Abolition of the state?

[__ca va?]

What do you think about it? As for myself I'm against abolition. Why do people think that the state is for oppressing them and not to work for them? And if there was no state who would protect the people from eachother ??
Separation of power protects you from the state but it is the state which is there for you to protect you from your fellow people!

Any opinions?

[Subversive Pessimist]

What do you think about it?


Good, as long as the society without the state is one that serves the working class.


And if there was no state who would protect the people from eachother ??



Why do you think that we need a state to protect people from each other?


Separation of power protects you from the state but it is the state which is there for you to protect you from your fellow people!



Why would I need protection from my fellow people?

[God of Imperia]

So you want to be controlled then? A state doesn't protect us from each other, do you think nobody can hurt you right now? There is no need for a state, nobody should have more power than anyone else.

Isn't it much easier if there is no-one to tell you what to do and what not? And I'm not saying that you can go kill anyone you like, this is not the case. Anarchy is not chaos!!! You'll have the freedom to do as you want as long as this doesn't harm anyone else's freedom.

[Bolshevist]

When socialism has eradicated classes, there are no class antagonisms, what would we need the state for?

edit: spelling

[__ca va?]

Why do you think that we need a state to protect people from each other?

Is vendetta better? If everyone could do whatever they wanted to, many would do crimes against the other and this would lead to basically two things: chaos because every individual would play by their own rules, and the emerging of a state because there will always be people who want to grab power for themselves. Yes, a constitutional state is also a form of grabbing the power by some people but the constitutional institutions protect us from being abused.



Isn't it much easier if there is no-one to tell you what to do and what not?

What do you think of here? What could you do in a stateless society that you can't do now?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ca va
Is vendetta better? If everyone could do whatever they wanted to, many would do crimes against the other and this would lead to basically two things: chaos because every individual would play by their own rules, and the emerging of a state because there will always be people who want to grab power for themselves. Yes, a constitutional state is also a form of grabbing the power by some people but the constitutional institutions protect us from being abused.

I think your problem here is that you don't really understand what a state is...it's not a "social contract" to "protect" us from each other.

The state is an organ of class rule...it exists both to settle disputes among the ruling class peacefully and to maintain the power of that class against the more numerous classes of the exploited and oppressed by violence or the threat of violence.

After a proletarian revolution, we first smash the old capitalist state completely. We arrest (and probably execute) its leading personalities; we disperse its "civil service"; we dissolve its armies and police forces; we blow up its prisons; we even get rid of all its symbols of legitimacy.

It's history, period.

After those things are done, then we have a choice to make...perhaps the most critical choice we face.

According to the Leninist paradigm, we should establish a new "proletarian" state...it will look, more or less, just like the old state did. It will have executives, armies, police, prisons, a flag, a constitution, symbols of legitimacy, etc. And it will also own and control the economy of the new society.

OR we could attempt the road to communism...which would mean we simply wouldn't bother with all that old crap.

That doesn't mean that there would be "no order" or even "no authority". What it would mean is that order would be maintained by popular militias and that authority would be localized and directly accountable to popular assemblies.

Such a society would have no centralized state-apparatus at all; there would be no "political center of gravity" to attract the "ambitious" and no levers of power for them to manipulate.

Pretty "utopian", eh? :lol:

It seems that way to most people right now...as wildly unrealistic as the abolition of slavery must have seemed in 1800 to most people.

But times change. :D


...but the constitutional institutions protect us from being abused.

This is naivety on your part. Google "police + brutality" and read up a bit.


What could you do in a stateless society that you can't do now?

Not be afraid of what the state could do to me!

:redstar2000:

>>>I'll edit this response, ca va, by directing you to this thread in the Politics forum...

Pigs Taser Pregnant Bride in Stomach (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30130)

Millions of such stories could be told!

The "constitutional state" does not "protect us" from abuse.

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[cormacobear]

How do you plan on preventing famine, and regional scarcity

[apathy maybe]

The way that states don't prevent famine and regional scarcity in other states. By moving what is needed, where it is needed.

Picture this, you have a federation of communities, these range in size from a few hundred to a million or so cities (though we probably wouldn't need cities that large, what do all those people do?). Each is connected by phone, computer networks or even runners and horse mail. What happens is that if one area has a problem it sends out a distress signal saying what the problem is and what it needs. Then (this is the good part, you play it backwards!) the communities near if they have what is needed send the stuff over, else it comes from further a field. It really is that simple.

[__ca va?]

The state is an organ of class rule...it exists both to settle disputes among the ruling class peacefully and to maintain the power of that class against the more numerous classes of the exploited and oppressed by violence or the threat of violence.

This would only be true if for example a corporation manager's vote would count twice at elections while working alss peoples' only once.
I think you all don't really know what state violence is or simply confuse it with personal violence (Police brutality is prohibited. Of course it exists, but murder also exists and it doesn't have to do anything with the government unless it gets leaglized..)
When do you have to be afraid of the state? When it gathers information on you by spies, when you can't even trust your friends or your collegues at work because any of them could work for the government. When secret police comes for you and take you away and interrogate you for not agreeing with the government, when they torture you to make a false confession on a trial with an already decided judgement. When members of the secret police shoot in the crowd of protesters. In this case, yes you must be afraid of the state. But I don't think this kind of threat of violence exists in America.


After a proletarian revolution, we first smash the old capitalist state completely. We arrest (and probably execute) its leading personalities; we disperse its "civil service"; we dissolve its armies and police forces; we blow up its prisons; we even get rid of all its symbols of legitimacy.

That's a very good way to screw up a sophisticated system which emerged under many centuries. I don't say the system is good (in that case I wouldn't be a socialist) but I think we must change it, not destroy it.



That doesn't mean that there would be "no order" or even "no authority". What it would mean is that order would be maintained by popular militias and that authority would be localized and directly accountable to popular assemblies.

Popular militias?? Would you give weapons in every single people&#39;s hands? The world would turn into a big "reality show" then. <_< Or only give weapons to certain people? You don&#39;t want to do that do you? And who would keep order?


