Varoius Critique's of Anarchism

money is an exchange mechanism. therefore, why is it any 'better' to 'do away' with money? you havent really done away with economic exchange, if you still have economic exchange, so why not just use some kind of money?

I meant, if we all got say x amount of bread from the anarcho-communist collectives, and this woman wanted to employ ME as a prostitute. sheesh, stereotypes die hard.

Why would exchangeing sex for goods be fundamentally different from exchanging it for an exchange currency (money)? Why would it be less morally permissible? What would those in favour of the abolition of money do in the face of those who dont wish to abolish it?

"Why exchange anything? Why not just take and give as is needed? "

Because the latter clause would cause unnecessary conflict if the former clause was not satisfied (i.e., there was non exchange mechanism).

"You know when people voluntarily organise things that benefit their community? That's mutual aid."

well theres a whole other thread on 'community'. What if I don't like the community I live in (I certainly didn't, growing up)? What better way to escape this than to exchange my labour in a marketplace?

"When an earthquake goes off in Turkey, and thousands of people help"

Well, yeh, exactly the way Kropotkin emphasised the tendency biologically. But these are immediate needs. I've no doubt 'mutual aid communiites' (friends, familes, close co-wrokers) do supply most people's basic needs (look after children, friends let their mates stay on their couch), but is there one single examle in the whole of human history that has shown this to be a sufficient organising principle for the whole human community (excluding partisan accounts)?

"groups voluntarily organising everything from music recitals to self-help seminars. "

surely then, large parts of the economy are based on 'mutual aid'; pop concerts, football matches, parties, social clubs etc; they just use money as a mediating mechanism, in the light of the non-existence of any other reliable alternative.

"For example A farmer will give his vegetables freely to a watchmaker even though he doesn't need a watch, because he does need things like fertilizer,"

why does he 'need' the fertilizer but not the watch? he only 'needs' the fertilizer because he is imprisoned in the role of being a farmer. He merely wants the fertilizer, as he hasn't succeeded in achieveing any more enjoyable employment (perhaps secretly he wishes to be a glamour photographer).

" the guy who makes the fertilizer maker might well need a watch. "

or, he might merely want it, in order to uphold his current social role.

right, so we have the division of labour, agriculture, cities, time, maths, the only thing you want to do away with is money and nothing else? why does money as such so offend? because yu always feel like you never have enough of it? thats almost universal; look at popstars, footballers, and movie stars and their addictions, excesses and religious conversions.

"Things are therefore produced according to need, not profit,"

I dont need a watch. I dont need fertilizer. so WHY will they be produced? It seems you havents abolished exchange, and you still wish for the abundant good of civilization, so why not just accept its mediating mechanism?

whats the point in quoting things to me? why dont you just read these histories of the spanish civil war were ACTUAL anarchists, tried to ACTUALLY abolish money, and failed.

"resulting in higher quality goods, less work for all"

sounds great. do ~I get 77 virgins as well?

"mises.org seems to be a free market capitalist site"

so? why is this problematic? I'm sure many of the contributors are not a world away from those on enrager; perhaps some students from middle to upper class backgrounds etc.

"Get off your ass and move."

I did so. But I did so under state capitalism.

"So we cant do anything new? We can only replicate behaviour from the past? "

No, it just means empirically, its unlikely to work. People don;t like oppressing each other do they?

"No because you can do all those things for free and without any money whatsoever, which people do - often. 2

what a kick around a field? fair enough, but a bit shaky as a proposition to feed 6 billion, no?

"Cos his nan got him one last xmas. "

but why does he 'need' one at all? this is not a genuine species need, but a historically conditioned one. You propose some kind of socio-economic system that can dispense with money but still provide watches. However, as the saying goes 'time is money'.

"Maybe he wants to be a farmer? "

maybe he does. fine he is. maybe he wants to be a pop star? roled and dividions of labour are how the economy currently work but many propse something else. this necessarilly assumes revoluton, and hence possible death. does this explain the unpopularity of anarchism perhaps?

"What if social roles didnt exist? "

then I imagine we couldn't have production at all, or it would be much less productive.

you want to do away with labour!! certainly a lot more radical than marx, bakunin or the spanish anarchists envisioned, who all said it should be compulsory for all.

"Maybe cos ur not the only person on the planet? My brother needs a watch... "

and there are hundreds of billions of transactions being carried out every day. any and every attempt to replace this with direct exchange has been extremely problematic (russian and spanish revolutions etc)

"something didnt work once, so obviously it will never work again. "

the same problems will be encountered; that it is in fact extremely useful to give differeing economic values to different people and their differing skills, for example, as opposed to the alternatives.

