and non-exploitative" is not a concrete answer because one could think that communism is the only non-oppressive and non-exploitative type of organization, hence the follow-up question. The 'answer' is not only not concrete, it is redudant being that in the very message that I asked the question I stated that obviously oppressive and exploitative would not be tolerated, so it was not me asking a superfluous quotestion, but him giving a totally superflous 'answer'. The only ones who would qualify as trolls here would be him and you.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 6 2013 19:02
Quote:
Hahahaha, I love this. Someone answers your question and you just come right back with the same question. At least the trolls that have appeared here in the past had the decency to dress up the question and make it appear as if it was a different one. What a disappointment you are, libcom...can't even get quality trolls anymore.

Someone asks a question, gets an answer that doesn't satisfy them and asks it again and that makes them a troll? What a load of bollocks. Greenjuice has only been here a month and is asking valid questions. He has also submitted some interesting input.

As for Steven being a troll - I think not! More like he either didn't feel the question warranted much attention or didn't grasp what Greenjuice was getting at. Very easy for this to happen on the net.

Back to the point of the thread:

Quote:
I don't think there's much point crystal ball gazing

I don't think there is any way of knowing exactly what will happen if revolution occurs. It's understandable that we would like to know but I would say that living within the constraints that we are currently subjected to we probably can't even imagine all of the possibilities that there will be.
Scary, in a way but if you agree that things are currently terribly wrong it's surely worth the risk to get rid of the old, start again and see what we can do?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 6 2013 19:07

Note: I seem to have assumed Greenjuice is male! If I'm wrong about that - sorry.
What a sexist bastard!

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 6 2013 19:26

Yes, I'm a male, you were right, not sexist, although you seem to be a little too much worried about that x)

OT, I found an opinion of one Wayne Price, here: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-what-is-anarchist-com...

"There is another factor. A revolution is likely to be carried out by a united front of anti-capitalist political groupings. For example, North America or Europe is so large and complex that no one revolutionary organization will have all the best ideas and all the best militants. They will have to work together. But some will be anarchist-communists while others will not. Leaving aside out-and-out authoritarian statists, we are likely to be in coalition with pareconists, noncommunist anarchists, revolutionary-democratic socialists, various types of Greens, and so on. We cannot force all these people to live under anarchist-communism. Compulsory libertarian communism is a contradiction in terms! The majority of one region may decide to live under anarchist communism, but a neighboring region may decide for parecon (“participatory economics”). So long as workers are not exploited, the anarchist-communists will not start a civil war inside the revolution. In an experimental way, different approaches may be tried out in different regions and we will learn from each other."

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Feb 6 2013 19:48
greenjuice wrote:
And if you are not for forcing people into communes, what other forms of organization you think shoud be tolerated beside the communal one? ...what other forms of organization you think shoud be tolerated beside the communal one?

So which ones would be tolerated?

.

Quote:
If I ask "if communism isn't going to be imposed, what other types of organisation will be tolerated" the answer "any types of organization that are non-oppressive and non-exploitative" is not a concrete answer because one could think that communism is the only non-oppressive and non-exploitative type of organization, hence the follow-up question. The 'answer' is not only not concrete, it is redudant being that in the very message that I asked the question I stated that obviously oppressive and exploitative would not be tolerated, so it was not me asking a superfluous quotestion, but him giving a totally superflous 'answer'. he only ones who would qualify as trolls here would be him and you.

Indeed, one could think that. In fact, I'm pretty certain that is implied considering this is a forum for libertarian-communists, and you didn't ask a "follow up" (which would be a question expanding or related to the previous one), you asked the same question [see above].

Perhaps you'd be better off not beating around the bush and asking: "What is it about 'individualist-anarchism', collectivist-anarchism and mutualism that libertarian-communists find offensive? Is there a perceived conflict of values in the former which are resolved in the latter?, etc". These questions (which are rudimentary) get to the point which you seem to be trying to bring about. Unfortunately for you there's a problem with this set of questions, they assume a serious and honest discussion, which demands that you not be a troll and keep arrogantly repeating the same nonsense when people reply (like you've done here and in your other thread).

As for the accusation of trolling on Steven and myself, I see your "NO U" and I raise you another "NO U".

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 6 2013 20:06

The dominant economic system is never voluntary, what matter is if it is under the control of the people and how well it enables them to satisfy they needs.