Picture this, you have a federation of communities, these range in size from a few hundred to a million or so cities (though we probably wouldn&#39;t need cities that large, what do all those people do?).

This way it would be enough to have only one community which gets renegade and starts to conquer the nearby ones. It would easily turn into despotism.

[__ca va?]

I&#39;ve read the story about the woman shot in the abdomen twice, it was really horrible. :(
But I think this is exactly what the state has to protect us from. In a despotic state the family simply would have to shut their mouth. This way they can go to court to fight for their rights. What could they do if there was no state? Are you saying that if there was no state there would be no cases like this one? Do you think your "popular militias" would consist only of humanists? Who would question them, who/what would prevent them from doing crimes like this one? I see it this way: they would have the guns, so they would make the rules... <_<

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by __ca [email protected] 27 2004, 03:56 PM

This would only be true if for example a corporation manager&#39;s vote would count twice at elections while working alss peoples&#39; only once.
I think you all don&#39;t really know what state violence is or simply confuse it with personal violence (Police brutality is prohibited. Of course it exists, but murder also exists and it doesn&#39;t have to do anything with the government unless it gets leaglized..)
When do you have to be afraid of the state? When it gathers information on you by spies, when you can&#39;t even trust your friends or your collegues at work because any of them could work for the government. When secret police comes for you and take you away and interrogate you for not agreeing with the government, when they torture you to make a false confession on a trial with an already decided judgement. When members of the secret police shoot in the crowd of protesters. In this case, yes you must be afraid of the state. But I don&#39;t think this kind of threat of violence exists in America.



That&#39;s a very good way to screw up a sophisticated system which emerged under many centuries. I don&#39;t say the system is good (in that case I wouldn&#39;t be a socialist) but I think we must change it, not destroy it.



Popular militias?? Would you give weapons in every single people&#39;s hands? The world would turn into a big "reality show" then. <_< Or only give weapons to certain people? You don&#39;t want to do that do you? And who would keep order?



This way it would be enough to have only one community which gets renegade and starts to conquer the nearby ones. It would easily turn into despotism.

Anarchy for dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

This one is better, you should really read, all of you. (If the link doesn&#39;t work, it&#39;s a pinned topic at the newbie forum.)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ca va
This would only be true if for example a corporation manager&#39;s vote would count twice at elections while working class peoples&#39; only once.

No, it&#39;s true because the corporate managers control the political process; you are not a serious candidate for public office unless you are in their pockets.


Police brutality is prohibited.

Ha&#33; If that were true, then the prisons would be jammed to overflowing with cops.

They&#39;re not.


When do you have to be afraid of the state? When it gathers information on you by spies, when you can&#39;t even trust your friends or your colleagues at work because any of them could work for the government.

The first part of your formula is true now.

The second part is "in the works".


When secret police come for you and take you away and interrogate you for not agreeing with the government, when they torture you to make a false confession on a trial with an already decided judgment.

Already happens.


When members of the secret police shoot in the crowd of protesters.

Also already happens. Right now, they&#39;re still using "rubber bullets" but you should see some of the things they&#39;re working on.


But I don&#39;t think this kind of threat of violence exists in America.

You are simply out of your fucking mind&#33;

Didn&#39;t you read anything about what happened to unarmed, peaceful demonstrators in Miami, in San Francisco, in New York City?

Haven&#39;t you read anything about the Patriot Act?

What country do you live in, anyway???


That&#39;s a very good way to screw up a sophisticated system which emerged under many centuries.

Yes, it is a very "sophisticated" system...which is exactly why it is imperative that we totally destroy it.

It was designed to facilitate exploitation...there&#39;s nothing you can do to "change" that except junk it&#33;


Popular militias?? Would you give weapons in every single people&#39;s hands? The world would turn into a big "reality show" then.

Your views are becoming clearer. You fear the idea of real power in the hands of ordinary people.

I fear the capitalist state; you fear "the mob".


But I think this is exactly what the state has to protect us from.

It doesn&#39;t...what makes you think it ever will?


In a despotic state the family simply would have to shut their mouth. This way they can go to court to fight for their rights.

Often that does happen here...people shrug and just move on. Winning any kind of "legal victory" over the state is a near impossibility unless you yourself are very wealthy and can afford the most expensive lawyers.


Are you saying that if there was no state there would be no cases like this one?

I think they would be quite rare because of popular outrage and the means to express it.


Do you think your "popular militias" would consist only of humanists?

Doesn&#39;t have to be "only" -- just has to be a decisive majority.


I see it this way: they would have the guns, so they would make the rules...

But the rules they would make would be very different than the ones we live under now.

The character of a popular militia is not the same as that of an army or police force...something I expect you to have a hard time imagining.

Along with much else.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

Ha&#33; If that were true, then the prisons would be jammed to overflowing with cops.

They&#39;re not.

Have you read the other part of my sentence? And yes, it is prohibited for the police to abuse people, otherwise there would be none of them in prison, but there are.


QUOTE
When do you have to be afraid of the state? When it gathers information on you by spies, when you can&#39;t even trust your friends or your colleagues at work because any of them could work for the government.


The first part of your formula is true now.

The second part is "in the works".

QUOTE
When secret police come for you and take you away and interrogate you for not agreeing with the government, when they torture you to make a false confession on a trial with an already decided judgment.


Already happens.

QUOTE
When members of the secret police shoot in the crowd of protesters.


Also already happens. Right now, they&#39;re still using "rubber bullets" but you should see some of the things they&#39;re working on.


You are simply out of your fucking mind&#33;

Didn&#39;t you read anything about what happened to unarmed, peaceful demonstrators in Miami, in San Francisco, in New York City?

Haven&#39;t you read anything about the Patriot Act?

What country do you live in, anyway???

So you think the US is a totalitarian dictatorship? This only proves one thing. You&#39;ve never lived in one or met people who lived in one. I live in Hungary and therefor I know many things about real dictature. And there is no need to insult me. If you have good reasons you don&#39;t have to play the tough guy.
In fact no, I haven&#39;t read anything about what happened in these demonstrations, so I would be glad if you gave me a link.
But I&#39;ve read about the patriotic act, and yes, I do think it is against civil rights. But this act can be abolished by another government. Anyway I&#39;ve seen and heard about many US protests against Bush and there was no shooting into the crowd.


