PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 01:13 PM
and I think it has exactly No substance to it. It is a talking point. Where from I do not know, but it does nothing more than betray an utter lack of knowledge about either Marx's work or, so far as I can tell, that of the anarchists.
What is Value?
Re: What is Value?
RoseVann
08-31-2009, 01:28 PM
It's not strickly individual except in determining with whom you wish to cooperate. We don't need governments, we don't need laws, we don't need heriarchy of any kind.
Saying "that there is nothing BUT anarchy now" makes no sense. Everywhere I look on the planet there's government (some form of heirarchy). Anarchy says that all forms of government are undesirable. Anarchy is not an economy, it's a way of life.
08-31-2009, 01:28 PM
It's not strickly individual except in determining with whom you wish to cooperate. We don't need governments, we don't need laws, we don't need heriarchy of any kind.
Saying "that there is nothing BUT anarchy now" makes no sense. Everywhere I look on the planet there's government (some form of heirarchy). Anarchy says that all forms of government are undesirable. Anarchy is not an economy, it's a way of life.
Re: What is Value?
RoseVann
08-31-2009, 01:34 PM
..... of where people have misused Marxism. So to say that it has no substance to point out that historical fact makes no sense. Any economy that allows for heirarchy has the potential for abuse.
08-31-2009, 01:34 PM
..... of where people have misused Marxism. So to say that it has no substance to point out that historical fact makes no sense. Any economy that allows for heirarchy has the potential for abuse.
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
08-31-2009, 01:47 PM
Holding up Marxism to an impossible standard does not do justice, at all. I would posit that Marxism has been less abused than has Capitalism, or any other "ism" you got. It seems to be "failure before the act" to take the stance you are taking. Democracy has been abused, monarchy has been abused - what you are saying strikes me as very odd.
To say that placing the workers at the top of the society so as to bring about a class-less society and calling that "any economy that allows for heirarchy (sic) has the potential for abuse" misses, at least, the point of this particular "hierarchy".
The only way that the owners will ever submit to equality is through force. Try using force in a non-hierarchical way...
08-31-2009, 01:47 PM
Holding up Marxism to an impossible standard does not do justice, at all. I would posit that Marxism has been less abused than has Capitalism, or any other "ism" you got. It seems to be "failure before the act" to take the stance you are taking. Democracy has been abused, monarchy has been abused - what you are saying strikes me as very odd.
To say that placing the workers at the top of the society so as to bring about a class-less society and calling that "any economy that allows for heirarchy (sic) has the potential for abuse" misses, at least, the point of this particular "hierarchy".
The only way that the owners will ever submit to equality is through force. Try using force in a non-hierarchical way...
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 01:54 PM
while ignoring historical context is in itself abusive to clear thinking. Whatever happened in ostensibly "Marxist" societies has to be taken in context. And whatever happened that was an "abuse" under those societies had precisely Nothing to do with Marx's work.
And though I'm happy to be the first to admit that I know little to nothing of anarchist scholarship, I am unaware of any substantive contributions made to economics by the anarchists.
It seems to me that the anarchists' polemics against Marxism are not unlike those of the so-called left-communists: Everything is great in theory, but those who actually pursue praxis are uniformly derided for their many impurities and insufficiencies.
I'm not entirely against that sort of criticism. However, I don't think that, given the general level of acumen the accompanies a lot of this criticism among non-acedemics, and, given the particular historical moment, that it is worth much at all.
08-31-2009, 01:54 PM
while ignoring historical context is in itself abusive to clear thinking. Whatever happened in ostensibly "Marxist" societies has to be taken in context. And whatever happened that was an "abuse" under those societies had precisely Nothing to do with Marx's work.
And though I'm happy to be the first to admit that I know little to nothing of anarchist scholarship, I am unaware of any substantive contributions made to economics by the anarchists.
It seems to me that the anarchists' polemics against Marxism are not unlike those of the so-called left-communists: Everything is great in theory, but those who actually pursue praxis are uniformly derided for their many impurities and insufficiencies.
I'm not entirely against that sort of criticism. However, I don't think that, given the general level of acumen the accompanies a lot of this criticism among non-acedemics, and, given the particular historical moment, that it is worth much at all.
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
08-31-2009, 01:56 PM
the late 19th and early 20th century. You are talking about some sort of libertarianism.
"Anarchy involves cooperation between agreeing individuals."
Where did that come from?
"It's not strickly (sic) individual except in determining with whom you wish to cooperate."
What is this?
"We don't need governments, we don't need laws, we don't need heriarchy (sic) of any kind."
Say what?
Rose, this makes no sense, at all...
08-31-2009, 01:56 PM
the late 19th and early 20th century. You are talking about some sort of libertarianism.