Quote:
How about anarcho-individualist, anarcho-mutualist, and anarcho-collectivist

individualism is not an economic system, i'm fairly confidant that mutalism is unworkable and would revert to capitalism or something vary similar pretty quick if attempted and anyway would not be a good system to live in compared to communism, the same goes for collectivism and paracon.

complain about compulsory communism or forcing people to live under communism is silly, its like complaining about compulsory electric lighting. electric light is universal where people have the option, not because they are forced to use it but because it is so much better than the alternative

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 6 2013 21:43

Ethos and radicalgraffiti are right. There's not much you could do with pseudo-individualism, self-managed exploitation ("mutualism"), and the economic 'democratization' offered by parecon in a revolutionary situation. But there is one option. If you don't want to cooperate and don't feel the need to enjoy great material and psychological comfort and well-being, then you can leave and isolate yourself in the wilderness, and try to live on your own subsistence. You'll suffer a lot of scarcity and misery, but at least you can get what you wanted (i.e. self-inflicted pain). Now, you can form a small community with others like yourself to pull through the hardship together in common. That's as far as we can tolerate. But such communities cannot be allowed to practice commodity production, exchange, use of currency, etc. because they will inevitably lead to capital accumulation and the re-division of that particular community into classes. Then a whole load of reactionary shit will come out of that particular community as its new, mini-sized ruling class will seek outward expansion and penetration of the resources of the wider region, or perhaps, the world. That will lead into direct conflict with the newly, formed libertarian-communist society, which would then have to self-organize democratic peoples' militias to defend our new found freedoms against such totalitarian-minded property-loving "individualists" who think they're so rich because they "worked hard", when in reality, they are nothing but parasites trying to resurrect an ugly past.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 6 2013 21:47

Blimey, I bet it's a bundle of laughs 'round your house.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Feb 6 2013 21:53

(continuing post #14)
Perhaps such conflict and eventual defeat will be a good lesson to the new working-class formed in that community, who will have to suffer once-again exploitation and oppression under the new ruling-class seeking expansion. They will learn not to trust the pseudo-individualist ideology, and think twice about forming small communities of "everyone owning their own plot of land" and "simple" commodity production.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 6 2013 23:43
Quote:
Ethos

Perhaps you'd be better off not beating around the bush and asking: What is it about 'individualist-anarchism', collectivist-anarchism and mutualism that libertarian-communists find offensive?

I don't need to ask that, because I myself favour a communistic economy and know why I don't favour a market or arket system, but being that I do not think that communism should be compulsory, I would have nothing against people establishing anarcho-individualist, anarcho-mutualist, or anarcho-collectivist communities, moreover, I would support them, being that they would be libertarian-socialistic, that is- anarchistic communities. That is why asked what I asked.

Quote:
radicalgraffity

individualism is not an economic system

Actually, it is. It differs from mutualism in that mutualism thinks there should be communal organizations that would be units of organization for voluntary militia, and organizatiors of mutual banking, that is- credit unions, whereas anarcho-individualists (Spooner, Tucker, Lum and similar) were in favour in defence agencies existing on a market and free banking.

i'm fairly confidant that mutalism is unworkable and would revert to capitalism

Don't people use that one all the time when you talk to them about LibSoc? I agitate in every workplace I work in, and on local internet forums, and I get "that is never going to work" all the f-in' time. People used to think a system without slaves was unsustainable, like, Plato and Aristotle. The point is that opinion about infeasibility of a system is not an argument agaist it, it's a fallacy called appeal to probability.

complain about compulsory communism or forcing people to live under communism is silly, its like complaining about compulsory electric lighting.
"It's not oppression when we do it", eh? I'm pretty sure every totalitarian can easily give me an electric light metaphor or something similar.

Quote:
Agent of the Fi...

There's not much you could do with pseudo-individualism, self-managed exploitation ("mutualism"), and the economic 'democratization' offered by parecon in a revolutionary situation.

So you are for imposing communism? Also, about the mutualism comment, if I extract my own surplus value, and that is called self-exploatation or similar, that just means that the goal of LibSoc is self-exploatation; mutualism cannot have exploatation, because if it has unearned incomes, it's not mutualism.

If you don't want to cooperate and don't feel the need to enjoy great material and psychological comfort and well-being, then you can leave and isolate yourself in the wilderness, and try to live on your own subsistence.

Wow, how different then the "voluntariness" of capitalism. I'm just astounded why isn't everybody supporting LibSoc, with people like you espousing it.

