LibSoc natural rights

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 29 2013 20:20
LibSoc natural rights

Are there any LibSoc thinkers that are in the natural rights tradition? I know of Lysander Spooner, but I'm interested in knowing if there is any non-market LibSoc that based his views on natural right theory?

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jan 29 2013 21:16

Hmm, I think libertarian socialism has been firmly in the anti-natural rights (i.e., bourgeois ideology par excellence) camp since its inception.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 29 2013 21:40

Chomsky talks here and there on being a thinker in the tradition of the Enlighenment and left-classical liberalism of Ricardian socialists, Humbolt and Mill; but as I said, I haven't found any natural rights LibSoc thinkers except Spooner.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 29 2013 23:01

I don't think Spooner is regarded as a libertarian socialist.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Jan 29 2013 23:09

Can you expand a bit on what the natural rights tradition is all about? I'm not familiar with it personally.

~J.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 30 2013 01:15

From a bourgeois view-point, the natural rights tradition is all about creating a social arrangement supposedly founded on ideals like freedom of speech and freedom to pursue happiness while simultaneously assuring that the social arrangement will only produce the material conditions needed to truly enjoy those rights for the tiniest of minorities.

From my view-point , the natural rights tradition is this annoying thing that causes some to argue for a group of fascists right to march through your neighbourhood under the pre-tense of some natural privilege bestowed.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Jan 30 2013 08:14
greenjuice wrote:
Chomsky talks here and there on being a thinker in the tradition of the Enlighenment and left-classical liberalism of Ricardian socialists, Humbolt and Mill; but as I said, I haven't found any natural rights LibSoc thinkers except Spooner.

Haven't read Mill in years, but i always thought Mill as a utilitarian would have regarded natural rights in the same was as Bentham i.e "nonsense on stiltss" - and the very fact that 'On Liberty' there had to be qualifying conditions for a country to have the kind of liberties he argued for, such as a certain degree of 'civilisation' would suggest that he didn't think that the requisite civilised behaviour came naturally. He also didn't argue from state of nature kinda premises in the way that Locke did.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Jan 30 2013 08:15
jolasmo wrote:
Can you expand a bit on what the natural rights tradition is all about? I'm not familiar with it personally.

~J.

I think Locke ala 2nd Treatise on Government is where the main arguments for natural rights and natural law comes from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government
Such arguments tend to form the philosophical basis of human rights...

Apart from the bourgiouse nature of such conceptions, what i find interesting about Lockes arguments in particular is that he argues from theological premises based around Gods owning our bodies as opposed to self ownership - which i find interesting when one tends to think of post enlightenment thinking of liberalism being based upon secular premises.

natural rights on supernatural premises - nonsense on stilts indeed!

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 30 2013 08:37
Quote:
I don't think Spooner is regarded as a libertarian socialist.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

Quote:
Can you expand a bit on what the natural rights tradition is all about? I'm not familiar with it personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Quote:
From a bourgeois view-point, the natural rights tradition is all about creating a social arrangement supposedly founded on ideals like freedom of speech and freedom to pursue happiness while simultaneously assuring that the social arrangement will only produce the material conditions needed to truly enjoy those rights for the tiniest of minorities.

This is not an argument agaist natural rights, but agaist the motives of it's espousers, and it's called appeal to motives, it's a fallacy. I do think that in majority of cases (including Locke himself) the stated probably is the case, but just saying that it's not an argument against the idea itself.

Yeah, Mill wasn't a natural rightist, but was a classical liberal (universal rights, but based on rule utilitarianism) who was for worker self-managment.

Also, one of the best argument in favour of natural rights is given by Habermas, and it espouses non-hierarchical relations. The framework has been stolen by one of his students (Hoppe) who totally illogically injected capitalist principles into it, but being that it is not well known (not even Habermas himself gave much effort to spread it) his caricature of the original framework remains the best known one, but as I said, the original version is truly libertarian (/anarchist).

