Are you a communist?

Yes
78% (62 votes)
No
18% (14 votes)
Don't Know
5% (4 votes)
Total votes: 80

Posted By

Lazy Riser
Mar 30 2006 15:07

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Lazy Riser
Apr 13 2006 20:35

Hi

Quote:
And don't balme me for those primitivist nutters - I disown them

They have as much right to use the Anarchist Communist moniker as you. If each ism’s advocates are free to pick and choose who else belongs to their milieu rather than relying on the objective analysis of a third party, then I might be a communist after all. In fact, anyone might be. There’s got to be more to it than that, otherwise “communist” is useless as an ideological classification.

Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
I think, in terms of politics, it is correct to describe the leader of the 'Movement for Socialism' (MAS) as a socialist.

Indeed.

Love

LR

sam sanchez
Apr 13 2006 20:37

Fair enough. But that does not mean that you can discredit non-primitavist anarchist-communists by association, when their ideas and visions are very different.

Anyway, words do have meanings, even if they are debatable. For example, socialism means a society in which the workers control the means of production. As far as I'm concerned that disqualifies labour and leninists. Just because somebody thinks they are a goose, desn't mean they are. Hitler called himself a national socialist, but that doesn't mean naziism has anything to do with socialism. Words have to have some meaning, and that does disqualify some people from applying them to themselves, neccessarily.

That said, I think anarcho-primitavists are communist, although a pretty grim sort, because they advocate gift economies.

Lazy Riser
Apr 13 2006 20:40

Hi

Quote:
Fair enough. But that does not mean that you can discredit non-primitavist anarchist-communists by association.

Why not? Doesn’t their failure to avoid it call communists' judgement, and hence ideological rationality into question?

Love

LR

sam sanchez
Apr 13 2006 20:42

Failure to avoid what?

Lazy Riser
Apr 13 2006 20:43

Hi

Quote:
Failure to avoid what?

Their association with other communists.

Love

LR

sam sanchez
Apr 13 2006 20:48

So we're supposed to change our name because other people choose to appropriate it. OK. So we can't call ourselves libertarians because of American right-libertarians. We can't call ourselves anarchists because of so called anarcho-capitalists and danarcho-primitavists (not to mention the punk connotations). Communists is gone because of the USSR. Socialists because of labour and the other philanthropic liberals. Syndicalist because there have been authoritarian marxist syndicalists such as De Leon.

Must say, great way to build a movement, Lazy - change what you call youselves every five minutes and confuse the fuck out of everybody

sam sanchez
Apr 13 2006 20:52

I might sit out now actually. I've forgotten what this conversation was even about. Its like having a philosophy debate with a hangover at some guys houseparty.

Lazy Riser
Apr 13 2006 21:07

Hi

Quote:
Must say, great way to build a movement, Lazy - change what you call youselves every five minutes and confuse the fuck out of everybody

I doubt “the movement” has ever been relevant enough to confuse significant numbers of people, either by changing its name or any other means.

Quote:
I've forgotten what this conversation was even about

It’s an investigation into the meaning and content of communism.

Quote:
Its like having a philosophy debate with a hangover at some guys houseparty.

So that’s where you honed your logic. Makes sense.

Love

LR

sam sanchez
Apr 13 2006 23:18

I know enough about logic to know that you don't win an argument by insulting your "opponent".

cantdocartwheels
Apr 14 2006 08:31

yeah i wondered why he was doing that aswell. mind you i'm still waiting for his global currency and ''universal income'' to fall from the sky wink

Lazy Riser
Apr 14 2006 10:27

Hi

Quote:
I know enough about logic to know that you don't win an argument by insulting your "opponent".

Ho ho. Well I take it back then. It was meant more as a cheeky jibe, following your hangover/party quip. What argument is it that you think I’m trying to “win”? I am making an enquiry, not proffering a position.

Quote:
mind you i'm still waiting for his global currency and ''universal income'' to fall from the sky

Well I suppose I am proffering a position. I hadn’t considered a global currency up till now. Lately I’m thinking I might prefer it if the Euro Zone countries went back to their own scrip.

Someone set me straight. Does the ICC’s programme plot council-socialist national legislatures prior to international communist revolution and the ceasing of “commodity relations”?

From…

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition/introdutction.html

Quote:
What is the dynamic of socialised production? How can we tell if it is winning out over remaining aspects of the law of value? How can we avoid the fatal trap of “production for accumulation”, which would transform the proletariat once again into an exploited class? Are there economic measures which can be taken almost right away which would lead in the right direction? These and other questions are raised in this pamphlet, although their further exploration must be left to future studies.

