Rule by force is the disease, cure that and wont matter what labels we adopt.
In case you would like a reference to straighten them out, here is a book written by a contemporary of the original.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"private ownership of the means of existence are therefore eliminated"
"private ownership of the machinery of production, distribution, and communication can therefore not be tolerated"
That right there..... rule by force as taken from the document you presented as a solution to rule by force.
Not busting your chops, just saying the ideas in the link have some problems in epistemology.
My chops can take it, thanks.
Ive been at this for awhile.
I agree that the rhetoric falls prey to this trap, but lets look at how it would play out.
The factory owner would still be directing traffic, but instead of maximizing profits they will maximize production.
They no longer pay for their materials, they dont pay the workers, they just do the work, and bear the responsibility if it isnt being done.
They will have to manage that overproduction doesnt become an issue, and they will still be responsible for fixing any underproduction, too.
When you dont get paid an exhorbitant salary in an artificial scarcity environment the appeal of being boss is diminished.
We need them to retire so the kids can move up, they will be worshipped as rockstars due to their abilities.
The waltons will still have their names on the signs, and if the world isnt being adequately supplied, it will be them that we look to for answers.
My guess is when the burdens of crapitalism are lifted from their shoulders, anybody over 50 will want to retire.
Probably not to rocking chairs and beaches, but to whatever creativeness they want to create.
So, dont fault the rhetoric of the original anarchists, they lived in a far more brutish time than today.
Today, we just keep working at the same job until somebody younger replaces us, while refusing to pay for anything.
About 30% of us do all the work, if that number doubled because payroll and profits were no longer the measures of productivity, then leisure would double.
We need to let go of the hows that have failed to acheive anarchy, and try some new ones.
What i have proposed, keep working, stop paying, short circuits this bankster dystopia on any given tuesday.
It will still remain to the collective us, to make sure everbody gets fed, clothed, housed, and into productive lives.
It will be easier to do that without artificial bankster limitations that set themselves up to traffic in human misery.
"...but instead of maximizing profits they will maximize production."
You don't understand the information provided by profits, or how prices and profits inform all market actors as a decentralized information network. Production without knowledge of consumer needs is waste.
So, we only fill orders we have, no orders, no production.
You know, supply and demand.
Price signals are not the only way to measure the production, but they are a mantra repeated to me ad nauseum as i try to break folks free from their bankster controlled programming.
How does central planning understand individual subjective value?
By ignoring it?
What is central planning?
The factory takes orders from the warehouses who dont order things they dont have empty shelfspace for.
If you cant give your goods away its time to make something else.
If you cant keep up with demand add workers.
Its pretty easy, actually.
Please dont get caught up in boxes that need not exist.
That only exist because teachers need to say something that adds up to an hour.
Or looks good in a brochure.
Fillers to make books thicker, or sound difficult to understand, can generally be dismissed with enough common sense, but that generally isnt the goal if you are selling 'advanced degrees'.
Find yourself a hillbilly and you'll learn more wisdom than any random dozen professors will ever impart to you, imo.
I don't see how that would work even in a static economy, because it makes too many assumptions even then, and we live in a dynamic world of change and advancement.
I know hillbillies well enough that the odds of one being marxist are slim to none.
Also they got real interesting ideas on ownership of the 'means of existance'.
I appreciate your candidness and am aware of the model. There arises the problem of incentives and individual subjective values.
The basic issue remains:
"the good society must accept men and women as they are.”
The problem with the model is it attempts to change people to fit the model, instead of changing the model to fit the people. That is why so many die.
Why would a good society accept the toxic?
Thats like saying cancer cells have the same rights as healthy cells.
If the model is the right one, and the people fail to adopt it because being cancer cells gives more pleasure, it is suicide to let them prevail because of some squeamshness on our part.
I was hoping the context of the quote would unwind this a bit.
The good society is the cancer. It is the social construct that runs over whatever is in it's way, and justifies it as collective will.
Ah, ok, im pretty dense and dont often pick up on clues.
Born to lose,...
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
Eliminate that, and this debate becomes mostly academic.
I think your heart and intentions are in a good place, it's just the models you reach for that are a little sketchy.
;)