"uhh yes i think the whole point is that they are worlds away, otherwise we would be working togther no? Its problematic because its a load of shite. "

but perhaps not in class background, which is specifically what i pointed out. how can you be against words

===================

"In actual fact, many of the Spanish agrarian communes completely abolished money and trade and began setting up Anarchist societies. "

what are you basing this claim upon?

"but the combined efforts of the Fascists and the Communists defeated them. "

is it not valid to argue that mass participation by anarchists in the defence of a liberal government might have played a part? further, what is the solution, in light of the fact that there ARE fascists and communists, and that, lets face it, they are just people? it seems anarchism is just like the totalitarian logic of the other 2 seeking to totally colonise the world.

"Not having money did not fail them, not having allies they could trust failed them."

did you bother reading the links then?

"Come on now fella, you gotta say these ain't too bad. Gimme community control before a free market any day. "

neither has meaning for me. why is it better for me to exchange goods than use money. still nothing has been offered as to why the latter is less morally permissible. it doesnt concern me as long as i get what i want. im sure it doesnt concern the proverbial farmer.

"So thats utterly meaningless then, and so was your original point. "

Im suggesting such basic things would be even harder under anarchism, as eye-witness reports, from the links, if you bothgered to read them, suggest.

"Going back to your favoured idea of money - imagine if everyone had it, it would be worthless!"

everyone does have it, in the UK for examle.

"We dont need to feed 6 billion, the 6 billion can feed themselves. People organising for themselves is what its about. "

thats what they do, through a division of labour and exchange economy, dont they?

"This is now just utter shite. "

why? why is farming legitimnate work, and singing not? again, you failed to note the quip, showing you didnt bother reading any links.

"What?!?! I think you can assume death full stop mate, we dont need a revolution to bring about death. "

but its more likely in a civil war.

how DO you explain the unpoplarity of anarchism then?

"free market capitalism and anarchism come from the same class background now? "

Im suggesting some commentators on the website may have a similar socio-econmic background to some on here.

"When they are meaning less bollocks"

all words are meaningless. they only take on meaning in reltions to other words. That is the nature of words.

"Most anarchists as well as most fascists come from working class backgrounds"

well, probably the fascists, Im not sure about the anarchists, at least in the contemporary arena.

"Especially the regurgitated fascist-propaganda bullshit from the Guardian piece."

What you mean the opinions of an art historian? What make syou think they are a fascist?

Please; what is the difference between 'propaganda' and 'truth'? All truth is produced, it isn't 'out there' like the planet mars.

"non-existant anarchist massacres of nuns."

why do you think this is non-existent?

Do you not think Payne, Bolloten, and Thomas work has been quite widely scrutinised, and if they made baseless claims, there'd be some debate? Or how do you explain the words of Diego Abad de Santillan

" the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction.'"

when is mass murder mass murder? 4-5k not big enough?

but you are still talking about murdering 4-5k people on the basis of a philosophical theory, of which most of the people committing the murder weren't even aware of (be it anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism).

so it seems even anarchists are reduced to justifying mass murder in the name of abstrations. oh dear. I think I'll go and read som Marcuse.

why is one of these facts 'true' and the other not tho? how can you be sure?

"As for the raping of nuns well that is once again is bullshit"

thats not even in any of the orgininal posts in any case.

"now fuck off steve11133 u sad fuck "

Why? im an anarchist, or at least a type of anarchist, one against all authority, especially that of other anarchists.

"how the fuck do u propose we destroy capitalism, the state and all the other state and ideological apparatus, with a marcuse book??? "

I dont. its called praxis. Im not against words. Im against actual manifestations of authority in my own life, and evading those, as I have much more chance of succeeding than in a successful revolution succeeding, as even a cursory look at recent history will tell you.

I never mentioned the nun raping story.

workers, bosses, nuns, priests, anarchists; all socially constructed roles. if its going to come down to blood shed, why kill each other over words? what would you expect some one who has grown up with the expectation they would take up the relisgious life, or whose family were quite wealthy? anarchists would designate them the enemy anyway, even if they thought anarchism was a good idea and not unlike catholicism, and so theyd be forced into opposing anarchists by the anarchists very own actions.

I didnt 'parrot' anything, I posted some links with the hope of some kind of critical thinking, with no commentary by myself, other than on prostitution. unfortunately, all i got was personally directed abuse by people who didnt bother to read the links, as if simply by posting some links im somehow endorsing everything said in them. If I expected that level of response I would have went straight to the spectatot magazine.