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jan 30 2013 09:30

Bloch wrote on the topic: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Natural_Law_and_Human_Dignity.html... ... haven't read it

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Jan 30 2013 10:36
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
I don't think Spooner is regarded as a libertarian socialist.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

Quote:
Can you expand a bit on what the natural rights tradition is all about? I'm not familiar with it personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Quote:
From a bourgeois view-point, the natural rights tradition is all about creating a social arrangement supposedly founded on ideals like freedom of speech and freedom to pursue happiness while simultaneously assuring that the social arrangement will only produce the material conditions needed to truly enjoy those rights for the tiniest of minorities.

This is not an argument agaist natural rights, but agaist the motives of it's espousers, and it's called appeal to motives, it's a fallacy. I do think that in majority of cases (including Locke himself) the stated probably is the case, but just saying that it's not an argument against the idea itself.

Yeah, Mill wasn't a natural rightist, but was a classical liberal (universal rights, but based on rule utilitarianism) who was for worker self-managment.

Aye, rule utilitarianism is kinda where in practice it has pretty much the same outcomes as a deontological take on morality despite having a very different philosophical justification. Nevertheless, I can't really see how one can justify the universal import of Mill's utilitarianism when applied to rights within society since he argues in 'On Liberty' that it is only when societies emerge from a savage state of being towards the civilised nature as best exemplified by the contemporary British society he was situated within. That would suggest to me that his normative framework is entirely contingent rather than predicated upon a universal notion of humanity.

As for workers self management - i've never come accross this before, and if so counts in his favour, but if i remember correctly he was not very into the idea of universal suffrage of working class within the liberal society he sought to justify.

Going back to the charges of the bourgiouse underpinnings of natural rights theorists, like Locke - i think the point is that the state of nature as espoused by him is a projection of the particular capitalist situation as a universal mode of being applicable towards all societies. This is obviously completely at odds with a marxian framework which emphasises that different epochs have their own internal logics and thus liberal-capitalism is merely a particular instance of human society. This critique resembles Rousseaus critique of the Hobbsian conception of state of nature in emphasising the projection of the historical particular onto 'the state of nature'

One of the main problems for Lockes overall project was the gap between his epistemology and his moral and political philosophy that he was unable to overcome despite great efforts to do so (an impasse prefiguring Humes Is/Ought fallacy). His epistemic frameowork began with an attack on nativism/innatism which was replaced by an empirical take on things. He felt that his project would be able to provide self evident reasons derived from experience to be able to justify a God-derived morality. Then there was his God derived morality articulated in the 2nd Treatise. Nevertheless, he was unable to demonstrate from his empircal framework where those natural rights came from - leaving him open to the charge of 'nonsense on stilts'. Ironically the 2nd treatise on its own can only really thrive by appeal to apriori innatist principles which obviously is a complete contradiction of his empiricst project.

Nevertheless, i personally like Locke by the fact that it was through him that i was finally able to read marx. I'd like to say it was out of philosophical curiosity e.g to see how his property justication (the nascent articulation of labour theory of value) could lead to the consequences of value theory of marx. Na, rather it was because after many failed attempts to read capital, i had to read ' an essay concerning human understanding ' for a course i was doing which is by far the most tiresome book to read ever. Indeed, in several places Locke sorta apologises for the long and boring nature of the book which he explained was such that he never took the time to edit it! Anyway i kinda figured that if i could read that book, i sure as hell could read capital - easily. That was a year ago and im proud to say that i am on the last chapter of capital volume 2. Thanks Locke!!!

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 30 2013 11:02
Quote:
natural rights on supernatural premises - nonsense on stilts indeed!

It didn't surprise me for a bit. If you look at the historical context of Enlightenment, it was more about the intellectual struggle against the authority of the Church that started with the reformation and many thinkers were rather tend to being deist.

Now, for the whole concept of liberalism and the liberal theories of society does root itself in natural authority, and nature in the deist concept is God. Non-interventionist but never the less fulfils the unifying role that it supposed to. (i.e. We are all children of God/Nature).

You could see also, that this idea also leads to certain "natural moralism" which trickles down to the common language and ideas, and holds very strongly today. While previously the moralism referred to God, and sins as sins against God's laws, today it's more common to refer to the same thing as "unnatural" or "against nature" (I'm thinking of homophobia as a good example).

