Libertarian Socialism/Syndicalism

[BakuninFan]

I believe we need a revolution (prefferably non-violent) in which we could spread not only the wealth but the people by organizing into groups and unions that are totally communal, with no buisness and little to no government. From that point, we could have a multitude of totally democratic, non-authortarian, small-scale socialist unions that would be integrated into a vast trade nework of "gift economics". If someone dissagrees, they'd only be hurting themselves due to the fact everything that they consume or use will be produced in part by them, creating a no-faults situation in which both government and corporate corruption are rendered useless.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This was kinda the idea behind the Russian Soviets. They were organized to be worker's unions of a sort where decisions were to be made democratically by the members of the particular Soviet. Different Soviets were created for different regions and industries to represent different interests. And yes, revolution is necessary although even we like to save the violence as a last resort. If the Capitalists chose to cooperate with us(which they won't) then violence wouldn't be needed.

[Verix]

the rich will defend there status to the end using violence, even when a revolution does succede the upper classe / old goverment people ussally will flee rather then accept the change and work for the better of all

[BakuninFan]

This was kinda the idea behind the Russian Soviets. They were organized to be worker's unions of a sort where decisions were to be made democratically by the members of the particular Soviet. Different Soviets were created for different regions and industries to represent different interests. And yes, revolution is necessary although even we like to save the violence as a last resort. If the Capitalists chose to cooperate with us(which they won't) then violence wouldn't be needed.
No, im thinking more anarchist. Total direct democracy amongst the members of the commune, no representative soviets. Essentially that would make a nation of self governing, democratic collectives trading with each other.

[Dimentio]

I believe we need a revolution (prefferably non-violent) in which we could spread not only the wealth but the people by organizing into groups and unions that are totally communal, with no buisness and little to no government. From that point, we could have a multitude of totally democratic, non-authortarian, small-scale socialist unions that would be integrated into a vast trade nework of "gift economics". If someone dissagrees, they'd only be hurting themselves due to the fact everything that they consume or use will be produced in part by them, creating a no-faults situation in which both government and corporate corruption are rendered useless.

I think we need to define what we mean with a "revolution". Some people seem to believe that a revolution only is about a crowd storming and burning the seat of government, while others think that all sorts of profound political change corresponds to revolution. I'm in a middle ground.

I think that it is necessary for the working class to get control over base areas, and establish vast cooperatives of different kinds interacting between each-other. It will be good in itself because it will increase the autonomy of the working class. But it will also become a mean to establish a higher level of organisation.

Ciao.

[Nwoye]

No, im thinking more anarchist. Total direct democracy amongst the members of the commune, no representative soviets. Essentially that would make a nation of self governing, democratic collectives trading with each other.
If there was backlash against the revolution and against these collectives from reactionary capitalist forces, would you defend your communities with force?

also, if capitalists refused to give up their land or property, would you take it from them?

[BakuninFan]

If there was backlash against the revolution and against these collectives from reactionary capitalist forces, would you defend your communities with force?

also, if capitalists refused to give up their land or property, would you take it from them?

any hopes of a backlash would be rendered useless, because by failing to participate in the system would essentially hurt you, the idividual, the most because you are producing for youself as much as you would be producing for others. Thus, failure to cooperate would mean you die, and the collective moves onward.

And about revolution, i had more of drastic political and philosophical changes rather than peasantry burning down the Pentagon or something like that.

[Dimentio]

any hopes of a backlash would be rendered useless, because by failing to participate in the system would essentially hurt you, the idividual, the most because you are producing for youself as much as you would be producing for others. Thus, failure to cooperate would mean you die, and the collective moves onward.

And about revolution, i had more of drastic political and philosophical changes rather than peasantry burning down the Pentagon or something like that.

I think that he referred about the revolution rather than the post-revolutionary society.

[Pogue]

I think we need to define what we mean with a "revolution". Some people seem to believe that a revolution only is about a crowd storming and burning the seat of government, while others think that all sorts of profound political change corresponds to revolution. I'm in a middle ground.

I think that it is necessary for the working class to get control over base areas, and establish vast cooperatives of different kinds interacting between each-other. It will be good in itself because it will increase the autonomy of the working class. But it will also become a mean to establish a higher level of organisation.

Ciao.

Well as an anarchist I believe the revolution is everything form the moment the class begins to concioussly fight against the state and capitalism in a revolutionary basis. There will be no clear 'beginning' or 'end'. I suppose it'd be the moment a period of heightened struggles turned into a situation where the state was openly moving against the workers movement, and would continue to go on until we could honestly say our society was entirely classless and stateless and focused on the public/common/collective ownership of the means of production.