"Anarchy involves cooperation between agreeing individuals."
Where did that come from?
"It's not strickly (sic) individual except in determining with whom you wish to cooperate."
What is this?
"We don't need governments, we don't need laws, we don't need heriarchy (sic) of any kind."
Say what?
Rose, this makes no sense, at all...
Re: What is Value?
blindpig
08-31-2009, 01:59 PM
Is that 19th century pedagogy? Or perhaps German styling? (I've never had much luck with translations from the German)
So, what is LTV?
08-31-2009, 01:59 PM
Is that 19th century pedagogy? Or perhaps German styling? (I've never had much luck with translations from the German)
So, what is LTV?
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 02:04 PM
I think it is also worth noting that your conception of 'freedom' cannot be understood apart from its irreducible entanglement with the construct of individualism.
Individualism is in no small measure the problem, not some gilded idol to be worshiped as part of a sort of leftist religion that is, not least because of disregarding/discounting Marx, thoroughly unscientific.
just sayin'
08-31-2009, 02:04 PM
I think it is also worth noting that your conception of 'freedom' cannot be understood apart from its irreducible entanglement with the construct of individualism.
Individualism is in no small measure the problem, not some gilded idol to be worshiped as part of a sort of leftist religion that is, not least because of disregarding/discounting Marx, thoroughly unscientific.
just sayin'
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 02:18 PM
It is all part and parcel of the same damn Socialist movement. There is not a single real Proudhonist alive and he was the first to call himself an "anarchist" (accurately). The agrarian socialists who adopted the label did so because the state was the major intermediary between the freeholders and the major property holders. In Russia, for example, the elimination of serfdom came with a debt as the price-tag. The debt collector was the autocracy. No wonder the state issue seemed overwhelming.
Herzen wasn't no anarchist in the modern sense, nor Bakunin, nor Kropotkin, nor the Nihilists... nor American Syndicalists (Who was the leadership of the IWW? Haywood, Flynn, Foster - all became Communists). The Blanquists were not "anarchists" and neither were the Social Revolutionaries - Right, Center, or Left. There was no split between "centrism" and freedom, ever. Lenin was accused of being tinged with "Anarchism" (adventurism, volunteerism, a small conspiratorial group, etc.).
There is no connection between modern "anarchism" and the so-called historical varieties. When people say they are anarchists today, they might as well say they are from Indiana. It has no meaning... except that it is thoroughly anti-Socialist, completely made-up and doesn't even try to be coherent or draw more than two wishy-washy sentences from someone in history.
It is OK to be an Anarchist until one is about 25. It is good for getting one's head knocked by the cops, which has been the foremost way in which real political education has occurred for two centuries. After that, they should be forced to explain their actual "theory" of society... which I guarantee will be shallow and incoherent, even in comparison to California suburban spiritual cults.
08-31-2009, 02:18 PM
It is all part and parcel of the same damn Socialist movement. There is not a single real Proudhonist alive and he was the first to call himself an "anarchist" (accurately). The agrarian socialists who adopted the label did so because the state was the major intermediary between the freeholders and the major property holders. In Russia, for example, the elimination of serfdom came with a debt as the price-tag. The debt collector was the autocracy. No wonder the state issue seemed overwhelming.
Herzen wasn't no anarchist in the modern sense, nor Bakunin, nor Kropotkin, nor the Nihilists... nor American Syndicalists (Who was the leadership of the IWW? Haywood, Flynn, Foster - all became Communists). The Blanquists were not "anarchists" and neither were the Social Revolutionaries - Right, Center, or Left. There was no split between "centrism" and freedom, ever. Lenin was accused of being tinged with "Anarchism" (adventurism, volunteerism, a small conspiratorial group, etc.).
There is no connection between modern "anarchism" and the so-called historical varieties. When people say they are anarchists today, they might as well say they are from Indiana. It has no meaning... except that it is thoroughly anti-Socialist, completely made-up and doesn't even try to be coherent or draw more than two wishy-washy sentences from someone in history.
It is OK to be an Anarchist until one is about 25. It is good for getting one's head knocked by the cops, which has been the foremost way in which real political education has occurred for two centuries. After that, they should be forced to explain their actual "theory" of society... which I guarantee will be shallow and incoherent, even in comparison to California suburban spiritual cults.
Re: What is Value?
RoseVann
08-31-2009, 02:24 PM
Also look up the definition of "anarchy." Anarchy is the absence of heirarchy; ergo no governments, no written laws, no heirarchy.
No wars but class wars. No maps but topo maps.
08-31-2009, 02:24 PM
Also look up the definition of "anarchy." Anarchy is the absence of heirarchy; ergo no governments, no written laws, no heirarchy.
No wars but class wars. No maps but topo maps.