National Federation of Labour

[PoliticalNightmare]

This came up when I was reading something by Rudolf Rocker. Do the anarchists amongst our midst believe that a national federation of labour is necessary to join various workers' communes in harmony?

If so wouldn't this essentially resemble a state? Would this federation be directly democratic (with all citizens having a right to management at any given point) or would it be electable (with citizens having right to recall leaders at any given point). Would this not then be anarchism, but rather demarchism but without elections being randomised or even present?

If not, what happens if various communes disagree with each other. E.g. one commune is using traditional, reactionary laws (chop off your hand if you steal, women must cover their face/skin at all times, etc.) and another commune is using far more culturally liberal laws and these two communes clash. What would happen then? Would other communes intervene? How would there be peace?

Cheers.

[PoliticalNightmare]

bump

[PoliticalNightmare]

Bump x 2. Anyone?

[ckaihatsu]

Oooooh! Yeah, I got something here -- let's go ahead and *do* it, and then cycle through the last 500 years of societal development all over again, just for the fuck of it...! Yeah!!

[PoliticalNightmare]

Oooooh! Yeah, I got something here -- let's go ahead and *do* it, and then cycle through the last 500 years of societal development all over again, just for the fuck of it...! Yeah!!

:confused: I'm confused. :(

National federation of labour to bind communes together - yay or nay?

[ckaihatsu]

:confused: I'm confused. :(

National federation of labour to bind communes together - yay or nay?


Sorry 'bout that -- allow me to make that more explicit:


[biting sarcasm]

Oooooh! Yeah, I got something here -- let's go ahead and *do* it, and then cycle through the last 500 years of societal development all over again, just for the fuck of it...! Yeah!!

[/biting sarcasm]


Also....





[...]

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

[...]

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

[...]

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg

[Thirsty Crow]

There are certain premises which need to be stated, IMO, before any consideration on this subject takes place. These premises would be:

1) Socialism necessitates a global revolution; it is a global system

2) This global system should have, as its basis, material abundance, i.e. it should be maintained within a post-scarcity economic situation (this is the material goal of the revolution - to create the conditions for a post-scarcity economic situation)

3) autarky is historically transcended; following from 1), a set of principles for "exchange" should be created since material conditions needed for an establishment of socialist societies necessitate some sort of an exchange of materials and products

What follows from these principles is that it is indeed necessary to undertake an economic integration. At least on the national level, but I would argue for an international, preferably continental economic integration (which could also lead to an intercontinental, i.e. global, integration).
Would that resemble a state? I don't know, but I do think that there ought to be a delegation of responsibilities of sorts, but does not necessarily clash with the democratic principle upon which proletarian democracy rests. Especially during the period of transition there will be tough decisions made, decisions which do not grant people the possibility to take as much time as they need to think and reach an informed decision. But the underlying principle remains - proletarian democracy must tend to include as many proletarians (and other oppressed groups) in the decision making process, in one way or the other.

Now, in what relation would such an integration stand with cultural and social norms (the example with punishment laws)...There is no easy solution, and I think that the best we can conclude right now is that the communities themselves, organized on the bases of their own choosing, should also themselves decide in these matters. But why would people wish to enforce such strict laws in a "commune" where there is, more or less, open access to products and the means or production? Moreover, if such a situation happened, why would the neighbouring commune wish to forcefully impose their opinion on their neighbours? A commune may be ostracized itself, and there is a good probability that the strict commune will face considerable migration.

[ckaihatsu]

3) autarky is historically transcended; following from 1), a set of principles for "exchange" should be created since material conditions needed for an establishment of socialist societies necessitate some sort of an exchange of materials and products


"Exchange" of all kinds would be historically transcended as well, just as contemporary practices of material accounting *within* corporations have transcended exchange. The argument for a localized-based, highly lateral 'commune' configuration of political entities for a post-capitalist societal makeup is a *backward* step and should give way to whatever default body of organization successfully overthrows the rule of capital worldwide.





Now, in what relation would such an integration stand with cultural and social norms (the example with punishment laws)...There is no easy solution, and I think that the best we can conclude right now is that the communities themselves, organized on the bases of their own choosing, should also themselves decide in these matters. But why would people wish to enforce such strict laws in a "commune" where there is, more or less, open access to products and the means or production? Moreover, if such a situation happened, why would the neighbouring commune wish to forcefully impose their opinion on their neighbours? A commune may be ostracized itself, and there is a good probability that the strict commune will face considerable migration.




But why would people wish to enforce such strict laws in a "commune" where there is, more or less, open access to products and the means or production?


You're sidestepping the issue of a post-capitalist *politics* here -- politics (a "commune") is *related to*, but *different from* 'economics' ("open access to products and the means [of] production").

As revolutionaries we *have* to address social policy, which is a distinctly separate issue from the collective workers' control of the means of mass production, in whatever configuration. To put it starkly for the sake of illustration, how would the use of force for imprisonment, maiming, or death be used in such a society -- or, obversely, what kind of societal norms might *obviate* the use of such force?