As for OP, as others already expressed, while I don't have the whole history of political philosophy at my fingertips, AFAIK (natural) rights has always belonged to the liberal concept of the politics as it was developed as an argument against the previous status quo, the inherent political inequality by birthright. It was a underpinning of the bourgeois class ambition to power, who had no birthright to it but had considerable wealth and along that, influence over politics.

Now, I dare to say that Marx was one of the few within the Enlightenment inspired thinkers of the socialist movement who went further than that, and created a truly atheist framework where rights were only given by men, men in power in particular and therefore all differences, all inequality within society can be traced back to personal, group and class interest. While the liberal/early socialist ideas were mostly focused on equality as a sort of new birthright, hence belonged to the "ought to be" camp of thinking, here was the real revolutionary potential of communism which connected the present misery with the history of social relations and pointed to a program of the future. Rights in this framework has suffered a serious blow and became clear that you can't achieve communism and hold the idea of natural rights at the same time. Rights need authority, of Nature, of God, of the State, so refusing authority also means that refusing to get in to false argument over rights.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Jan 30 2013 11:32

Great post Soc!

Quote:
As for OP, as others already expressed, while I don't have the whole history of political philosophy at my fingertips, AFAIK (natural) rights has always belonged to the liberal concept of the politics as it was developed as an argument against the previous status quo, the inherent political inequality by birthright. It was a underpinning of the bourgeois class ambition to power, who had no birthright to it but had considerable wealth and along that, influence over politics.

So true, you can even see this within the structure of Lockes 'two treatises of Government'. The first treatise attacks the Divine Right of Kings argument articulated by Filmer; whilst the second makes the positive argument for the liberal conception of society and state. Not to mention Lockes active involvement in the movement around the "Glorious Revolution of 1688"

Edited to add:

I think the deist/theological justification underpinning natural rights theories and their modernised versions of human rights etc is a total achilles heel for those who espouse the modern takes on them. Especially when the new athiesm of the likes of Dennet, Hitchens etc is all the rage these days. I mean if athiesm is (in certain contexts) in the ascendancy then this places a helluva lot of stress upon the foundations of the present order.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 30 2013 12:12

Entdinglichung, thanks for the link!

Quote:
xslavearcx

As for workers self management - i've never come accross this before, and if so counts in his favour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Economic_democracy

Nevertheless, he was unable to demonstrate from his empircal framework where those natural rights came from - leaving him open to the charge of 'nonsense on stilts'.
He has a vague appeal to reason/ rationality but that is a problem that is really solved only by Habermas and Apel and their notion of communicative rationality.

Nevertheless, i personally like Locke by the fact that it was through him that i was finally able to read marx. I'd like to say it was out of philosophical curiosity e.g to see how his property justication (the nascent articulation of labour theory of value) could lead to the consequences of value theory of marx.
Well, I became a socialist because of Locke, by accepting his Labor theory of property (not of value), and by seeing, like Spooner, the contradiction between it and capitalism.

That was a year ago and im proud to say that i am on the last chapter of capital volume 2. Thanks Locke!!!
Have you went throught System of economic contradictions? smile

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 30 2013 14:46

Spooner was not a libertarian socialist. It's not enough to be "anti-capitalist", and then espouse a system of "simple commodity production" with self-employed farmers, artisans, and cooperatives. He could best be described as a mutualist like ComradeAppleton, but he's certainly no class-struggle anarchist. As an anarchist in the 19th century, his thought was limited and undeveloped; trapped in a pre-industrial framework.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 30 2013 15:29
Quote:
Spooner was not a libertarian socialist.

Socialism is a economical system without capital (employer-profits, interest, rent, patent-profits) and it is libertarian if there are no hierarchies. Spooner was a libertarian socialist. Mutualism is also a type of libertarian socialism, also known as anarchism. Have you even read the link I gave you?

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 30 2013 16:24
Quote:
Socialism is a economical system without capital (employer-profits, interest, rent, patent-profits) and it is libertarian if there are no hierarchies.

In your place I would be a bit more careful of such a definitions. I'm not saying that you aren't right, after all, I do not identify with LibSoc and I have a quite different idea about how our society should transform. Just intuition here is that this definition is overly simplistic.