Your views are becoming clearer. You fear the idea of real power in the hands of ordinary people.

I fear the capitalist state; you fear "the mob".

You see it well, I do fear this idea. If administration of justice was given into the hands of the crowd who knows how many people would be lynched every day?

I think they would be quite rare because of popular outrage and the means to express it. The means to express it... that&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about.

A society without hierarchy just can&#39;t exist&#33; If these militamen would have the power to judge over the acts of people that would mean they are above them. That sounds like hierarchy, or to be more exact, a state to me.


But the rules they would make would be very different than the ones we live under now.

I like the rules I&#39;m living with. But ok, I don&#39;t live in America. And if things are as bad as you said then why don&#39;t you make a revolution?? Because the government misleads the public? You can&#39;t mislead a person who feels he is oppressed and abused no matter how much you spend on propaganda. 48 years ago, on these days (oct.23-nov.4) we, Hungarians revolted against unambiguos oppression. From what you have said it turns out that conditions in America are the same as here in the 50&#39;s . Or are they?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ca va
I like the rules I&#39;m living with. But ok, I don&#39;t live in America...48 years ago, on these days (Oct.23-Nov.4) we Hungarians revolted against unambiguous oppression.

That clarifies a great deal.

You live in "new Europe" where capitalism still has the appeal of novelty.

The Hungarian insurrection was, I think, primarily a nationalist rising; it was the neo-colonial relationship between Hungary and the USSR that was considered outrageous...especially when a "communist" leader was arbitrarily removed by Khrushchev for insufficient servility.

Since you "like the rules you&#39;re living with", I&#39;m kind of surprised that you&#39;re even interested in the kinds of things we talk about here...shouldn&#39;t you be studying for a business degree?


In fact no, I haven&#39;t read anything about what happened in these demonstrations, so I would be glad if you gave me a link.

Two Indymedia sites that are extremely useful for covering police state outrages in the United States are...

http://sf.indymedia.org/

http://nyc.indymedia.org/

But you might find this site more relevant...

http://indymedia.hu/


If administration of justice was given into the hands of the crowd, who knows how many people would be lynched every day?

I don&#39;t think I would be one of them; do you think you would be "lynched"?

Why?


A society without hierarchy just can&#39;t exist&#33; If these militiamen would have the power to judge over the acts of people that would mean they are above them. That sounds like hierarchy, or to be more exact, a state to me.

The militiamen (and women) are the people...it&#39;s one of the things that most people will do.

It&#39;s not a state.

As to a society without hierarchy "cannot exist", what is the source for your certainty? Do you think, like so many tiresome bourgeois ideologues, that it&#39;s "human nature" to "rule or be ruled"?

It&#39;s a "theory" that&#39;s always fashionable in ruling circles...but the scientific evidence is contradictory at best. Until such time as a firm genetic basis is established for such a theory, the question remains open.

Do you want to be ruled? Or rule others? If the answer to both of those questions is in the negative, then why accept that "choice"?


From what you have said it turns out that conditions in America are the same as here in the 50&#39;s. Or are they?

No, conditions are obviously very different here from those in Hungary in the 50s...or now.

People who live in successful empires tend to strongly identify with that empire&#39;s successes. They may indeed "feel oppressed" but the empire&#39;s triumphs serve as "consolation" for their wretchedness.

When the quest for empire turns sour, people change their minds.

(By the way, Hungary has announced that it is withdrawing its troops from occupied Iraq next summer, I think. They should leave now...being a lackey of U.S. imperialism is hardly much improvement on being a lackey of Russian imperialism -- though the pay is better.)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

You live in "new Europe" where capitalism still has the appeal of novelty.

You say novelty, I say liberty. And it&#39;s not capitalism that we like. It&#39;s democracy. Everyone, or 99% of the people are highly disappointed with capitalism but they surely like domocracy. The only reason why people accept capitalism is because it works and lets them make their own fortune. Of coure these people don&#39;t think of those who&#39;ve been kicked out of their homes and/or jobs in 1989 and so they live on the streets now. But not these poor people are the only ones who speak out for former socialism. Many say crime was almost unknown (but there was surely no mafia activity) and life was safer in the way you never had never had to be afraid of being kicked from your own flat. The standard of living had been rising from 1959 to around the mid 1980&#39;s and civil fredoms had been continuously extended until the very end.
But they don&#39;t want it back because they didn&#39;t have the freedom they have now.


The Hungarian insurrection was, I think, primarily a nationalist rising; it was the neo-colonial relationship between Hungary and the USSR that was considered outrageous...especially when a "communist" leader was arbitrarily removed by Khrushchev for insufficient servility.

Of your 3 statements 1 is correct.

The uprising was not a nationalist one. It was a mixture of liberalism socialism and nationalism. It was liberal because it wanted more freedom and political parties. It was socialist because it didn&#39;t want to change the system, only its dictatoric action. The fact that they wanted the communist (real communist&#33;) prime minister back proves it was socialist along with the fact they never said they wanted capitalism&#33; And it was nationalist because of course they rejected our "vassalization" by the Soviets and that many Hungarian traditional holidays had been abolished.

And this communist leader (Imre Nagy, the former prime minister as I&#39;ve said above) was arbitrarily removed by the Hungarian communist party (Hungarian Workers&#39; Party).



Since you "like the rules you&#39;re living with", I&#39;m kind of surprised that you&#39;re even interested in the kinds of things we talk about here...shouldn&#39;t you be studying for a business degree?

I hope you can now believe that I like the current state but like the former state (I don&#39;t mean the hierarchic state but the state like "state of mind" or in phrases like that, sorry if I&#39;m not clear everywhere;) ) of Hungary too because now we are free but like the former state too because it was better for the welfare. I only want to mix the two, by social democracy.


I don&#39;t think I would be one of them; do you think you would be "lynched"?