Pintiao, (I don't know why people start putting your name after a few parries, as if talking to a small child who won't behave, perhaps?)

"It is going to come down to bloodshed. This is the logical conclusion of anarchist-communist politics. "

It doesn't have to be so. But by accepting this, you are making it thus. Thus, (let's get VERY far-fetched for a minute), imagine an anarcho-communist revolution in england (!) with yourself as 'influential militant' (!!!) at a large workplace. The employers have given in to some demands but you merely hear an assertion by other 'anarcho-commnists' that they have killed some workers. Your belief in 'bloodshed' compells you to extoll other rank and file workers (who may not be so anarchist) to committ bloodshed. Thus the whole edifice of western civilization (leaders, factions, bloodhsed) is mirrored in 'anarcho-communism'.

"We want to abolish power,"

Killing people is one of the most brutal manifestations of power imagineable, is it not. You are professing to me that you are quite prepared to kill real living humans in the name of some abstraction ('anarcho-communism') which you believe possible, but which you have never actually experienced, save through highly partisan accounts, and even these no doubt acknowledged that the experiment failed (whether crushed ot not it doesnt matter).

"want this to happen, "

I'm not an ancrho communist or at least not one who believes in murdering those who dont wish to live under this socio-economic arrangement. I have no problem with people voluntarily taking up anarcho-communist living arrangements. The totalitarian logic of your marxist pseudo0anarchism however, suggests you'd never be happy until the whole world's economy was based on 'need', something that failked everywheare it has been tried, under both authritarian and anti-authoritarian communism (spain, russia, utopian communities etc).

"Which sectors of society would react negatively? "

To a violent anarcho-communist struggle? in the uk, probably quite large sections of workers; skilled and semi-skilled, white collar, etc.

"A slave revolt results in two things."

'wage slavery' is nothing like actual slavery, and even marx never thought so, not condmening individual capitalists.

Ulitmately, this depends on class. I fundamentally disagree with the analysis of people like Class War etc. The richest people in my society are footballers, pop stats, writers, and admittedly, some large employers. They do not oppress me.

"once tasting freedom"

freedom is not an absolute. freedom necessarilly involves conflict. My 'freedom' to listen to SLayer at full volum at 3am interferes with the 'freedom' of my neighbour not to listen to it. my 'freedom' to take someone's money interferes with their 'freedom' to keep it.

"Your logic seems to point to the maintenance of current power relations"

In the face of the utter failur eof every brand of communism to work anywhere, then yes, I'd chose that the UK remained a state-capitalist society. There are many actually existing freedoms I have in this society (not having to work if I dont want to due to dole, not having to submit to committees to move about or drink alcohol, or go to prostitutes) that I presumably wouldnt have under anarchist collectives, at least as they were actually practised, rather than ideal.

Im sacrificing the ideal world to the material world. Looks like Im the Marxist?

"Anarchists don't like violence."

why did a leading one justify the murder of 4-5K then? does this figure mean anything to you? have you ever met a firmly religious person, and conversed with them in a non-hierarchical way, trying to understand their thought processes, instead of being a patronising anarchist in possession of 'truth'? thousands of people, killed, because we disagree with each other over words ('justice', 'exploitation', 'profit' etc )

"Power doesn't allow it's dissolution without resistance. "

If you threaten to murder people, you necessarilly create power, because they will be scared, intimidated, and will use vilence and threats of it in return, to try and suppress your threats.

"Those of us serious about our politics understand this, "

so in essence, anyone who isnt a violent anarcho-communist is 'wrong' and will be subject to 'revolutionary justice' perhaps? all sounds VERY authoritarian to me.

"that the likelihood of social revolution is probably 100 years away."

there will NEVER be an anarcho-communist (or amything else I would imagine) revolutin in england. I guarantee that.

I'm not an ideological secular evangalist of any sort ('libertarian', 'christian', 'anarcho-communist'). As I said, I try to utilise praxis; my self understanding and critique of those around me, in order to increase my own enjoyment of life.

anarcho-capitalism, like anarcho-communism is another spook that requires we submit to a morality outside ourselves.

I'm influenced by Stirner, Nietzche, the Frankfurt School, Freud, Derrida, and moany others. But I also accept all these people are just people, and its not up to me to be a 'disciple'.

