Anarchism and the trains

[CommieBastard]

I have long held the opinion that we do not change the world by telling everyone how the world should be changed.

To really change the world for the better, we have to change the way we, personally, live our lives.

If our idea for how things can be done better really does work, then it will be emulated by other people.

I think then, IF there is a group within society that is composed of serious leftists (i am kind of specifically talking about anarchists here though...) they should dedicate themselves to trying to make viable alternative organisational structures to those in place.

Take the UK at the moment. The trains sucking fuck. Everyone knows this, everyone hates it. But people know that the trains arents going to be nationalised and improved, because whats the point of making a system that isnt used, better? Well for one, make it better and people might use it...

If any organisation of Anarchists had the resources, they would do best to try and take over the running of a stretch of railway, and use an Anarchist system in order to run it. If it works well, then it will quickly be adopted elsewhere, and maybe in different fields. Without doing SOMETHING like this, the movement will never get off the ground, and the state will never start to die.

Such a system, in my view, would require that any person using the train system could, if they wanted, play a hand in it's organisation. By means of suggestions, and rational, reasoned debate.

I would say this though, no system, not even an Anarchist one, should ever have to respect people who do not give justifications, or work through their reasoning with other people. People who fail to do this have failed to be people. They are equivalent to either a robot, following out a program given them by social conditioning, or an animal, following only what instinct tells them. maybe a mix of the two. They deserve emancipation from the chains holding them, but we should not respect their very chains themselves as a part of the person.

[h&s]

If any organisation of Anarchists had the resources, they would do best to try and take over the running of a stretch of railway, and use an Anarchist system in order to run it.
Slight problem: No government would ever let that happen. Even if you had enough resources to do this against the will of the government, surely you would have the resources to take over workplaces? What would be the point in concentrating on the trains when you could concentrate on a full-blown communist revolution?

[CommieBastard]

Because no government will ever let a full blown communist revolution happen.

Wheras a government won't necesarily know about a small event, which can then snowball out of their control.

What is more, a full blown revolution doesnt demonstrate that a post revolution society will work.

Whereas a small revolutionary movement acting in this way can demonstrate to people that it is in their interests to ignore the government, and instead govern themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
I have long held the opinion that we do not change the world by telling everyone how the world should be changed.

To really change the world for the better, we have to change the way we, personally, live our lives.

There are many ways to "change the world" and all of them "work" in one sense or another.

The difficult part is figuring out ways that get us the changes we actually want...and not just change in the abstract -- which happens anyway.

The American abolitionists, for example, waged a "propaganda war" for three decades prior to the real war -- they told people that slavery was horrible and should be abolished.

In the last years before the civil war, they adopted more militant forms of struggle.

As to the ways we personally live our lives, I think we change that in the process of struggle -- although there's nothing wrong with conscious change there either, if you think it's appropriate. There's a marked tendency for communists and anarchists to live in modest circumstances...even if they could afford to live otherwise. The vulgar consumerism of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys has little appeal to us. Should we have a surplus of resources, we tend to "invest" that surplus in the revolutionary movement.

But then...


I think then, IF there is a group within society that is composed of serious leftists (I am kind of specifically talking about anarchists here though...) they should dedicate themselves to trying to make viable alternative organisational structures to those in place.

There are "alternative economy" anarchists that do that sort of thing.

Most people are unaware of their existence because there are no resources to publicize them. Only other anarchists and their friends "shop" there. Thus, they cannot really "compete" with the mainstream capitalist economy.


If any organisation of Anarchists had the resources, they would do best to try and take over the running of a stretch of railway, and use an Anarchist system in order to run it.

No anarchist groups have the necessary resources to do that, even if it were permitted by the governmental regulatory authorities.

Nor do they possess the technical expertise to run a railroad...only the railroad workers themselves know how to do that. And those workers are not, at this time, anarchists.

So...what's left besides telling the workers that they "ought" to be "in charge" of the railroads?

Telling them how the world "ought to be changed".

:redstar2000:

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

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:29 PM
Because no government will ever let a full blown communist revolution happen.

Wheras a government won't necesarily know about a small event, which can then snowball out of their control.

What is more, a full blown revolution doesnt demonstrate that a post revolution society will work.