I don't usually consider these issues to be *pressing* ones since I think a revolutionary society's *economics* alone would eliminate the objective basis for almost all antisocial behavior, but since the tools of physical force exist as surely as does the means of mass industrial production, it's worth going over these topics, if only for the sake of emphasizing a revolutionary politics.

[revolution inaction]

This came up when I was reading something by Rudolf Rocker. Do the anarchists amongst our midst believe that a national federation of labour is necessary to join various workers' communes in harmony?

without reading what you are reading i cant tell, but "national federation of labour" could be referring to anarcho syndicalist unions and not post revolutionary society.
Anarchist communists like me think that after the revolution people would organise things though councils in there communities and workplaces, and these would be federated on regionally and world wide levels (nations would not exist so it makes no sense to talk of them in a post revolutionary society), this may have been what rocker was talking about if he was talking about post revolutionary society.




If so wouldn't this essentially resemble a state?

not unless you define state as any form of organisation whatsoever




Would this federation be directly democratic (with all citizens having a right to management at any given point) or would it be electable (with citizens having right to recall leaders at any given point). Would this not then be anarchism, but rather demarchism but without elections being randomised or even present?

I don't know what demarchism is, but the idea of an directly democratic federation has been a part of pretty much from the start.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(with all citizens having a right to management at any given point)"




If not, what happens if various communes disagree with each other. E.g. one commune is using traditional, reactionary laws (chop off your hand if you steal, women must cover their face/skin at all times, etc.) and another commune is using far more culturally liberal laws and these two communes clash. What would happen then? Would other communes intervene? How would there be peace?

Cheers.
how could revolution happen if people didn't develop revolutionary ideas? such a system could only come into being if the overwhelming majority of the population was revolutionary. I'm sure if a group of reactionaries tried to form a community which would impose reactionary laws on people then people from other communities would intervene


you should probably read this http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html

[PoliticalNightmare]

without reading what you are reading i cant tell, but "national federation of labour" could be referring to anarcho syndicalist unions and not post revolutionary society.

I will deal with the other responses eventually but first of all, this is where I got the quote: (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm)


The organisation of Anarcho-Syndicalism is based upon the principles of Federalism, on free combination from below upward, putting the right of self-determination of every union above everything else and recognising only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and common conviction. Their organisation is accordingly constructed on the following basis: The workers in each locality join the unions of their respective trades. The trade unions of a city or a rural district combine in Labor Chambers which constitute the centres for local propaganda and education, and weld the workers together as producers to prevent the rise of any narrow-minded factional spirit. In times of local labour troubles they arrange for the united co-operation of the whole body of locally organised labour. All the Labour Chambers are grouped according to districts and regions to form the National Federation of Labor Chambers, which maintains the permanent connection among the local bodies, arranges free adjustment of the productive labour of the members of the various organisations on; co-operative lines, provides for the necessary co-ordination in the work of education and supports the local groups with council and guidance.

[PoliticalNightmare]

not unless you define state as any form of organisation whatsoever

No, but I would define a state as a third body, external to society which controls it. If the organisation is nationalised and democratic then it is the rule of a majority over the minority (the individual communes may not desire to be bound by a state). I subscribe my ideas to the idea of free association rather than direct democracy because people may live by their own rules: they may join the commune they desire the most or whatever.


you should probably read this http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html

Thank you, I have been reading the FAQ along with other things.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg

Very interesting. Is there any chance you have something similar for right wing ideologies and any other ideologies? Also what is meant by "the scale of abstraction". Thanks - this is very useful.

[revolution inaction]

I will deal with the other responses eventually but first of all, this is where I got the quote: (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm)

he seems to be talking about an anarcho-syndicalist union to me


No, but I would define a state as a third body, external to society which controls it.

I don't see how the described form of organisation would be a state then, it is clearly not seperate from the rest of society
I would consider a state to be a some thing like a set of hiaracical organisations that facilitate the rule of the ruling class over the majority.



If the organisation is nationalised and democratic then it is the rule of a majority over the minority (the individual communes may not desire to be bound by a state).

I don't see how it is a state, he is talking about a union and there is nothing to indicate that membership would be compulsory.
If your talking about what I said then again it is not a state and membership would be voluntary, although clearly hostile/behaviour harmful to others would not be tolerated.



I subscribe my ideas to the idea of free association rather than direct democracy because people may live by their own rules: they may join the commune they desire the most or whatever.

i see no contradiction between free association and direct democracy, it seems to me that they naturally go together

[PoliticalNightmare]

i see no contradiction between free association and direct democracy, it seems to me that they naturally go together

Hmm...well I was thinking of direct democracy as being a state where every citizen has equal political power (they all get a say in governing the country - everyone gets to be a politician) and free association as being directly democratic communes that are not forcefully bound together by a state (this was how I perceived the term "national federation of labour" - perhaps it was the word "national"). Perhaps my definitions are muddled up but to me, the word "democracy" is a rule of the majority over the minority.

If they have to be bound together by an organisation, then to me this organisation is essentially a state. However I can see problems with them not being bound together by an organisation, namely with communes that disagree going to war with one another, I don't know.