Socialism is a broad term and if you have ever read the Communist Manifesto, or have a good idea how the workers movement was differentiated over the 19th and early 20th century, then you probably know that socialism has been a kind of populist propaganda term all the way back to the mid-1800's. There's no single, all-encompassing definition really for this term to my knowledge. Perhaps the widest usage of this word is related to the social democratic movement, and from which you definition is probably originated just by going with the use of words (though I admit, I'm talking about a single sentence which I you might not mean the way I understand).

We, libcom/anarcho-communist/communist folks see capitalism not just simply an economic system, but a major way of domination and source of oppressive hierarchy. There was a major disagreement within the workers movement about isolating the political system from the economical environment which advocated economical-determinism (socdem) and has its roots in rather the republican, "left" bourgeois ideology and conception of politics.
Interestingly, the "libertarian" adjective was first used by anarchist communists, by Déjacque in particular, for the reason to distinguish his concept of communism from the authoritarian Marxist, social democratic (including the latter bolshevik) currents. The term became widespread after the use of of the anarchist communists widely accepted the term which also meant the rejection of the practice of the Bakunin-style sectarianism as well.

If you examine your sources on Wikipedia, you will find that Libertarian Socialism, just as socialism is a vague category of political classification, and not really a cohesive movement and theory in comparison to the movements mentioned above. It's like using the political compass to find a political party for yourself. These boxes do not correspond to actual, living currents of thoughts, rather fit to the vagueness of an encyclopaedic classification, which, by some weird accident, also has its roots in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism smile.

Well, I don't think there's any particular issue using Wikipedia for some superficial look at certain political currents, however I would like to discourage you to base your political understanding on encyclopaedic articles. For one, Wikipedia must be taken always with a pinch of salt at best, and also, political currents don't behave on the principles of modularity like as it was arbitrary assembly of theories on independent domains (like economy and politics, or moral).

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 30 2013 17:16

I know what socialism is and I read only the first half of the link you gave me. I think the definition that is often used is too broad and all-inclusive. In my opinion, socialism is a new mode of fulfilling human needs and desires where commodity production is completely absent. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian” (hierarchical) socialism or a “libertarian” (non-hierarchical) socialism. Libertarian socialism is only an approach to achieving socialism, which is defined by certain principles or features. To be frank about it, there is only one, true socialism. And mutualism should not be equated with it. Nor should it be accepted as an approach to socialism within the libertarian tradition.

It is not enough to get rid of the bosses and have workers control their own workplaces. Sure it may seem like it’s non-exploitative. Sure it may seem nice to have sole, independent produces creating and possessing the product of their own labor. All of that seems great at first glance. But, in the mutualist vision, markets will still exist and so will competition between producers. Capital accumulation will eventually take place no matter how level the playing may have been at the beginning. Ownership of the means of production will fall into the hands of a few, leaving the many dispossessed once again, and so we will see the resurrection of the same rigid and bureaucratic managerial hierarchies we have today.

Mutualism doesn’t aim at abolishing capital. Capital only exists where production takes place for profit, not need, which is the case in the mutualist vision. Many mutualists will tell you that. They say their aim is to “redistribute capital” evenly or have “everyone possessing their own capital”. I don’t think they even know what makes capital what it is.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 30 2013 18:31
Quote:
Just intuition here is that this definition is overly simplistic.

It's general, in orden to encompass all idea that have historacally been known as socialism and as such genuinly fought against capitalism.

Quote:
There's no single, all-encompassing definition really for this term to my knowledge.

Now you can update your knowledge.

Quote:
We, libcom/anarcho-communist/communist folks see capitalism not just simply an economic system, but a major way of domination and source of oppressive hierarchy.

Then you see it wrongly. It is a major way of domination and source of oppressive hierarchy, but it is still an economic system. Me being a source of songs and a major way of singing doesn't make me both human and song, I'm just human, songs are my products. Likewise capitalism is intertwined with domination and oppression outside of economic sphere, but that doesn't meen that capitalist exists outside economic sphere.

Quote:
and not really a cohesive movement

I have not said that it is.

Quote:
In my opinion, socialism is a new mode of fulfilling human needs and desires where commodity production is completely absent.

