Talk:Free association of producers

Communists and the period of transition

The first line under the "Marxists" heading says:

"The Socialists and Communists Marxists differ from anarchists in claiming that there must be an intermediate stage between the capitalist society and free association."

I don't think this is quite accurate, depending on what we mean by "communists". The various groups of the so-called ultra-left and the milieu of the "communisateurs" (Troploin, Theorie Communiste, Aufheben, Riff-Raff, and so on) don't claim that there is a period of transition or intermediate stage, but rather that proletarian revolution must from its onset lead to immediate communisation, overturning the law of value, wage labor, etc. Immediate in this sense not meaning that communisation is instantaneous, but that it is the content of the revolution from it's very beginning and must continue to spread or else be recuperated back into capitalism.

I don't know if I'll have the time to incorporate this, but who knows.--Spaßmaschine (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, just noticed that you sort of mention the above objection, under the 'literature' heading.--Spaßmaschine (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Communists and the period of transition

I added "generally" over there in the text. Anyway, the following sentence (in the same paragraph) seems to show clearly that there are striking differences between several Marxists. Joaosac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Marx, statism, anarchism

"But there are major differences between the various marxists trends. Karl Marx himself went from a purely statist figure about this transition (eg, expressed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party) to a program that can be called communalist (based on the experience of the Paris Commune, expressed in the book The Civil War in France) that is closer to the anarchist conception of the program than the called Marxism."

This is entirely baseless. Far from being a "purely statist figure" Marx was saying things like this in 1845:

“Thus they [the proletarians] find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State.”

Any talk of the state must make note of the fact that Marx had a different definition of the state from the anarchists. This is discussed on the socialism article in wikipedia.

As far as Marx's latter "communalism", In his 1847 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, for example, Marx says "Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers’ governments, either in the form of local executive committees and councils or through workers’ clubs or committees, so that the bourgeois-democratic governments not only immediately lost the support of the workers but find themselves from the very beginning supervised and threatened by authorities behind which stand the whole mass of the workers." This "communalist" program, then, was not new to Marx. Nor was the idea of smashing the state machinery:

On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:

"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." Zd12 (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "purely statist" and "communalist" is conjecture. There may be a better way to reformulate this? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Marx, statism, anarchism

OpenFuture and Zd12, I agree. I also think it is necessary to reformulate it. Do it yourself, if you wish.

But it is difficult to deny that the Marx of "Manifesto" is explicitely "purely statist" about transition.

Joaosac (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't call itself purely statist, and that means you need to find a reliable source that does call it purely statist to be able to say so in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is the Manifesto. When Marx outlines a set of short-term demands in the section "Proletarians and Communists", it is difficult to deny her statism: the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state.

I agree Marx can not be reduced to only one text, but this text (Manifesto) was her public position in the period.

Joaosac (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the lack of the words "purely statist" in that quote. Then read my last comment again. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So that part of the article that you have deleted can be corrected as follows: "Marx himself is no dogmatic about the transition period. Their position ranged from a more or less statist figure (in the Manifesto of the Communist Party) to the clear statement that the state machinery can not be assumed by the workers, but destroyed (in the text Civil War in France)." Do you agree? Joaosac (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop putting in those horizontal dividers, it's really annoying. You separate your answers by adding one more colon, and hence indenting it more.

Anyway, I think your suggestion is an improvement. But I would like to see a source for the statement. Otherwise somebody can remove it as WP:OR. Wikipedia needs to source everything. :) I wouldn't remove it if you added it like above, but someone else (ie Zd12) might. He doesn't agree, namely. :) So you need to prove your point by finding a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The texts of Marx himself did not serve as a source? If the reference to the Manifesto and the Civil War in France are not reliable sources, What sources are more reliable? Joaosac (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It can not serve as a source for interpretations. That would be WP:OR see? A source for the statment "Marx himself is no dogmatic about the transition period" you need to find a source that says that Marx isn't dogmatic about the transition period. Marx does not say "I'm not dogmatic about the transition period", so he can't serve as a source on that statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then that part of the article can be corrected as follows: "The Marx position about this transition period ranged from a more or less statist figure (here a reference to the source: the Manifesto of the Communist Party) to the clear statement that the state machinery can not be assumed by the workers, but destroyed (here a reference to the source: the text Civil War in France)." This fit the WP:OR. Or not? Joaosac (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't say "more or less statist figure" unless the source says "more or less statist figure" or something similar. But the second part works fine IMO. So if you can expande the "more or less statist" to what marx actually says himself we should be in bizniz. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So: "The Marx position about this transition period ranged from the "the expansion of the means of production owned by the state." (here a reference to the source: the Manifesto of the Communist Party, section "Proletarians and communists") to the clear statement that the state machinery can not be assumed by the workers, but destroyed (here a reference to the source: the text Civil War in France)." Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaosac (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see how that could be critisized. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Stateless communism?

Free association would be the form of society created if private property was abolished in order to individuals freely dispose of the means of production, which would bring about an end to class society, i.e. there would be no more owners neither proletarians, nor state, but only freely associated individuals. - I.e, free association is the relationship between individuals in the society described in Stateless communism. Both this and that article are poor and tend to say somewhat the same thing. Maybe a merge would be in order? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What about individualist and mutualist anarchism

As far as i know these two support Free association, but there is nothing about it in the article!

Scope

The scope of this article is unclear. Is it meant to be a comparison of how various branches of socialism conceive of free association? Is there any in-depth exploration of free association to summarize? Would it not be sufficient to cover this concept within an existing glossary? czar 06:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: No comment right now as to whether this should be merged, just wanted to point out that the previous version of this article was entirely original research, with none of its sources actually verifiably discussing free association. I've rewritten into a starter article and think there should be room for expansion, but if sources don't go further in depth, it might be a candidate for merging. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)