But such communities cannot be allowed to practice commodity production, exchange, use of currency, etc. because they will inevitably lead to capital accumulation and the re-division of that particular community into classes.

Can you define what you think capital is?

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Feb 7 2013 01:14
Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
But there is one option. If you don't want to cooperate and don't feel the need to enjoy great material and psychological comfort and well-being, then you can leave and isolate yourself in the wilderness, and try to live on your own subsistence. You'll suffer a lot of scarcity and misery, but at least you can get what you wanted (i.e. self-inflicted pain).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russ...

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Feb 7 2013 02:30

Any markets, 'libertarian' or otherwise are inherently oppressive and exploitative. It's all academic anyhow, these alternative ideas to anarcho communism didnae make much headway when they were in vogue, let alone in the future.

Gaston Leval's Collectives in the Spanish Revolution does say there was a mish mash of groupings in Spain, some collectivist, some mutualist and some using labour vouchers.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 7 2013 11:40

Radicalgraffiti FTW.

Did want to comment on this, however:

Quote:
A revolution is likely to be carried out by a united front of anti-capitalist political groupings

I disagree. I think most people who participate in a revolution won't be self-identified revolutionaries. Rather, I think it's far more likely to come out of a crisis situation combined with a critical mass of class combativity. I think revolutionaries and revolutionary groups can certainly play a part in building up to that and participating in the revolution itself. But, imo, it's highly, highly unlikely that a revolution will be 'carried out' by conciously 'anti-capitalist groupings'.

Historically I think this is how revolutionary situations have developed. The theorists*--in my opinion, anyway--who have given the most thought and insight to how class consciousness develops would concur.

* I'm thinking people like Glaberman and Brecher.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 12:04
Quote:
flaneur

Any markets, 'libertarian' or otherwise are inherently oppressive and exploitative.

Can you offer any argument for buying/ selling stuff being oppressive and exploitative? Just to clarify- saying it is not an argument.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 7 2013 12:14

You mean is commodity production (and, by extension, the commodity relation) exploitative?

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Feb 7 2013 12:21

Because a back and forth with you going THEYRE NOT and me going THEY ARE would be fun. The main argument is communism is without money and economic competition, how's that? I think if billions of folk destroy society, go to war on a planetary scale and win, only to establish Proudhonist co-operativitism, there's some mighty unimaginative people out there.

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 7 2013 12:41

Man, there's a lot wrong going on ITT. What type of obsessive intellectual you've got to be to be concerned about whether libertarian communism will be voluntary or not. From each person to each person, what the hell is so complex about that shit?

What, if one douchebag owns a fief the size of the andes and wants to opt out he gets too? If 99% of everyone decide to expropriate all private property and 1% is like "but what about freeeeeedom, maaaannnn everyone's supposed to leave them alone? Jesus Christ, do we all ask the capitalist class nicely to give us their property so we can all start organizing society around communism?

Yeah, I'm being deliberately obtuse but I'm also taking your bizzare ideas about revolution to its logical endpoint. Communism will be democratic, and the losers get put on boats or get told to get off their decadent asses and actually work for once in their worthless lives. All of this meaningless, meaningless whinging about whether one community wants to try out "Mutualism" or """Participatory Economics"""" or "Dr. Krazy's Koo Koo KeKonomy" is so fucking nonsensical its hilarious.

But if one guy lives in a communist society but really wants to live in a world based entirely around everyone leaving him alone , writing economic treatsies about everyone just letting him fuck off and coming up with an internet-philosophy he calls "Let'sAllLeaveBobAloneism", everyone else should be able to tell him to shut up and stop trying to justify loafing.

This debate is so silly, I feel like my time has been literally wasted reading this thread and writing this post. Greenjuice, have you done anything beyond all this insane ntellectual-philosophical-psychological-postmodernist theorising? I'm sure I could ask David Harvey and Giles Deluze and Micheal Focault the same question, but have you even thought about organizing workers or poor people or anybody in all of your life?

Jesus christ, individualism is worthless whether it pretends to be radical or emphatically isn't. Stirner and Godwin should have been put on a boat headed towards the antarctic before they decided to write about their dumb opinions and influence stupid middle-class white people for years to come.

Jesus!

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 13:07
Quote:
Chilli Sauce

You mean is commodity production (and, by extension, the commodity relation) exploitative?

Commodity production means making stuff and selling it, as oppossed to subsistence production or production for use. And yes, I'd like someone who thinks that commodity production is exploitative to explain why does he think that.