So for me a revolution is from the moment our movement begins to clearly be opposed to the ruling class rather than being reformist, its still a revolution when we're setting up workers councils, community groups, its still a revolution when the state and capitalism is being annhilated, i.e. the army has defected or dissolved, the 'Government' is in exile or dead, its still a revolution when the workers/community councils begin to run the country, still a revolution for years, even centuries, as we're eliminating poverty, heirachy, fighting against social contradictions and fear. Its a revolution for possibly hundreds of years, and it will be characterised by the way we organise, the attitudes of people, and it will continue until we could honestly say we now have communism, and even then it will progress because communism will be an infinetly progressive, revolutionary society. So for me as an anarchist, what I advocate is this revolutionary situation organised on libertarian lines which will build towards libertarian communism. As such, the 'transitionary period' is the revolution, they are not seperate, and we have not stopped fighting our revolution until we live in a classless stateless society.

An example would be how the anarchists in Spain did not establish communism, but they created a revolutionary society organised along libertarian communist lines which was moving towards communism.

[Dimentio]

Well as an anarchist I believe the revolution is everything form the moment the class begins to concioussly fight against the state and capitalism in a revolutionary basis. There will be no clear 'beginning' or 'end'. I suppose it'd be the moment a period of heightened struggles turned into a situation where the state was openly moving against the workers movement, and would continue to go on until we could honestly say our society was entirely classless and stateless and focused on the public/common/collective ownership of the means of production.

So for me a revolution is from the moment our movement begins to clearly be opposed to the ruling class rather than being reformist, its still a revolution when we're setting up workers councils, community groups, its still a revolution when the state and capitalism is being annhilated, i.e. the army has defected or dissolved, the 'Government' is in exile or dead, its still a revolution when the workers/community councils begin to run the country, still a revolution for years, even centuries, as we're eliminating poverty, heirachy, fighting against social contradictions and fear. Its a revolution for possibly hundreds of years, and it will be characterised by the way we organise, the attitudes of people, and it will continue until we could honestly say we now have communism, and even then it will progress because communism will be an infinetly progressive, revolutionary society. So for me as an anarchist, what I advocate is this revolutionary situation organised on libertarian lines which will build towards libertarian communism. As such, the 'transitionary period' is the revolution, they are not seperate, and we have not stopped fighting our revolution until we live in a classless stateless society.

An example would be how the anarchists in Spain did not establish communism, but they created a revolutionary society organised along libertarian communist lines which was moving towards communism.

I am in basic agreement there. A revolutionary transition is a part of a more long-winded transition phase which could go on for decades, perhaps even a century. But I think the originator of this thread was talking about an already established society, while the person criticising him was talking about your more revolutionary phase.

[Nwoye]

any hopes of a backlash would be rendered useless, because by failing to participate in the system would essentially hurt you, the idividual, the most because you are producing for youself as much as you would be producing for others. Thus, failure to cooperate would mean you die, and the collective moves onward.

And about revolution, i had more of drastic political and philosophical changes rather than peasantry burning down the Pentagon or something like that.
what i meant was reactionary forces fighting against the revolution. for example, during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, the White Army (anti-bolsheviks, monarchists, republicans, liberals, etc) fought against the Bolsheviks in opposition of the new government. So what if after setting up your libertarian socialist communities, people fight against you? I mean surely modern states would have a vested interest in squelching the revolution, so they would obviously do whatever they could to acheive this end. So how will you defend yourselves from the inevitable counter revolution?

Also, there will inevitably be dissenters, (those damn kulaks), who are a part of your society and yet oppose the revolution. If they tried to obstruct it in any way (protecting private property, stealing, going against laws or regulations), then how would you deal with them?

[BakuninFan]

what i meant was reactionary forces fighting against the revolution. for example, during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, the White Army (anti-bolsheviks, monarchists, republicans, liberals, etc) fought against the Bolsheviks in opposition of the new government. So what if after setting up your libertarian socialist communities, people fight against you? I mean surely modern states would have a vested interest in squelching the revolution, so they would obviously do whatever they could to acheive this end. So how will you defend yourselves from the inevitable counter revolution?

Also, there will inevitably be dissenters, (those damn kulaks), who are a part of your society and yet oppose the revolution. If they tried to obstruct it in any way (protecting private property, stealing, going against laws or regulations), then how would you deal with them?
I wont be a problem. Dissent of the system means less productivity for THEMSELVES, just as much as anyone else. Thus, dissenters would only really be hurting themselves

[Nwoye]

I wont be a problem. Dissent of the system means less productivity for THEMSELVES, just as much as anyone else. Thus, dissenters would only really be hurting themselves
it seems that you are completely oblivious to the concept of a counter revolution.

[BakuninFan]

No, not at all. Society would be downgraded to a point where their may be technology and factories, while there would be no real inherent system to rebel against, because the system, in itself, is a rebellion.