Suffice it to say, If in an actual civil war situation, rather than an hypothetical one, I would do everything within my power to preserve my own life as, as far as I'm concerend, all these things (ideologies. or whatever else) only exist for me because they enter my subjective consciousness.

I wouldn't really be able to have much critique (or self enjoyment, for that matter) If i died fighting other humans because they make a grunting noise that sounds like ashist.

Well, an individual, at least. A member of the homo-sapiens species. All else is madness or collaboration.

I engage in 'mutual aid' (i.e. reciprocity) and 'solidarity' all the time, but not as some vague role-talking re-enactment of something that happened before even my parents were born; I do it with real living human individuals.

The difference between me and a Thatcherite is that thatcherites stand for a right-wing conservative capitalist democracy predicated on role-taking, and political authority, whereas as I'm opposed to all authorities that would seek to exercise control over me; armies, police forces, religions, anarcho-communist militias, etc.

yawn... again, everyone assumes I'm a consultant economist for the Adam Smith institute or something, because I dared to simply post a link criticising the sacred festivities of 1936. I didn't post it to recieve a catalogue of abuse and one line diatribes, I did it because I was interested in critical reponses to the historical failings of applied anarchism.

I didn't know about the source for the prisons article. well done thank you. Now can we get to the stuff on money, differential wages, defining need under communism, prostitution, and mass murder, rather than just ad-hoc after the fact justifications for such practices, which it seems to me are offered for little more reason than people have used a floating signifier to 'identify' (oh dear) themselves with for so long that they'd be alone in the world without it. Isn't that excaltly the same reasons religious folk have been killing each other for millenia? The paralells are quite disconcerting.

================================

"he is a poseur with a crude understanding of some of the academic heavyweights he just listed,"

Well if we're going to have such bland insults; how come I have a masters degree in philosophy from one of the most prestigious academic institutions (apparently) in the country then? Would it not be the case that I'd have to show a pretty sophisticated understanding of said ideas?

"a priest wasn't shot just cos he was a priest he was shot because he was a instrument of the catholic church which had sided openly with the Francoist, and guess what asshole that isn't just some abstract word play!!!"

so maybe then, people should stop committing mass murder over these abstractions, rather than openly professing the desire to do so, when there is clearly no need (i.e. to meet basic human needs in the UK; there is absolutely NO need to have a revolution to do this)

"it meant priests denounced trade unionists, anarchists, socialists, and atheists to Fascists (sorry thats just another abstraction) who then masacared them. "

whereas anarchists denounced fascists, preists, capitalists to the rank and file working class (another abstraction), who then massacred them.

"ur views are not new or origional,"

neither are yours.

"u have merely injected liberal individualism"

like i said, Im against political (and anarcho-communist) authority.

"I think that mutual aid and solidarity are more important than each-for-himself selfishness"

I don't see that they are necessarilly different. Mutual means two parties both gain something in an exchange. This 'gain' however is subjectively experienced by each individual.

Perhaps personified by Adam Smith's quote that the baker does not serve the butcher out of self interest, but due to his desire for meat, and vice versa. The only problem is having an exchange mechanism. You believe you can do without one, whereas every anarchist experiment I'm familiar with has failed to do this.

of course its just another abstraction. its fundamentally useless at the end of the day. I did it cos I enjoyed it, I only brought it up because you came out with the usual ill-informed and irelevant insults.

"ur a middle class"

vast throngs of the anarchist movement are middle class; certainly the majority of anarchists I've come into contact with. I note the earlier commentator thought my observation that many of enrager, like the mises institute were probably middle class, which was dismissed as irrelevant. But now its relevant again. I have trouble figuring out when this one is important. Like Marx, Bakunin et al, and the epithet 'bourgeois' it would seem its only relevant when you want to throw a cheap insult at some one and avoid critical thought, praxis, and analysis.

I can't see that it is a relevant criticism anyway; the division of labour is more subject to scrutiny I find. So, what 'middle class' people are parasites are they? Well, I dont own a car, or buy computer games, or football accessories, or dvd's I consume much less than the average working class person, Im sure. Indeed, I certainly couldnt have had the academic background I had unless Id been prepared to live in poverty well into adult hood. hence vast swaths of the working classes are completely useless to me, i dont buy their products.

Well, I am a researcher so yes I fill a role, I produce new information about something previously unknown. That was a pragmattic choice in the light of the fact it's virtually impossible to gain employment that is not linked to either the state, or the corporate military industrial complex. Every time working class people buy Mcdonalds, coca-coal etc, likewise they are contributing to this system.