Quote:
flaneur

The main argument is communism is without money and economic competition, how's that?

Do you think that money and economic competition are oppressive and exploitative, and if yes- explain how.

Quote:
Nanner

What type of obsessive intellectual you've got to be to be concerned about whether libertarian communism will be voluntary or not.

So, only obsessive intellectuals are concerned about there being no coersion and imposition? Or if it's something we support and advocate, it's magically exempt from the concert of coercion and coercion somehow becomes ok?

What, if one douchebag owns a fief the size of the andes and wants to opt out he gets too?

Being that private property, as exploitative, would be abolished, one could not own land, but only occupy-and-use it, there could be not fiefs, let alone the size of the andes.

Jesus Christ, do we all ask the capitalist class nicely to give us their property so we can all start organizing society around communism?

Which absolutely has nothing to do whatsoever with what I've been asking in this topic.

All of this meaningless, meaningless whinging about whether one community wants to try out "Mutualism" or """Participatory Economics"""" or "Dr. Krazy's Koo Koo KeKonomy" is so fucking nonsensical its hilarious.

What an argument, kuddos man, you got me convinced, I'm all for imposing communism now.

individualism is worthless whether it pretends to be radical or emphatically isn't.

Again, very argumented statement.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 7 2013 13:15
Quote:
Communism will be democratic, and the losers get put on boats or get told to get off their decadent asses and actually work for once in their worthless lives.

What, like being a student perhaps? Fucking hell! How broad are your brushes? I may not know much about communism, but that comment, along with the rest of your diatribe, demonstrates your lack of experience with real people and your extreme bigotry and narrow mindedness. And you have the audacity to talk about YOUR time being wasted!

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 7 2013 13:28

NUH UH QUIT TRYING TO MAKE ME IMPOSE COMMUNISM ON EVERYONE YOU MONSTER
Also dont own private property like this own it like this
-Greenjuice.txt

NannerNannerNan...
Offline
Joined: 18-12-11
Feb 7 2013 13:27

@Webby
Its pretty obvious I'm refering to rich assholes who wouldn't much care for their property being taken away by the rabble and the fact that 25% of everyone owns like 80% of the wealth. I don't know where you got students from (hell, I haven't worked a day in my life yet since I'm a student)

Also, if you don't know much about communism what are you doing at a forum called libertarian communism

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Feb 7 2013 13:33

I hope the REVOLUTION is more exciting than someone going about with a printed Anarchist FAQs and asking daft questions.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 13:57
Quote:
Also, if you don't know much about communism what are you doing at a forum called libertarian communism

Being that you are for imposing communism, you really should ask yourself that quotestion

Quote:
I hope the REVOLUTION is more exciting than someone going about with a printed Anarchist FAQs and asking daft questions.

Basically, you have views, and like to voice them, but don't know how to explain them or argument them? I don't know how can you expect there to be a revolution if that's the way people espouse LibSoc.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Feb 7 2013 14:05

There's far better things to do than argue with someone over the internet, like make a cup of tea or have some toast. Especially when they are the most esoteric of already esoteric arguments. I dunno if the Anarchist FAQs has this big bit, but anarchism won't come about due to eloquent arguments but through struggle in the real world made by people who aren't loons quoting Spooner.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 7 2013 14:11

If you don't care about being able to explain or argument your views why are you here writing? Go drink tea and eat toast.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 7 2013 15:25
Quote:
Also, if you don't know much about communism what are you doing at a forum called libertarian communism

Er, learning about it. If that's ok with you?

Others on here have told me that this isn't about good guys and bad guys so what's with the 'rich bastards' whos live's are 'worthless'. If you have a prejudice against rich people fair enough but don't kid yourself that it serves any purpose or that it's part of communist ideology.
You imply that the rich are lazy which shows that you know fuck all about the rich. My company's clients are very rich and they all seem to work themselves into the ground. They do far more hours than I do. Why, I couldn't tell you - if I had enough money to live a life of luxury ten times over I sure as hell wouldn't be doing it!
Maybe you mean manual work? Well what's so worthy about manual work? One of the things that makes communism attractive to me is the fact that there will be LESS WORK to do.

As for the student comment - I could say I was drawing parallels between the lack of 'real work' carried out by capitalists, managers etc and students, but the truth is, in the interests of maintaining the balance of the universe I thought I would be a wanker as well.