Which is so vague that a supporter of slavery can posit such a sentance, as longs as he doesn't support selling stuff, something of a Sparta-like slave society- state is communal and all slaves are owned by the state, you take the money of the picture and add a few law about catering to human needs and there you have it- a slave society that fits into your definition of socialism.

My definition is much more accurate. Socialism is the emancipation of the toilers, which is done by disappearnce of unearned income, which I enumerated as employer-profits, interest, rent and patent-profits.

Quote:
There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian” (hierarchical) socialism or a “libertarian” (non-hierarchical) socialism.

There is. Authoritarian socialists are Ricardians, Guild socialists, Esers, Luxemburgists, various Democratic socialists, they all want a socialistic economy but not in an anarchist society but coupled with the existence of the state.

Quote:
It is not enough to get rid of the bosses and have workers control their own workplaces. Sure it may seem like it’s non-exploitative.

It doesn't "seem like", if there are no unearned income, there is no exploitation.

Quote:
But, in the mutualist vision, markets will still exist and so will competition between producers. Capital accumulation will eventually take place

Which will then make a capitalist and not a mutualist society. An opinion that mutualism will sometime stop being mutualism is not an argument against it, likewise if someone says- communism is will just eventually lead again to hierarchies. That's not an argument.

Quote:
Mutualism doesn’t aim at abolishing capital.

Then you don't know what mutualism is.

Quote:
Capital only exists where production takes place for profit, not need,

Nope, capital exists when there are unearned incomes- employer-profit, interest, rent and patent-profits. Makin stuff and then selling them is not capitalism.

Not only mutualism, but also individualist anarchism (Spooner, Tucker, Lum etc) is not capialism, but is socialism. Please taka the time to read this:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

I'd suggest reading the whole section.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 30 2013 22:16
greenjuice wrote:
Quote:
From a bourgeois view-point, the natural rights tradition is all about creating a social arrangement supposedly founded on ideals like freedom of speech and freedom to pursue happiness while simultaneously assuring that the social arrangement will only produce the material conditions needed to truly enjoy those rights for the tiniest of minorities.

This is not an argument agaist natural rights, but agaist the motives of it's espousers, and it's called appeal to motives, it's a fallacy. I do think that in majority of cases (including Locke himself) the stated probably is the case, but just saying that it's not an argument against the idea itself.

I'm aware of that. Someone just asked what "it was all about" and I gave them a kind of tongue-in-cheek answer.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 31 2013 01:03
greenjuice wrote:
Which is so vague that a supporter of slavery can posit such a sentance, as longs as he doesn't support selling stuff, something of a Sparta-like slave society- state is communal and all slaves are owned by the state, you take the money of the picture and add a few law about catering to human needs and there you have it- a slave society that fits into your definition of socialism.

Would the social model provided by the ancient slave societies such as Greece and Rome count as new if they were to replace modern capitalism. No. That’s why I wrote “new mode”. And of course, what I wrote in the quote above is quite incomplete. But I was trying place a particular emphasis on “commodity production”, which mutualists seem to have no understanding of. In defining socialism, I could have attached to it common ownership, planning according to need, self-management, federalism, etc., all of which are central to socialism. But the “emancipation of the toilers” wouldn’t be complete without the abolition of commodity production.

greenjuice wrote:
My definition is much more accurate. Socialism is the emancipation of the toilers, which is done by disappearnce of unearned income, which I enumerated as employer-profits, interest, rent and patent-profits.

I think a lot of ideologies are offering the “emancipation of the toilers” nowadays.

greenjuice wrote:
Which will then make a capitalist and not a mutualist society. An opinion that mutualism will sometime stop being mutualism is not an argument against it, likewise if someone says- communism is will just eventually lead again to hierarchies. That's not an argument.

I guess you mutualists would like to enjoy a brief moment of liberation after successfully rewinding the clock backward. But how “liberating” will it be? How “liberating” will it be for most independent producers to continue to be working eight, ten hours a day when we currently have the productive capacity to meet everyone’s needs much faster and efficiently? And how are mutualists going to deal with the current industrial infrastructure? Hand them over to cooperatives, giving those cooperatives a huge advantage in the market? Or break them down into smaller units and redistribute them to everyone evenly, turning us all into capitalists?

greenjuice wrote:
Not only mutualism, but also individualist anarchism (Spooner, Tucker, Lum etc) is not capialism, but is socialism. Please taka the time to read this:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

I'd suggest reading the whole section.