Questions raised, but unanswerable within traditional communist frameworks.

Quote:
Communism knows neither exchange nor the law of value. Its production is socialised in the fullest-sense of the term. It is universally planned according to the needs of the members of society and for their satisfaction. Such production knows only use values whose direct and socialised distribution excludes exchange, the market and money.

The implication is that proletarians, left to their own devices, will regress into barbarism through simple acts of exchange, setting out stalls and budgeting for their consumption.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser
Apr 14 2006 10:42

Hi

Quote:
this whole thread is a fucking embarrasment.

You’d have thought you’d have been used to it by now.

Quote:
can we have a special forum where two bit pub economists can draw out their cack handed crack pot blueprints

Of course you can, you sexy thing. You’d better get into practice, you never know when a fellow worker might seek your insight.

Am I right in thinking you’re about as politically close to the ICC as you can get without actually being a member?

Love

LR

Lazy Riser
Apr 14 2006 11:07

Hi

Quote:
well considering i'm not pimping revamped 2nd International economic determinism, think the Bolsheviks were never "communist" but rather a surrogate Bourgeois and don't consider "unions" the "main" enemy of the working class, then no.

Well, fair enough. That certainly told me. Is there a communist current that you particularly identify with, or is yours an especially unique furrow?

Love

LR

RevolutionReversal
Apr 14 2006 19:23

No I am not a communist. I am an Anarchist through an through, i don't think economic theories have ever been created that work with freedom. I whole heartedly practice mutual aid and the gift economy with all my friends and comrades.

I would never identify with communism, or put any red in a flag I were to carry. I come from the same tradition of anarchy as Voltairine de Cleyre, I beleive in anarchy with suffixes or prefixes. I beleive in tolerance and can accept any economic arrangement people consentually and collectivel choose for themselves as long as all oppressions are removed, so that eliminates capitalism. So this does allow me to respect and tolerate primitivism.

In a world where villages and towns can be environmentally sustainable there is room in certain parts of the world for primitivists to exist. We as anarchists should endeavour to build a world that allows as much diversity as possible, and thats why I am a black only anarchist.

Steven.
Apr 14 2006 19:25
RevolutionReversal wrote:
No I am not a communist. I am an Anarchist through an through, i don't think economic theories have ever been created that work with freedom.

confused

Do you believe in the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?

Joseph Kay
Apr 14 2006 20:10
Quote:
Do you believe in the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?

not addressed to me but i'll but-in as usual wink. the classic problem with this, while admirable as an ethical position, is "who determines need?" If it's a case of everyone decides their own needs, we're back to the expanded idea of self-interest milton friedman likes to push, and then Lazy chips in with "markets!". i'm still a libertarian communist though, if a slightly pissed one trying to avoid the psuedo-in laws* embarrassed

* what are your girlfriend's parents called? and don't say john and irene smartasses angry

Lazy Riser
Apr 14 2006 20:38

Hi

Quote:
Do you believe in the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?

I don't believe in anything. Anarchy baby, yeah! I'm not joking.

Love

LR

sam sanchez
Apr 14 2006 20:42

The individual determines their needs ideally. But in reality this probably has to be negotiated when needs conflict. But I don't think a gift economy would neccessarily lead to huge overconsuimption, any more than people spend all of their lives in the library just because its free.

But couldn't it be socially rather than numerically or economically regualted. For example, workplaces might not "need" to produce a cruise ship for one individual, and if that individual doesn't like this, they can complain through the federation of communes.

Or, if people's consumption was generally recorded, workplaces might decide to prioritise orders from those individuals, communes or workplaces who generally consumed less. Then again, perhaps open records of consumption infringes on privacy? Then again it wouldn't have to be specific - it might say you consumed 20 magazines rather than recording that you bought "Great Big Knockers monthly" embarrassed .

If this didn't work then the only option might be to on collectivist ideas of payment according to labour hours or something, although that has its own problems.

Joseph Kay
Apr 14 2006 20:55
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
Do you believe in the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need"?

I don't believe in anything. Anarchy baby, yeah! I'm not joking.

Love

LR

thats nihlism LR, a belief in nothing. (sober again wink )

Joseph Kay
Apr 14 2006 21:37
sam_frances wrote:
I don't think a gift economy would neccessarily lead to huge overconsuimption, any more than people spend all of their lives in the library just because its free

you know one person who did don't you - charlie marx red star wink

but yeah, i agree red n black star

RevolutionReversal
Apr 14 2006 21:55

I don't knwo about the economics right now, I know I am offended by consumer capitalism and I know hierarchy is the root of oppression.

