Originally posted by Libertarian
[email protected] 17 2003, 12:04 PM
Your oppinions about the impracticalities of Anarchism are historically inaccurate.
The Paris Commune 1871 was a prime example of Anarchist principles being adopted. The need for a centralised authority was not needed and social and economic matters were dealt with using co-operation and direct democracy with recallable officals given specific responsability.
1936-39 Spain:
"the anarcho syndaclist CNT and the anarchist FAI both had moderate and extreme wings, and tensions naturally developed within each of them, as well as between them, but neither became a vangaurd party intent on imposing, or even introducin, Leninst-style methods of economic organization. As their militias moved across the countrtysideand into towns and villages, the plan was to persuade the local population to tkae over the land and factories and run them for themselves along anarcho-communist lines. Local authority was exercised by commitees, and the details of their methods and systems varied from one are to the next. Anarchist and communist inspired principles led to the pooling of basic food necessitie that were then distrabuted either on rationing basis or, more commonly, by devising a system of allowances for each family according to the size of the household. everyday services like medical care were freely provided, and collectives requiring specific resources and as certain raw materials or equipment made requests through local committee."
This is on example of how things in spain managed to be implemented wihtout the need for a centralised party. Things where done co-operativly with workers. another example is of the 7,000 tram workers in Barcedlona that took over the company "A union appointed commision met with delegates from related workplaces like the electirc power station, repair yards and aministrative offices [to organize the tram system]....there were too tramcars trundling across the city" Sheehan goes onto explain "The entire tramway system was organized and run on a federalist management basis, coorindating with engineers to make other improvements". These tramworkers also co-ordinated the aqusistion of new tools to improve the tram systems .
George Orwell commented when he went to Barcelona
"Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it has been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop workers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even cermonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeard...There were no private motor cars, they had all been commandeered, and all the trams and taxis and much other transport were painted red and black...Above all, there was belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly merged into an era of equality and freedom...In the barbers shops were anarhists notices (the barbers were mostly anarchists) solemly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves"
Move forward 30 years to May 24th 1968 in paris. The deomnstrations and near-revolution was managed using anarchist principles of organization. it was only until the Revolutioanry Communist Youth took over that the momentum of the revolt was undermined and ultimatly failed. The anti-capitalist movement, Seatle and Genoa, were organized using anarchist principles. In seatle the different groups co-oridinated activites with each other, never feeling the need for a central command structure. The domnstrations, theatre, singing, dancing, carnivals, the symbolic attacks on mcdonald etc, child care, where all organized through co-operation. Not through any one political party or central structure.
History demands very clearly, from the Diggers of 1642 to Christiana in Denmark in the present day, that anarchism is a practical system which can be implemented without problems, and work.
Now to try and answer your questions.
It is interesting to see your attacks on Sc4r
Although he may think I am naive dreamer, he has turned out to be nothing more than a reformist fool...oh he will argue that he isnt, and get all offended and macho and start calling you names and telling you how stupid you are, but when you look at his oppinions all he really wants are a few concessions made to improve the workers lives. He has no intention of freeing people from the need of a wage, but merely wants to reward them for their hard work. What difference will this make to their lives? he has no intention of getting rid of capitalism, and infact whishes, by his own admission to preserve it. The mind just boggles! He is so bogged down in some kind of economic rut that he fails to see past the need for micro-economics etc and thinks anything else that comes outside of this economic perspective is simply unrealistic...he fails to grasp that economics is not the be all to our existance. To me, and to many others he is no better than Tony Blair. Sure he has some pretty ideas, but he wants to sell us out, just as they all do...that is why I am attacking him, and so should you! he is a menace to revolutioanry politics.
It is fraught with impracticalities, relying on the universal good will of the people.
It is easier for me to tell you why this is the case after you have told me why you think it is not possible. Why do you hold such a fatalist view on human beings? why do you think that humans do not have the ability to live in a co-operative society.
how would you get workers to effectively manage them selves, when perhaps they do not have the acumen to efficiently do so? Or would you have other workers with such skill do it for them?
Worker class people are not stupid. You and I and sc4r and anyone else who come here have no superiority in existacne. we may have a level of consciousness which is higher than the average workers, but it does not make us superhuman. When workers have trhe same conciousness as me and you, they will be able to manage themselves just as we can now. If a worker did not have the same skills as someone else, then maybe they could do something different, or they could learn. Be tought by another worker. This does not make the skilled worker a manager, just a teacher.
If so surely they need to be managed so that they can work efficiently as a unit rather than individuals
Why do people need to be manged to work efficiently as a unit. Work would have a new meaning. it would have purpose. making bread would be for the whole collective not for someone unknow people in another part of the country. shoes would be made for your friends and family, your comrades, not for some rich people who an spent £300 buying them. People would have meaning to their lives rather than simply going to work everyday and then using the pittiful wages to pay out again in food and electiricty etc...people would want to work, and would not need manages.
This statement also seems a little patronizing. Who are you to say that workers need to be managed...the people who drive trains and make your bread are not children...they are adults, with brains.