I found the word "to lynch" ina dictionary. Sorry if it&#39;s not correct. I do think I might be lynched and I&#39;m quite sure you might be lynched too&#33; In the french revolution 2/3 &#39;s of the people executed had come from the 3rd estate, the same which broke out the revolution&#33;


As to a society without hierarchy "cannot exist", what is the source for your certainty? Do you think, like so many tiresome bourgeois ideologues, that it&#39;s "human nature" to "rule or be ruled"?

I don&#39;t believe in this theory. But in your vision of a society who would make the laws? The people I think. And who would keep the people from breaking them? The militias. And who would keep the militias from breaking the law?
The ony problem with your theory is that power is not separated in it. In a democratic state the supreme court prevents the government from abusing the people and it is the parliament that makes the laws the government would have to keep. But the parliament is elected by the people directly. At least this is the Hungarian version. I don&#39;t really know the American one and what I know from it is rather obscure for me. Oh, and I can tell you, I&#39;m not a member of the &#39;ruling circles&#39;
:D


Do you want to be ruled? Or rule others? If the answer to both of those questions is in the negative, then why accept that "choice"?

No, I want neither. But I&#39;ve already told that if power is separated well, the government can&#39;t just do to you whatever it wants to.


People who live in successful empires tend to strongly identify with that empire&#39;s successes. They may indeed "feel oppressed" but the empire&#39;s triumphs serve as "consolation" for their wretchedness.

When the quest for empire turns sour, people change their minds.

So you say nationalism makes people forget that they are being oppressed. Well, I can agree with you on that one. The same happened in nazi Gemany and soviet Russia. And maybe is happening in the US these days... But Hungary hasn&#39;t had this problem for a long time. We haven&#39;t won a war since 1526&#33; :lol: Well ok, it&#39;s not that funny for our millions of dead soldiers. But Hungarian nationalism does exist, and it is founded on being misfortunate&#33; In fact the opposite of an empire&#39;s foundings. We are almost proud of being misfortunate...:)

I think they should have never sent those troops to Iraq&#33;

[Xvall]

Just commenting on one thing.


That&#39;s a very good way to screw up a sophisticated system which emerged under many centuries. I don&#39;t say the system is good (in that case I wouldn&#39;t be a socialist) but I think we must change it, not destroy it.

I feel that the current building that I am living in was poorly designed. It is inherantly flawed, and if it&#39;s residents do not tear the building down and start anew, it will eventually collapse all on it&#39;s own, harming those who stayed inside.

Now, putting additions on the building isn&#39;t going to help. Remodelling it isn&#39;t going to change the fact that the pipes are leaky and the backbone of the building is begining to crumble. The building must be razed to the ground and rebuild - properly.

[gaf]

To dare
anarchism

Anarchy or disorder.

It is anarchy&#33;

It is anarchy&#33; People of being able, the media use with profusion the anarchy term to indicate economic, political and moral chaos of our company. The use of the word anarchy would tend to make believe that this world is delivered to the hands of diabolic forces which want to reverse the beautiful building that the disciplined people, led by the States, built during centuries. However, in fact well the States divide and control planet. It is well with them that one owes the economic disorder in which we live.

To do better than the States in the fields of chaos and the horror is difficult...

Who can still believe that the capacity is synonymous with organization ? Those which live capacity, doubtless. But not anarchists. Institutionalized chaos, the capacity and slavery made their time. Today, to choose anarchism, it is to show of realism and organisational direction.

Our detractors (of the fascists to the Marxists while passing through the "democrats") regard us as late idealists of a revolution, or worse, like terrorists. There are of them others, also, which claim to defend anarchism, but which recommends a company without rule, morals, freely accepted constraint, in which each one would do only what its navel wants.

Which choice the reasonable citizen will it be able to make between the proposals of authoritative of all kinds which showed their bankruptcy, and those of the nihilists of any hair who claim that tomorrow one will shave gratis, all being solved by the pure and simple suppression of all the institutions installation until our days?

The libertarian thought includes a project of company different from all the models known until now.

Then,
is anarchy, it what?

It is the state of a company, or more exactly, of a social background, without government.

Except the anarchists, all the philosophers, all the moralists, all the sociologists, including the "democratic" theorists and doctrinary "the Socialists", affirm that in the absence of a government, a legislation and a repression which ensures the respect of the law and prevails against the infringements, it can y have only disorder and criminality.

The anarchists affirm them, that anarchy is the highest expression of the order (but without the capacity).

Anarchy and order?

Our idea of the order rests onthe agreement (principle of freedom opposed to the principle ofauthority) and helpsit (principle of co-operation opposed to the principle of competition).

On the contrary, the other proposals of organization of the company - socialism, liberalism, marxismeY - always granted a minority of privileged the right to manage the company in the place of concerned and for their own profit. This mode of management bears a name: the State.

The State is the political expression of the economic mode to which the company is subjected. It allows and justifies oppression and the exploitation of human by the human one: it confiscates with the individual his capacity - in manner hardware in dictatorship by repression, in manner software in democracy by the elections - and puts this capacity at the service of the dominant economic forces (management of social peace, financial support for the companies, legislation organizing the race with the profits, adaptation of the services public [ school, transport... ] to the needs for the competitiveness of the capital...).

The State, with force to be omnipresent, ends up being superimposed on the company, and tries to make believe that apart from him, it could not function. This illusion is all the more pathetic as the State sets up in fact a social group with whole share, cut realities of the individuals and other groups social. It is only used to maintain the order (functions legislative and repressive) with the service of the interests of the dominant classes, whether one name them employers, middle-classes, technocracy or will nomenklatura.

To justify the exploitation and the domination, the State (assisted in that by the religion) is based on a morals law-of-the-jungle degrading and humiliating to it human being. And even, if it sometimes happens to him to condemn the most brutal demonstrations of these "values" of the fight of each one against all, the State never emits basic criticism nor proposes of other models only those pertaining to the past, patriarchal, preserving, hierarchical and caritatif.

The anarchists refuse this model of company, negation of the individual and his human aspirations. They seek by all the means to show that it is possible and desirable to live in a levelling company, managed directly and freely by its various components: individuals, groupings social, economic, cultural, and this within the framework of the libertarian federalism.

