It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Free Association

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:12 AM
A lot of people are confused as to the ultimate goal of the true left (not the pseudo-left of governments).

The ultimate goal of socialists, be they anarchist or communist, is 'free association'. (yes anarchists and communists are socialists, if it has capitalism attached to it it is not anarchism, and communism is ultimately anarchist, the difference is in the methods to get there)

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

The system of free association of producers, voluntary democratic organizations producing for their/our needs.

It is not governments, or state, controlling anything. Even in Marxist socialism the state is a temporary condition, because Marxist socialists desire an intermediary step to overcome the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism, before the state and the monetary system can be dissolved. Once everyone's needs are met, then the state becomes unnecessary, and the natural progression into communism can happen. Without the artificial scarcity of capitalism the monetary system is irrelevant.

Socialism is not government handouts, those are only a condition of capitalism because of the artificial scarcity it creates. For a company to make profit its product has to be scarce in order for it to have value. No one would pay for apples if apple trees were on every street corner (I'm not suggesting we actually do that). Capitalism as an economic system thrives on scarcity, and that includes 'jobs'. (no capitalism is not free-markets, it is the private ownership of the means of production)

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself....

The one strategy open to crisis-ridden capitalism that doesn't risk class antagonism is the creation of artificial scarcity through regimes of intellectual property. Sander explains, however, that the ‘production of innovation' is no replacement for the production of value....

The answer is an idea called “artificial scarcity,” a principle which says that even though we can produce more than enough of something to go around, we shouldn’t. This is nothing new, as it forms the basis for the entire notion of intellectual property- access to information must be controlled, because if anyone can have it for free, how can it ever turn a profit? Or, more simply, infinite supply and finite demand is a great deal for consumers, but not so much for producers.

Artificial scarcity is created in many ways from underproduction, to the modern idea of throwaway products you only use once or twice.

Two concepts that emerged during the mid-twentieth century have shaped the evolution of the global economy— planned obsolescence and throwaway products. Both were seized on enthusiastically in the United States after World War II as a way of promoting economic growth and employment. The faster things wore out and the sooner they could be thrown away, the faster the economy would grow.

It isn't done to create jobs, it is done to create more profit within the artificial economic system of capitalism.

In theory we could produce, for example, a car that could last you a lifetime, but that does not make continuous profit for the private owner. It does mean the financial gains of the working person are continuously being drained as they are fed back to the private owner, as they continue to gain through profits. Working people financially stagnate, and shrink, while the capitalist class continues to grow.

The gap between rich and poor in the UK is wider now than 40 years ago, a government-commissioned report says.

In 1960, the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in the 20 richest countries was 18 times that in the 20 poorest countries, according to the World Bank.1 By 1995 the gap between the richest and poorest nations had more than doubled—to 37 times.2

The gap between rich and poor is widening across most developed economies as skilled workers reap more rewards and top executives and bankers benefit from a global job market, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

The average income of the richest tenth of the population is now about nine times that of the poorest tenth, the Paris- based OECD said Monday in a report. The gap has increased about 10% since the mid 1980s.
Mexico, the U.S., Israel and the U.K. are among the countries with the biggest divide between rich and poor....

Free association of producers (workers) is the only way to satisfy the needs of all of us, and to stop the accumulation of power the state has that allows it to do things such as wage war on behalf of capitalist interests.

edit on 4/2/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Very interesting post,makes one wonder.....all the big whigs would get wiped out from karls rules,now who can set this in motion

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by SarnholeOntarable

Thanx mate, glad you found it interesting. I'm relieved the first reply was positive, I was expecting flames lol.

Yes, I was hoping this would make people stop and think about it all.

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Well months later I will be the second reply and I also concur. I found this post via your reply way down the pages of an Olympics thread.

So tell me. How is it that a thread like this aroused no ire among the ATS ranks.

new topics

top topics

log in