I think Libcom folks know a lot about mutualists and “individualist” anarchists. We do not need to go further reading any more of their intellectual scribble. We’ve had the chance to digest the content of “individualist” anarchism through two epic threads made by those who possess similar views to your own.

http://libcom.org/forums/general/reading-recommendations-fellow-anarchis...

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/founding-anarcho-communist-communal-en...

I think it’s best for you to also read:

http://libcom.org/library/bailouts-co-operatives-or-class-struggle-debat...

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 31 2013 01:17

I think Libcom is being infiltrated by Spooners and Tuckers.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Jan 31 2013 01:44

Another thread started by a propertaria- I mean, "individualist 'anarchist' "?

John E Jacobsen's picture
John E Jacobsen
Offline
Joined: 13-03-10
Jan 31 2013 02:02

Natural Rights are a load of religious garbage. They cloak it in appeals to "reason" and "rationality," but the fundamental assumption that we can find any sort of social laws in nature its absurd on its face.

xslavearcx's picture
xslavearcx
Offline
Joined: 21-10-10
Jan 31 2013 09:33
greenjuice wrote:
Entdinglichung, thanks for the link!

Quote:
xslavearcx

As for workers self management - i've never come accross this before, and if so counts in his favour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Economic_democracy

Nevertheless, he was unable to demonstrate from his empircal framework where those natural rights came from - leaving him open to the charge of 'nonsense on stilts'.
He has a vague appeal to reason/ rationality but that is a problem that is really solved only by Habermas and Apel and their notion of communicative rationality.

Nevertheless, i personally like Locke by the fact that it was through him that i was finally able to read marx. I'd like to say it was out of philosophical curiosity e.g to see how his property justication (the nascent articulation of labour theory of value) could lead to the consequences of value theory of marx.
Well, I became a socialist because of Locke, by accepting his Labor theory of property (not of value), and by seeing, like Spooner, the contradiction between it and capitalism.

That was a year ago and im proud to say that i am on the last chapter of capital volume 2. Thanks Locke!!!
Have you went throught System of economic contradictions? :)

Greenjuice - 'fraid that i havent. Like probably everybody the list of books i want to read and the books i acutally get to read is quite a different number. Maybe when my kids have grown up ill go a find a shack to live, walden style and take a massive pile of books with me, in which case ill have defiantely read it by then! hopefully, ill get the chance before then..

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Jan 31 2013 13:27
Quote:
Would the social model provided by the ancient slave societies such as Greece and Rome count as new if they were to replace modern capitalism. No. That’s why I wrote “new mode”.

Well, being without exchange and with laws about needs, it would be new.

Quote:
But I was trying place a particular emphasis on “commodity production”, which mutualists seem to have no understanding of.

Commodity production is just making stuff and then selling them. Nothing complicated there to understand.

Quote:
But the “emancipation of the toilers” wouldn’t be complete without the abolition of commodity production.

With unearned income gone, there is no exploitation and there is not class above the worker to oppress it, so they're emancipated irregardless of whether they produce for need of for sale.

Quote:
I guess you mutualists would like to enjoy a brief moment of liberation after successfully rewinding the clock backward.

You mutualists? I'm a communist, I just know what socialism is and that both mutualism and communism are types of socialistic organization.

Quote:
How “liberating” will it be for most independent producers to continue to be working eight, ten hours a day when we currently have the productive capacity to meet everyone’s needs much faster and efficiently?

That's a dowside to mutualism, and that's why most libertarian socialists are not mutualists, but that doesn't invalidate mutualists as a type of libertarian socialism.

Quote:
And how are mutualists going to deal with the current industrial infrastructure? Hand them over to cooperatives, giving those cooperatives a huge advantage in the market? Or break them down into smaller units and redistribute them to everyone evenly, turning us all into capitalists?