The refusal of the authority

The refusal of the authority did not appear with the libertarian theories. It precedes them largely through acts, attitudes of individuals or groupings social. Certain historical events point out it to us: for example revolts of the slaves in ancient Rome, the country jacqueries of the Middle Ages, the rise of the Rebirth, the philosophers of the Lights, the French revolution... More close to us, these theories took part in the release of the Revolution of 1848, of the Commune of Paris, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution or May 68. As many places, of situations, in which the human ones sought to loosen, to even abolish the oppressive vice in which they felt taken with the trap.

By replaçant these events in the historical and social context which gave them birth, one realizes that they aim all the same goal: improvement of the conditions of existence, the levelling division of the richnesses, right to knowledge and the instruction, the search of the wellbeing, in short an aspiration with individual and collective happiness.

These movements of revolt for the majority crushed (the slaves spartakists, peasants of the jacqueries, proletarians of the Commune of Paris), or were recovered with the profit of a new dominating class or a totalitarian party (emergent middle-class under the French revolution, Bolchéviques in the Russian Revolution), or diverted of their goal (monarchs known as "enlightened" of the Century of the Lights). Because, in spite of the embryo of freedom that they contained, they sufficiently strong nor were not structured to reverse the course of the things. They were Utopias in the direction where, they dared to project on the screen of the future, of the images in advance over their time.

Heritages

This philosophical heritage was theorized, then put into practice, to the XIXE century, coinciding in that - and not without reason - with the appearance of nationalism and the state control.

One agrees today to saying that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the "father" of anarchism, the theorist of the system mutualist and the federalism, and the inspirer of the working trade unionism. Its influence on the labour movement was real, withinthe International association of the Workers (HAS) existed current clearly a proudhonien and anti-authoritative.

The Congress of Saint-Imier, in 1872, provides the foundations of anarchism. The brought together delegates proclaim that the destruction of any political power is the first duty of the proletariat [... ] that any organization of a supposedly provisional political power and revolutionist to bring this destruction, can be only one fraud and would be as dangerous for the proletariat as all the governments existing today...

These ideas, defended by Michel Bakounine and theauthoritative ones of the First International one, remain present until our days.

They will be continued and deepened by Louise Michel (in particular at the time of the Commune of Paris and with Canaques at the time of its passage to the bagne), of the strikers of May 1, 1885 (for the eight hours day in Chicago in the United States), of Fernand Pelloutier (founder of the Labour markets), ofÉlisée Reclus (eminent geographer which was among the founders ofthe New University of Brussels in 1884), of Pierre Besnard (theorist and expert of anarcho-syndicalism), of Pierre Kropotkine (who worked out the concept of libertarian Communism), Franscisco Ferrer, of Paul Robin and Sebastien Faure (pioneers of libertarian pedagogy), of Marius Jacob (and the his Na Workers harms), ofErrico Malatesta (for its direction of the action and the organization), of Gustave Landauer (shot by the army rabble in 1919, at the sides of the Working Councils of Bavaria), ofEmma Goldman (anarcha-feminist, expelled of the United States for its action in favour of the birth control), of the sailors of Kronstadt (in favour of a third self-management revolution in Russia in 1921), of Nestor Makhno (federator of the peasants in fight against Bolchéviks in Ukraine in the Twenties), of Sacco and Vanzetti (assassinated on the electric chair for their libertarian ideas), ofÉrich Mühsam (poet and German playwright, died in a concentration camp in 1933), of Buenaventura Durruti (anarcho-trade unionist of legend during the Spanish revolution of 1936), of May Picqueray (militant pacifist untiring), of George Brassens (correct and journalist in the Libertarian World at the end of the Forties), of Louis Lecoin (in hunger strike for the recognition of the conscientious objection), of Léo Ferré (which so often put its talent at the service of the anarchistic organizations), and also, in Belgium, more close to us,Hem Day (auteur/editor prolific in the Fifties and 60) and ofErnestan (which defines the concept of socialism libertarian)... to quote only some of them.

After the second world war, they will re-appear and see the creation of the French-speaking Anarchistic Federation, ofInternational of the Anarchistic Federations in the world; they will impel the rebuilding (in France) of the National Confederation of Work, anarcho-trade unionist, they will blow in the rows of May 68, of the counter-culture, in the combat of the women, the new social and alternative movement...

Anarchy with anarchism

Thus,anarchy is what we foresee (libertarian company);anarchism is the social movement which continues the realization of this ideal.

Anarchism is a ceaseless fight, in the most varied forms, against the prejudices, the obscurantism, conservatism, the authoritative fact.

It is articulated mainly around two types of tasks: ones destructive, the other reconstructives ones. The destructive actions consist in deeply sapping the principle of authority in all its demonstrations, to uncover it, fight all the operations by which it tries to be rehabilitated and to survive itself in another form. The reconstructives actions (or alternatives), sometimes parallel with destructive, aim at putting in place a federalistic operation and of direct management.

For that, one needs an adapted tool, an organization...

Organization

The organization is a function of the degree of conscience, reached by the discussions, the debates, confrontation of ideas, and in the action. The larger this conscience will be and the higher vitality of the organization will be.

To lead to a flexible and strong organization, at the same time conforms to the libertarian spirit, it is necessary to go horizontally from the periphery towards the center, of the unit to the number, the private individual to the collective.

To the Anarchistic Federation, we agree between individuals and groups on a whole of general principles, fundamental designs and practical applications (see the guiding Principles published following pages): it is the federalism which makes it possible each one to remain itself, to withdraw itself from any crushing, to keep its autonomy, to take an active share with the life of the organization, to emit its opinion. Such an organization leaves with each one of its elements the totality of the forces which are clean for him, while by the association of these forces, it reaches itself its maximum of vitality.