A manager would be an authority figure, therefore immediately going against anarchist principals.
I think I have answered this already.
can find many such fundamental errors in the social anarchist ideology.
These are not fundamental flaws for crying out loud, they aren't even minor problems. They are theoretical questions which have practical answers. You need to try better than that.
The only true answer I have seen to all the possible problems is “goodwill” which is a myth in its self. To depend on people being “nice” to each other is a fundamental flaw.
Please elaberate on this?
Of course I expect a full post declaring my ignorance of anarchism and the like, but with out actually answering my points. But if you do leave out the name calling etc, and answer my questions then I will be much obliged.
You must understand that it is very frustrating for people not to understand something you think is as simple as tying your shoes. Some comrades get fed up with it and a resort to attacks. I am not apologising for anyone at all, sometimes those attacks are warrented. however I hope I have tried to answer your questions and am more than willing to try and make any further contributions.
If you wish to read thigs I can give you many web links also book titles.
As for you sc4r, judas, I only hope you are as old as you say you are, because at least you wont be around to poison the struggle for much longer!
You do raise some interesting points, I must admit, it is quite refreshing to see actual answers to hypothetical situations than the usual line of "your an ignorant wanker".
Your oppinions about the impracticalities of Anarchism are historically inaccurate.
The Paris Commune 1871 was a prime example of Anarchist principles being adopted. The need for a centralised authority was not needed and social and economic matters were dealt with using co-operation and direct democracy with recallable officals given specific responsability.
Yes, you have a point, but as Scar pointed out it failed. You said it was due to external reasons, and I sympathise. One of my personal historical hero's is a man called Robert Owen, who implemented one of the few working models of socialism that history has provided. His community also collapsed because of outside influences... but his system, and I add a Utopian system, survived several years, before economic hardship created deliberately by the capitalist class brought it down. Just because you can think of a few historical situations where anarchy worked to a, and I emphasise, limited extent. Does not mean that, the ideology will be sustained over a long period of time.
Although he may think I am naive dreamer, he has turned out to be nothing more than a reformist fool
With respect I am beginning to agree with him, and am finding your attacking attitude rather irritating. I would also implore you to actually look up the term "reformist" before using it to attack another member of the board. As for the rest of that paragraph it was nothing more than a mindless rant designed to alienate and insult Scar, and I will not waste my time on it.
Why do you hold such a fatalist view on human beings? why do you think that humans do not have the ability to live in a co-operative society.
Simply because humans are naturally competitive, and there will always be individuals who will try and cheat and steal to gain an advantage. Which opens a whole new line of problems with anarchy, what do you do with those who commit crimes against the society.
Worker class people are not stupid. You and I and sc4r and anyone else who come here have no superiority in existacne. we may have a level of consciousness which is higher than the average workers, but it does not make us superhuman. When workers have trhe same conciousness as me and you, they will be able to manage themselves just as we can now. If a worker did not have the same skills as someone else, then maybe they could do something different, or they could learn. Be tought by another worker. This does not make the skilled worker a manager, just a teacher.
You are living in a dream land, of course there are people with higher and lower inelegance and organisational skills. For example many dyslexic people would hugely suffer under your system, as they may well have neither the mathematical and analytical capacity to organise their affairs to such an extent. And don’t come out with any bullshit about underestimating dyslexic people, because I am dyslexic. Also there are many, many people who simply are too stupid to do so. These people are team players, who perform well with guidance, not team leaders.
Why do people need to be manged to work efficiently as a unit.
The answer to that is self evident, I really cannot believe you just said that.
it would have purpose. making bread would be for the whole collective not for someone unknow people in another part of the country. shoes would be made for your friends and family, your comrades, not for some rich people who an spent £300 buying them.
That would be the case in practically any socialist society, so what makes anarchy special in that respect?
This statement also seems a little patronizing. Who are you to say that workers need to be managed...the people who drive trains and make your bread are not children...they are adults, with brains.
You can think what you want, it has been proven through out history and in the most mundane situations that teams work more efficiently than individuals, and all teams have leaders, as part of that team. Soccer teams have managers and team captains. Offices, have system managers. Battles have generals etc.
Also you are now being patronising to children, I know many children who could outsmart the typical adult.
These are not fundamental flaws for crying out loud, they aren't even minor problems. They are theoretical questions which have practical answers. You need to try better than that.
You answers, are impractical, and idealistic, as I have shown.
Please elaberate on this?
Its seems highly self explanatory to me. How about you try working it out.
it's historical fact you troll!
He is an established member, you are new, so who is the troll?
You are a traitor to the working class, you are a capitalist and you are a reformist.
You are beginning to convince me you do not even know the meaning of "capitalist", as scar has not mentioned a single capitalist principal...
You are even prepared to use bouregois methods in order to obtain such power, power that some "professional administrators" would wealed over us.
He could not possibly use "Bourgeoisie" methods to obtain power, as the Bourgeoisie is a historically dead sub-class. It has not been in existence arguably for over 100 years. I suggest you read up on your French history between the periods of 1814 and 1914.
You make me sick!
Currently you are making me regret entering this flame fest...