Anarchist Discussion Forums

[quote]Yugoslavia wasn't an communist (not even an socialist country)[/quote]

Of course it was communist, it was just more of a mild form.

[quote="MStirner"]Every social enterprise includes things which are owned personally and things which are owned collectively (in differing sizes of collective). In a statist society it is clear(ish) who decides which is which. In a capitalist society it is clear(ish) how these things are distributed and exchanged.

In a society without a state, the differentiation between private ownership and collective ownership may be dictated, may not be commonly agreed and may not, even, be constant. In such a society, we ought to anticipate a wide range of shifting methods of distribution and exchange including cash-based systems, barter,fully shared ownership; time share and many others.

Like many of the other discussions, on these boards, comments demonstrate how difficult it is to conceive of a society in which there is no authority which dictates to individuals just how they should do things[/quote]

Very nice post. I agree.

This should have said

[quote]In a society without a state, the differentiation between private ownership and collective ownership may [b]NOT[/b] be dictated, may not be commonly agreed and may not, even, be constant. [/quote]

Every social enterprise includes things which are owned personally and things which are owned collectively (in differing sizes of collective). In a statist society it is clear(ish) who decides which is which. In a capitalist society it is clear(ish) how these things are distributed and exchanged.

In a society without a state, the differentiation between private ownership and collective ownership may be dictated, may not be commonly agreed and may not, even, be constant. In such a society, we ought to anticipate a wide range of shifting methods of distribution and exchange including cash-based systems, barter,fully shared ownership; time share and many others.

Like many of the other discussions, on these boards, comments demonstrate how difficult it is to conceive of a society in which there is no authority which dictates to individuals just how they should do things

communism can only work when functioning within the constructs of a horribly oppressive and overbearing state system. read anthem, ayn rand was a cunt, but it's still relevant.

What a poor argument... of course Communism doesn't work with money or economic value involved. If Hoppe did any research he'd know that Communism can only work without those...

communism ONLY works. communism motivate and fund teh MI/C. it's anarchism that isn't work - which is why it is freeing, liberating.

[i][i][i]>>Communism does work, it just works to take away more of our freedoms then we anarchists would prefer.
Capitalism is also effective in taking away our freedoms in diferent ways.

Both systems work, though our true desire is to abolish work.<<[/i][/i][/i]

oh dear, here are the voices of ridiculos primitivists again, with their phrases ‘’abolish the work’’. The question of work is very complex one and to say things just like that is not enough. What do you define work? Do you mean alienated work (wage system etc…) or do you mean work as human creativity. Those two are very different. Work is everything, and even an indogenous people work (going to kill the animals). Do you mean by the work as a consequence of division of labor or as another type of work. Many great mind in history spend lot of time observeing that subject and you came and say, just like that, ‘’abolish the work’’. If you mean alienated work, I mean it is ok, and will help you to abolish that. But if you mean ‘’all work’’ then I will say that you are fool.
That is maybe the aim of your petty-bourgeoisie West ‘’post-industrial’’ bulshit, but for many people outside of West the industrial society is reality – maybe for you on the west it is passing, becouse it laying on the backs of the third world, but for majority of world population the world is still industrial, and they do live in the industrial societies, and die under the authoritarian leadrship of that society. So please, go away with that egocentric craps.

Do we need a price system? Gift economics argue we do not. If we do, Why can't possession-based property-less markets provide that price system?

The issue here is "can an anarchist society" develop a price system? Or is the value of goods and services to be measured some other way, and if so, what is it? And please, not "gift economy" nonsense.

Communism does work, it just works to take away more of our freedoms then we anarchists would prefer.
Capitalism is also effective in taking away our freedoms in diferent ways.

Both systems work, though our true desire is to abolish work.

Cal Ungovernable took the words out of my mouth – in the short, he gave examples of truly communists societies – althrought they didn't live long. The main error is that many people equal communism with stalinism, titoism, castroism etc.
The main moment in the building of communist society must be mass of ''self-conscience workers'' – that they really know what they fighting for, that they have an edeucation over self-magamenet procces etc. And this means that anarcho-syndicalism is the best method of fighting – cos' it gives and educational moment to the workers.

I also must agree with Forkgace – it is wrong to identifie marxism with leninism – marxism is the science – an philospohical and socilogical view on society, its process etc. – and much can be learnd from it.

Here in ex-Yugoslavian countries existed the grup ''Praxis'' which was made of libertarian marxists – and they were the voice of critics of titoists peactice. Yugoslavia wasn't an communist (not even an socialist country) and the self-managament didn't really existed – only a 20% of economy was self-management, therefore it's wrong to call it, an represent it, as communist country – its practice was long miles ago from that.

...socialism doesnot work because its authority and unfree.
So not socialism doesnot work because it makes the people feel unfree.
With Free Communism its different because people feel free because they are and for that they may lose their property but that doesnot matter anymore in this case ;-)

Marx talked about a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not necessarily a "strong, centralized state" or any such thing.

He and Engles went so far as to amend the Manifesto to make it perfectly clear that the Paris Commune was an example of how the DOtP should be run.

Marx embraced some bizarrely statist notions. Look at the concrete proposals in the Manifesto. Proudhon also embraced some bizarrely statist notions. That we can rework the latter theory suggests we can rework the former theory.