To act

The action is not agitation with all goes. It must correspond to a goal (to go in the direction of a libertarian revolution), and be tallied by a strategy of construction of the movement. Sometimes, the social condition is temporarily blocked, sometimes it packs. The organization must adapt to these various phases (in particular to maintain assets in period of fall). In any event, the place of the anarchistic militants is in the social fights, including in those known as reformists (improvement of the conditions of existence, withdrawal of legislations worsening oppression, against precariousness, against the dismissals, for or the defense wage increase of services to the publicY), with our practices antiautoritaires and ofdirect action (control and revocability of the mandatésY), and our overall prospects.

It is confrontation between our ideas and our practices, of the dialogue woven with the other individuals and collectives in rupture, which can emerge or be born gradually the revolutionary conscience.

Proposals

Anarchism, finally, is a whole of proposals and practices tending to the total emancipation of human in company. If the company exists as a sociological entity, the individual exists as much, without hierarchical report/ratio at this company. It is thus the harmony between these two elements, a new synthesis, which the anarchists seek.

The emancipation is of triple natural.

Economic emancipation initially, by the reappropriation of the production equipments, their direct management by the same workers them, and the levelling distribution of the richnesses thus produced.

Political emancipation then, by the replacement of the bureaucracy of State, by a federalistic organization of the sectors of the company, maintaining cohesion, the mutual aid, and preserving autonomy.

Intellectual emancipation, finally, via the assumption of responsibility by the individual of his social role, relegating the religion and any form of tender to the museum of the horrors.

A classless society and without State, organized by and for the women and the men, here are what wants anarchism.

The anarchist is by temperament and refractory definition with all embrigadement which traces with the spirit of the limits and encircles the life. He denies the principle of authority in the social organization. There cannot thus be libertarian catechism.

The anarchistic organization of the company, direct emanation of the will of the individuals and the social groupings, will be able to be carried out only outwards and counters the supervision of all the organizations and structures authoritative established on the economic and social inequality.

The ethical and organic bases of the libertarian federalism are: freedom as bases, the economic and social equality like means, fraternity like goal. This definition marks the deep difference between the libertarian federalism and the "official federalism".

We call of all our forces a company of type the federalistic, founded on the collective or individual possession of the means of production and distribution (excluding any possibility for some of living work of the others), the mutual aid, the abolition of wage-earning and exploitation of human by the human one.

The anarchists do not grant any credit to a simple change of the people who exert the authority: the same causes generate the same effects. All the forms of authority are held. In letting remain only one, it is to support the reappearance of all.

Towards a libertarian company

To manage to found a libertarian company, it is necessary to obtain means in agreement with the finality. Thus Errico Malatesta expresses it : These means are not arbitrary, they necessarily derive from the ends which one proposes and of the circumstances in which one fights. While being mistaken on the choice in the means, one does not achieve the goal considered, but one moves away from there, worms of often opposite realities and which are the consequence natural and necessary methods that one employs.

It is possible to live in a levelling company, managed directly and freely by its various components (individuals, social, economic, cultural groupings...) within the framework of the federalism.

The rules which will make function such a company are based on contracts mutual, levelling, reciprocal, being able to be called into question at any moment. These contracts can be written or tacit.

Mandatements

Such a company cannot obviously function without voluntary mutual aid nor co-operation.

The delegation of responsibility allows to decide at the federal level. But attention, we hear on the words: for the anarchists, each delegate receives a precise mandate. The assembly which elected it exerts a permanent control on her work, and, especially, can revoke it constantly if the work which it carries out does not correspond to its mandate.

Anarchism is a total proposal of company seeking to promote a really different civilization. It opposes the principle of freedom to the principle of authority, the mutual aid with the law of the jungle, the equality with discrimination. And, as Élisée Reclus said it, as a long time as the company will be based on the authority, the anarchists will remain in perpetual state of insurrection.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ca va
You say novelty, I say liberty. And it&#39;s not capitalism that we like. It&#39;s democracy. Everyone, or 99% of the people are highly disappointed with capitalism but they surely like democracy.

No doubt...because they haven&#39;t learned what it really means yet.

And that may take awhile. In America, only about half the population understands that capitalist elections are fake and refuse to vote (and even then they rarely have any idea of why they&#39;re fake).


I only want to mix the two, by social democracy.

Are you unaware that the European and American corporations who have invested or want to invest in Hungary are not going to tolerate that?

Sure, you and others who feel the same could form a "social democratic party" -- say along the same lines as the German SPD from 1919-1933. You could make all kinds of promises to Hungarian voters.

But you would not be permitted to win. Capitalist elections are for sale to the highest bidder and your conservative opposition would outspend you by an enormous ratio. But even if you (somehow&#33;) did win, you would not be permitted to enact your reforms. If you tried to do it "anyway", there would be what&#39;s known as a "capital strike"...huge sums of capital would be abruptly withdrawn from the Hungarian economy, big corporations would shut down and lock out all their workers, even banks would close their doors.

You might even be "embargoed"...vital imports would suddenly be cut off.

Meanwhile, the capitalists would approach the military..."looking for a Pinochet" to "restore order". Or, in the case of Hungary, looking for a "Horthy". And don&#39;t think they wouldn&#39;t find one.

You worry about a workers&#39; militia...but professional military/police bastards are all fascists at heart.

Do not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, et.al., hated social democrats nearly as much as they hated communists...and didn&#39;t mind killing them in large numbers at all.


In the French revolution 2/3rds of the people executed had come from the 3rd estate, the same which broke out the revolution&#33;

So it&#39;s said. But keep in mind that the "third estate" was not a "unity"...it was composed of proto-capitalists, artisans, professional intellectuals, peasants, a primitive working class, etc.

Once the aristocracy had been destroyed (either driven into exile or executed), the class struggle immediately broke out among the "winners". The "terror" was a reflection of that class struggle.

So whether you or I would be "lynched" by an angry "mob" would probably depend on how public our support for the revolution had been from the beginning. If we gave the appearance of "hustlers" who had jumped on the bandwagon to "cash in"...then it might not go well for us.


But in your vision of a society who would make the laws?

What "laws"? In a class society, the "laws" exist to protect the property and privileges of the ruling class from the "mob".

But if there is no ruling class, then what purpose do "laws" serve?

Of course there is behavior that most of us regard as cruel and despicable -- generally violent crimes against persons. But we don&#39;t need a "law code" or a bureaucracy to deal with that sort of thing.