I hardly see how i'm an 'apologist for the status quo'. As pointed out Im against political authority. I merely posted links to some articles critical of anarcho-syndicalism. Somehow, this is the moral equivalent of being a member of Franco's falangue, and no doubt if I was alive in 1936 I'd have been summarilly shot by 'anarcho-communist' 'anarchists', who would it appear, would make cosy bed-fellows with Chairman Mao and his observation that political power flows from thje barrel of a gun.

but theres a relation between the two, and strategies for change; the basis of praxis. Marx varied on the point, not denying that ideas played a major part in both material and social relations.

"people have to sell their labour in order to live."

not entirely, we live in a social democracy. You could sign on the dole. You could (at least until the last couple of years) get a grant and go to university. You could win the lottery. You could live on the streets. You could marry a rich woman who keeps you. You could sit in a library writing what becomes a best selling novel and become a millionaire. These are all ways you could actually escape selling your labour power as an individual in this life, if you hate it so much (although arguably, these ARE in fact all forms of selling a type of labour power; part of one's self).

Let's imagine full communsm for a minute; work would not just be under wage labour, but, compulsory for all, so people would still have to 'sell' themselves to each other, they just wouldn't be using money, but, presumably, endless guilt tripping and direct barter. This would not overthrow the 'sale' of labour power, it would just mean there was not the current unit of currency, but somehting else. There would of course be no escape from this drudgery for those named in the previous paragraph.

Now imagine a very attractive young woman living in such an anarcho-communist collective. She is clearly the most popular woman amongst heterosexual males. They all engage in various sexual relations with each differing females, but they all prefer her. She then persuades some of the men who have sex with her to do her share of the collective work in agreement that she will have sex with them more than the others. Eventually she gives up the manual tasks all together. Other women are annoyed by this, and one posts notices on the collective noticeboard saying this woman is 'exploiting' the other females within the community as she is not engaged in necessary 'labour' . Oh dear, looks like we're back to division of labour, exploitation etc.

"u are unable to comprehend that the self created individual is a bourgeois myth, individuals are the product of social relations"

no im not, I agree with you. Of course Im a product of society.

"without a working class what house would u live in, what pavement would u walk on, who would collect ur rubbish, provide ur water and electricity supply nevermind ur clothes and of course food"

I wasnt denying that. Re-read what I said; the autmotive industry (which comes close to 50% of the economy), pop music, football, fashion, computers, all of which most working class people consume to a much greater degree than me (cos I dont at all) are useless to me.

"what happens if 'individuals' within the working class decide that they need to form social movements in order to survive and in order to do so they must defend themselves and the movements they have created against fascist attacks, strike breakers etc??? This may well require the use of force, is this justified?"

it doesnt really matter. You only need to engage in this slave morality because of some other slave morality (fascism).

"Considering ur position that u have no duty to do anything, then who are u to tell slaves not to kill their masters or for workers not to violently evict their bosses,"

I dont go ahead. do it. But I imagine this would create a situation of mass terror, in for example the uk, a country in which, contrary to your assertions, you do NOT have to sell your labour to provide the species needs marx spoke of. Further, given the utter historical failure of communism, it seems somewhat of a dangerous gamble to risk one' sl ife for this does it not?

"it is merely subjective to you afterall and since anything else doesnt exist to u surely u have no grounds on which to criticise anything that doesn't effect u directly. "

not really, no i dont.

"of course, if u admitted that we are more than just individuals that society does exist then u could begin to develop some form of morality or principles based on a mutual dialogue,"

of course I admit it exists. its a collection of individuals who have DIFFERENT moralities and often dont agree, and often engage in violent conflict because of this. Personally, I dont like to risk my physical saftey in violence, as this is more to real than philosophical theories most people who would be opprressing me aren't even familiar with, hence i would sacrifice this idealism ('communism' upon whihc Marx was of course idealistic, contradictory, and hypocritical) to my material existence.

freedon is not absolute. one persons 'freedom' necessarilly intereferes with another as people like to do different things. some people like to eat meat. some people like to enforce the prohibition of meat eating upon others, to give but one example.

"engage in a free, equal and mutual dialogue we need to resist and challenge all forms of inequality, whether it is wage slavery, racism, sexism, or homophobia,"

which, whether thay have actual material manifestations or not, can only be mediated upon in social interactions through words, and nothing else, hence one persons 'objectification of women' is another's 'liberation of female sexuality'. Again my point about 'freedom' comes into play; hence some women may physically attack pornographers (such as Larry Flynt for example).