Felix Frost
Apr 14 2006 22:58

While we are on the subject of feudalist revivalists and other advocates of self-managed capitalism, the Dutch and German council communists also advocated distributing (a part of) the social product to individuals based on their work, with the use of "labor certificates", not unlike what anarchist collectivists were arguing. They even claimed that they based this view on Marx:

Quote:
Marx also reveals elsewhere in his text that he conceives labour-time to be the basic category of the communist economy :

"With collective production, money-capital is completely dispensed with. The society distributes labour-power and means of production between the various branches of industry. There is no reason why the producers should not receive paper tokens permitting them to withdraw an amount corresponding to their labour time from the social consumption stocks. But these tokens are not money. They do not circulate." (K. Marx: Capital, Vol. II, Pt. III, Chap. XVIII, Penguin Books, p.434)

from Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/index.htm

jef costello
Apr 15 2006 00:05
sam_frances wrote:
it might say you consumed 20 magazines rather than recording that you bought "Great Big Knockers monthly"

I don't know, surely "great big knockers" would require more resources than "flat like little boy knockers" and would therefore count towards an individual's consumption more.

ps I am a communist.

sam sanchez
Apr 15 2006 00:37

I don't think "self-managed capitalism" i.e. mutualism is in any way feudalistic. For one thing the phrase is slef contradictory - if workers control the means of production, and wage labour is abolished, its not capitalism, whatever it is.

The problem with fuedalism was surely was that the peasants had to give all their product to the Lords and the church. I'd say, unrealistic and problematic as it is, an economy of self employed artisans is fundamentally libertarian, although not communist.

The problem with labour hour computation is that it would create pressure to spend the most hours doing the least work, and create competition for work like under capitalism, so in the end it would have to come down to social ways of regualting things anyway.

RevolutionReversal
Apr 15 2006 02:19

I find mutualism to be more of something you can aspire to do while fighting capitalism in general, same with syndicalism, its not he end goal, but a decent band aid solution.

cantdocartwheels
Apr 15 2006 12:53

I am starting to reluctantly agree with revols earlier point about this thread.

sam sanchez
Apr 15 2006 22:24

Then why don't you give your own input so we can learn from your superior wisdom? (You too revol).

This isn't neccessarily sarcasm. I'm perfectly willing to admit my knowledge of economics is "pub economist"-like in the extreme. But if there is something ameteur or stupid about the ideas being expressed it would be great if someone could point out how, why and what is better, rather than just taking the piss, because that does no one any good (and leaves us feeling kinda silly).

cantdocartwheels
Apr 15 2006 23:20

sorry mate i wasn't really referring to you i was more having a go at LR's attitude, don;'t know who revol was referring to tbh, i suspect it may have been me

I'm not partticul;arly well read or anything so as for my two cents on mutualism the only real reason i don't agree with it is because its not practical. Say you have a town of 150,000 people, in order for this towns economy to run and interact organically with outlying regions and other towns, timetables have to be met. Mutualism just doesn't have the level of organisation required for an industrial economy as far as i can see.

Also i think you need a civil framework for society, ie you need laws of sorts. I mean when you have a revolutionary group you agree on a set of principles and a charter or constitution of some sort. This is what you need on a wider scale ofr any organisation to function and maintain a level of continuity. then again i could be wrong.

sam sanchez
Apr 16 2006 10:19

I agree with you on "laws", or at least agreed codes of conduct, although only if their decided in a directly-democratic way through voluntary associations, rather than being decided by a centralised group. All societies have social codes and agreements, even stateless ones such as some tribal societies.

Mutualism would be at least as effective as capitalism in terms of organisation, but that's not neccessarily a good thing.

Lazy Riser
Apr 16 2006 12:38

Hi

Quote:
sorry mate i wasn't really referring to you i was more having a go at LR's attitude

Sorry for annoying you. What attitude are you having a go at now?

Quote:
you need a civil framework for society

True.

Quote:
Mutualism just doesn't have the level of organisation required for an industrial economy as far as i can see.

Tend to agree. Mutualism has definite pastoral flavour. I’d venture that the level of organisation to which you refer can be achieved if the bulk of individual income is untied from exchange. To my mind, this gives communism a stronger hand to play as a viable economic model.

As the ICC point out, the key driver in revolutionary transition is the economic policy of the working class. A recipe they deliberately defer from writing, avoiding further interrogation into what I would hope is a profoundly Marxist agenda.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but despite communist economics’ prescription of a monk-like collectivism stripped of scandal and lusty consumption, it’s adoption is simply necessary for human survival. The fact that it isn’t much fun is irrelevant, important only to petit bourgeois elements who put their own well being ahead of proletarian interests.

Love

LR