It&#39;s "common sense" and practiced even in pre-literate societies: the violent must be excluded from society, through either exile or execution...the public safety demands it. (Imprisonment is another option of course...but I am opposed to that.)


The only problem with your theory is that power is not separated in it. In a democratic state, the supreme court prevents the government from abusing the people; and it is the parliament that makes the laws the government would have to keep. But the parliament is elected by the people directly.

The "only problem" with this abstraction is that things don&#39;t really work like that.

Note even remotely like that.

Granted, it can "look" like that in the early days...and that appearance may seem quite attractive and plausible. But it won&#39;t take long before you&#39;ll see that "democracy" in Hungary works just like it does here...or in the U.K., France, Germany, etc.

If the government really wants to "abuse the people", the "supreme court" will rule that "it&#39;s ok, just this once". :lol:

The parliament will make laws that protect the rich and rape the poor.

And the government will break its own laws whenever it wishes...and will get away with it.

Finally, the "elections" will be fakes...no matter who you vote for, he&#39;ll turn out to be a lying, corrupt bastard.

This is what really happens in every capitalist "democracy".


But Hungarian nationalism does exist, and it is founded on being misfortunate&#33; In fact the opposite of an empire&#39;s foundings. We are almost proud of being misfortunate...

Perhaps with some justification; I understand that a large part of Hungary was actually incorporated into Romania after World War I...and Hungarians, large numbers of which still live in Romania, are not treated well there.

On the other hand, if I&#39;m not mistaken, I don&#39;t believe Hungary&#39;s current treatment of the Rom ("gypsys") is exactly a "model" of "benevolent nationalism", is it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

And yes, it is prohibited for the police to abuse people, otherwise there would be none of them in prison, but there are.


Here&#39;s a case for you to see, cava, happening in the "democratic" country of "northern" Ireland.

Support Seamus Doherty (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29989)

Free Seamus Doherty (http://lark.phoblacht.net/irpwadoherty.html)

[__ca va?]

No doubt...because they haven&#39;t learned what it really means yet.

And that may take awhile. In America, only about half the population understands that capitalist elections are fake and refuse to vote (and even then they rarely have any idea of why they&#39;re fake).

Well I&#39;m afraid of that too.. :( I think the present state is good but I&#39;m afraid it would change eith time. Like it did in America. It really started well there&#33; First gaining independence (ok this wasn&#39;t an ideal state yet because the blacks had been enslaved) then giving independence to the blacks, and then becoming the &#39;land of the free&#39;. I think America must have been a wonderful place in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s but it has changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now American corporations can go to every country on Earth and America is the only superpower. It seems like such big power can turn even a demosratic counrty into an aggressor. I hope this won&#39;t happen in Hungary, but I don&#39;t really believe in it.


But you would not be permitted to win. Capitalist elections are for sale to the highest bidder and your conservative opposition would outspend you by an enormous ratio. But even if you (somehow&#33;) did win, you would not be permitted to enact your reforms. If you tried to do it "anyway", there would be what&#39;s known as a "capital strike"...huge sums of capital would be abruptly withdrawn from the Hungarian economy, big corporations would shut down and lock out all their workers, even banks would close their doors.

But investors are not stupid. If large corporations just leave the country others would come. Maybe Hungarian corporations would emerge. Our only duty would be to prevent them from donating to parties or party members. But 6-7 million consumers are worth the effort for smaller corporations, even if they wouldn&#39;t have much political power they would make profit and that&#39;s the only thing they care about. I&#39;d offer corporations a deal. They give workers a tolerable salary and good work conditions, and don&#39;t mind the government&#39;s business and the government leaves them alone.


Meanwhile, the capitalists would approach the military..."looking for a Pinochet" to "restore order". Or, in the case of Hungary, looking for a "Horthy". And don&#39;t think they wouldn&#39;t find one.

Ha-ha-ha-ha&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Someone who would try to grab power with the Hungarian army would be a very naive person:D Our army is a joke, a nothing&#33; It consists of over-20-years-old Soviet weapons and machinery and a badly trained infantry. <_<
Prefering the military would be a very unwise decision:)


So it&#39;s said. But keep in mind that the "third estate" was not a "unity"...it was composed of proto-capitalists, artisans, professional intellectuals, peasants, a primitive working class, etc.

And you consider that leftism today isn&#39;t a unity either&#33; There are anarchysts, anarcho-syndicalists, social-democrats, marxist-leninists, hard-liner stalinists, libertarian socialists... Even we 2 seem to disagree on many issues&#33;
So I&#39;m afraid no good would turn out if an all-leftist revolution took power... Elections are good because that way people can decide which one they like the best.



What "laws"? In a class society, the "laws" exist to protect the property and privileges of the ruling class from the "mob".

Laws protect everybody&#33; Even you and me and the poor (but it&#39;s true many rich people can buy the judges...). But the rich have no &#39;privileges&#39; in a present society but money&#33; And we must restrict what they can spend it on.



It&#39;s "common sense" and practiced even in pre-literate societies

This is called natural law. But the problem with natural law is what is considered to be a crime by a person is considered OK by another. For example you seem to accept capital punishment but I don&#39;t.



Granted, it can "look" like that in the early days...and that appearance may seem quite attractive and plausible. But it won&#39;t take long before you&#39;ll see that "democracy" in Hungary works just like it does here

Unfortunately since 1998 Hungarian political palette has become very boring. Right after the fall of "socialism" many parties were formed but since 1998 only 2 of them seem to dominate. Both of them are demagogue and corrupt (though I think one is more corrupt than the other one) One party claims to be leftist the other to be rightist but it&#39;s messy...
Anyway I think the media has a great role in this too. If I had a charismatic figure and led party I could get in the papers or TV news and could get a voting basis. It&#39;s not impossible to make a movement. And a military coup would be overthrown anyway because -like I&#39;ve said- we like democracy&#33; Even libertarians and conservatives would join the opposition to get freedom back&#33; Dictature wouldn&#39;t be tolerated by anyone.