Mututalist would hand them over to agro-industrial federation of self-magad workers that would be in close cooperation with municipal organization (which would operate mutual banks and work as the organization units of a people's militia in need of defense). Individualist anarchists would break them down into smaller units and let them work as worker coops on a non-capitalistic market.

Quote:
We do not need to go further reading any more of their intellectual scribble.

AFAQ is not "mutualist intellectual scribble", it's a the most comprehensive and the most comprehensively resourced explanation of what anarchism (/LibSoc) is, and it is written by LibComs, they just know their LibSoc, and know that both individualist anarchism and mutualist IS socialism.

Please read the link.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

Quote:
Greenjuice - 'fraid that i havent.

You should do that after the Capital, if you read on computer, save this link and read it when you have time:

anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/system-of-economic-contradictions-1

John E Jacobsen's picture
John E Jacobsen
Offline
Joined: 13-03-10
Jan 31 2013 21:05
Quote:
a non-capitalistic market.

You're an idiot.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 1 2013 14:04

You just called virtually all anarchist thinkers (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, etc etc) idiots, just because they, unlike you, knew that mutualism is a type of libertarian socialism, and that it has markets is irrelevant to that fact.

AFAQ gives tons of quotes from all known anarchist thinkers about that, read, don't be an ignoramus.

At least read this section:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Feb 1 2013 14:57
Quote:
Commodity production is just making stuff and then selling them. Nothing complicated there to understand.

Quote:
With unearned income gone, there is no exploitation and there is not class above the worker to oppress it, so they're emancipated irregardless of whether they produce for need of for sale.

Quote:
a non-capitalistic market.

I don't know how you can be under any illusion that you are a communist in any sense whatsoever having said workers can be emancipated whilst producing for sale and that there is such a thing as a non capitalistic market. And I find recommending some one to read capital and constantly referring to AFAQ like they are the enlightened well read communist in the discussion having defined commodity production like you did is not only hilarious and ridiculous but frankly rather insulting.

You are the ignoramus in this thread.

greenjuice's picture
greenjuice
Offline
Joined: 8-01-13
Feb 1 2013 15:55
Quote:
I don't know how you can be under any illusion that you are a communist in any sense whatsoever having said workers can be emancipated whilst producing for sale and that there is such a thing as a non capitalistic market

Saying that just makes me knowledgable on the subject, and doesn't have anything to do with my favoured method of post-revolutionary organisation.

Quote:
You are the ignoramus in this thread.

That makes Bakunin, Malatesta, Rocker and Kropotkin ignorants, because they all defined socialism as the abolition of the exploitation, that is- the abolition of unearned incomes, and anarchism as libertarian, stateless, socialism. Being that both mutualism and individualist anarchist of the Spooner, Tucker, Lum variety advocate abolition of undearned income and of the state, that means they are a part of libertarian socialism.

Fucking read the link I gave five times:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

I'll also put a quote:

"Here we will examine possible frameworks of a libertarian socialist economy. We stress that it is frameworks rather than framework because it is likely that any anarchist society will see a diverse number of economic systems co-existing in different areas, depending on what people in those areas want. “In each locality,” argued Diego Abad de Santillan, “the degree of communism, collectivism or mutualism will depend on the conditions prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot deny it in economy. Therefore there must be free experimentation, free show of initiative and suggestions, as well as the freedom of organisation.” As such, anarchism “can be realised in a multiformity of economic arrangements, individual and collective. Proudhon advocated mutualism; Bakunin, collectivism; Kropotkin, communism. Malatesta has conceived the possibility of mixed agreements, especially during the first period.” [After the Revolution, p. 97 and p. 96]

Here, we will highlight and discuss the four major schools of anarchist economic thought: Individualist anarchism, mutualism, collectivism and communism."

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Colle...

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 1 2013 15:55

the anarchist faq is good, but its not definitive, it is to based on "great thinkers" and ideas of anarchism historically. in the 19th century mutialism was an idea of how socialism could work, but since then things have happened, idea have been tested etc, and to claim mutualism as a valid kind of socialism now is ridiculous. Modem mutalism is backwards looking seeking to create and idealist version of a none existent golden age, its capitalism in a fantasy world with everyone owning there little business and everyone trading happerly.