If the government really wants to "abuse the people", the "supreme court" will rule that "it&#39;s ok, just this once"
No, in fact the supreme court does seem to do its duty&#33;


Perhaps with some justification; I understand that a large part of Hungary was actually incorporated into Romania after World War I...and Hungarians, large numbers of which still live in Romania, are not treated well there.

Yes, the &#39;Trianon&#39; catastrophy is the base of right-wing nationalism and of course we simple patriots are sad about it and hate it but I wasn&#39;t only talking about that. I mean it is a tradition for us to be defeated (in wars and in revolutions) but never because of our own faults but because of injust powers. :) It sounds a bit weird but it&#39;s true for most of our revolutions. We&#39;ve had mainly 4 revolutions since 1703 and 3 of them failed. But I think the most important and essential was the one that succeeded and the one most people (Hungarians&#33;) don&#39;t even really know. Instead of the other 3.



On the other hand, if I&#39;m not mistaken, I don&#39;t believe Hungary&#39;s current treatment of the Rom ("gypsys") is exactly a "model" of "benevolent nationalism", is it?

This is very sad and very true. :( In Hungarian slang the word "gypsy" almost means something like "motherf*cker"... It is really sad&#33; Our primary duty should be to emancipate the Romas.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ca va
Like it did in America. It really started well there&#33;

No, it didn&#39;t, actually.

See, you&#39;re probably pretty familiar with the gap between the rhetoric of "socialist Hungary" and what things were really like there.

But you&#39;re reading the rhetoric of American history as if it described reality...and it didn&#39;t.

At all.


I think America must have been a wonderful place in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s...

No...I was here and it was very much like it is now.

Details on request.

It&#39;s unfortunate when people don&#39;t know the history of "their own" country...if only to avoid being fooled again with the same old tricks. It&#39;s understandable when people don&#39;t know the history of other countries -- you&#39;ve already seen that my knowledge of Hungary&#39;s history is very sketchy.

Well, what would I know about Hungary if all I had ever read was the "official versions"...the ones they teach in high school?

The same is true of what you&#39;ve apparently read about America...it could have come right out of a high school textbook.

Almost none of it is true.

Meanwhile, here is a little story about America right now...


MARINE APCs APPEAR AT ANTI-WAR PROTEST IN WESTWOOD

LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM, What were first reported to be tanks and now identified as Marine APCs showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood.

The APCs circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered.

Enraged, some of the people attempted to block the APCs, but police quickly cleared the street.

The people continued to protest the presence of the Marines, but after about ten minutes they drove off. It is still unclear as to why they were deployed to this location.

http://la.indymedia.org/


I&#39;d offer corporations a deal. They give workers a tolerable salary and good work conditions, and don&#39;t mind the government&#39;s business and the government leaves them alone.

But why should they accept such a "deal" when they can do so much better by removing your party from power (with a military coup, if necessary) or better still, keeping your party out of power in the first place?

Or simply corrupting your party while you are struggling to gain power in various election campaigns until by the time you do gain power, all your leaders will be "on the payroll".

That&#39;s "the American way". It works pretty good elsewhere, too.


Elections are good because that way people can decide which one they like the best.

If I&#39;m running a restaurant, you can freely choose which of my dinners to order...from what&#39;s on my menu.

Capitalist elections provide a very short menu indeed -- both Bush and Kerry promised us imperialist war abroad and repression at home. You can see from the outcome that people found it to be "a tough choice". :lol:


Laws protect everybody&#33;

I think it was a French guy that said it: "The impartial majesty of the law forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping in public parks."

No, the law does not "protect everybody".

Not even close.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gaf]

I think it was a French guy that said it: "The impartial majesty of the law forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping in (the same)public parks."


anatole france but i think you forgot(the same) but i have to look in my books

[__ca va?]

I&#39;ve read your quote, it&#39;s so hard to believe&#33; Err... what is an APC anyway?



But why should they accept such a "deal" when they can do so much better by removing your party from power (with a military coup, if necessary) or better still, keeping your party out of power in the first place?

Keeping my party out of power or corrupting all of my leaders would cost much. If they accepted the deal they could do what they want unless they break my rules.


If I&#39;m running a restaurant, you can freely choose which of my dinners to order...from what&#39;s on my menu.

Ok, but in politics you can always make an own &#39;meal&#39; ;)


"The impartial majesty of the law forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping in public parks."

This is true in some cases. But there are many laws that protect workers&#39; rights from their emlpoyers, for example.

[DaCuBaN]

what is an APC anyway?

http://www.rickard.karoo.net/Pictures/Fv432.jpg


Keeping my party out of power or corrupting all of my leaders would cost much. If they accepted the deal they could do what they want unless they break my rules.

As our world stands, money=power. If you were to attempt to deprive some folks of either, you would probably find yourself with weights tied to your legs, sitting on the parapet of a bridge...


there are many laws that protect workers&#39; rights from their emlpoyers

And many, many laws to protect employers from their workers; to respect their ownership of the land; to respect their "contract" with the worker.

The worker is getting fucked here; no amount of reforming will solve this.

[__ca va?]

So that&#39;s an APC. I wouldn&#39;t like to meet one....


money=power

Not exactly. If I were charismatic enough and my party was interesting enough, the media would be full of us. And that&#39;s a good way of getting famous. And if a party becomes famous it can gain voters and that&#39;s what counts.


And many, many laws to protect employers from their workers
That&#39;s what we want to change. It&#39;ll work by reforming, I&#39;m sure. If the people want a change they can do it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not exactly. If I were charismatic enough and my party was interesting enough, the media would be full of us. And that&#39;s a good way of getting famous. And if a party becomes famous it can gain voters and that&#39;s what counts.


And then what? as soon as you implement your policies they will see through your charismatic &#39;mask&#39; (Not that I think being suave and determined will help you much - to get corporations to cooperate with your dema- er, requests, you&#39;ll need plenty of greenbacks.)


That&#39;s what we want to change. It&#39;ll work by reforming, I&#39;m sure. If the people want a change they can do it.

I&#39;m afraid sincere good faith will achieve little.