Whereas a small revolutionary movement acting in this way can demonstrate to people that it is in their interests to ignore the government, and instead govern themselves.
Anarchists making reforms?? I didn't know you were a reformist CB???

Honestly, I have had tounges of fire aimed at me cause I stood in elections. Apparently reformisim doesn't work.

[CommieBastard]

No anarchist groups have the necessary resources to do that, even if it were permitted by the governmental regulatory authorities.

Nor do they possess the technical expertise to run a railroad...only the railroad workers themselves know how to do that. And those workers are not, at this time, anarchists.

So...what's left besides telling the workers that they "ought" to be "in charge" of the railroads?

Telling them how the world "ought to be changed".

The reason why anarchist groups tend not to have the resources is the frankly disturbing tendency you also noted for communists and anarchists to eschew material wealth. There is nothing wrong with building up resources, and finding the best ways that we can do this. What is wrong is stopping those we know from using those resources.
I build up my material wealth as best I can, and then i share it freely with all those i know (except in certain circumstances, but my personal property philosophy is i think here a side issue, though i will discuss it if you wish).

As for technical expertise. Are humans not capable of learning? If we think it an important project to do something that requires a certain technical expertise, then it is our duty to gain that expertise.


Anarchists making reforms?? I didn't know you were a reformist CB???

Honestly, I have had tounges of fire aimed at me cause I stood in elections. Apparently reformisim doesn't work

My philosophy is a highly individual(ist?) one. I do what I do only because it effects me. My reasons for this are, again i think, a side issue, though i would be willing to explain this if you wish. However, suffice it to say that I believe that it is directly detrimental to me to live in a society as it stands. I have changed my life, and society will either follow me or i will drag it kicking and screaming.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
The reason why anarchist groups tend not to have the resources is the frankly disturbing tendency you also noted for communists and anarchists to eschew material wealth. There is nothing wrong with building up resources, and finding the best ways that we can do this.

I'm afraid there is "something wrong" about that approach.

To accumulate significant resources in capitalist society necessarily requires that you develop the "mind-set" of a capitalist.

The more successful you are at accumulation, the more your original motives fade into history; if you "act like a capitalist" then sooner or later you will become one.

(You could argue that Engels was an exception to this; but my feeling is that he was probably a real "fuck-off" on the job and likely spent most of his time "at work" reading or writing political stuff.)

Even more direct methods of expropriation are not without this danger; between 1908 and 1912 or thereabouts, the Bolsheviks had what amounted to a "bank-robber" faction...and, sure enough, many of them dropped the Bolshevism and concentrated on robbing banks.

Some have seriously suggested that leftists should become professional drug-dealers to accumulate resources for the revolution...but how long would it be before we forgot about the revolution and became just drug-dealers?

It is mathematically possible (in the U.S.) to win sums in excess of $100 million in the largest multi-state lotteries -- but the odds against winning are even higher (1 chance in 160 million).

Speaking personally, I was once part of a group that decided to purchase a printing press; our idea was that we would do a lot of commercial printing and use the profits to subsidize printing our own political stuff.

It didn't work...we didn't have the right "business-like" attitude to get out there and solicit enough commercial jobs. Once the press was paid for, we dropped the commercial work altogether...nobody wanted to do that shit.


Are humans not capable of learning? If we think it an important project to do something that requires a certain technical expertise, then it is our duty to gain that expertise.

I cannot argue with that as a general sentiment; but I am not getting on a train run by beginners.

No matter what their politics might be.

:redstar2000:

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

[CommieBastard]

I'm afraid there is "something wrong" about that approach.

To accumulate significant resources in capitalist society necessarily requires that you develop the "mind-set" of a capitalist.

The more successful you are at accumulation, the more your original motives fade into history; if you "act like a capitalist" then sooner or later you will become one.

(You could argue that Engels was an exception to this; but my feeling is that he was probably a real "fuck-off" on the job and likely spent most of his time "at work" reading or writing political stuff.)

Even more direct methods of expropriation are not without this danger; between 1908 and 1912 or thereabouts, the Bolsheviks had what amounted to a "bank-robber" faction...and, sure enough, many of them dropped the Bolshevism and concentrated on robbing banks.

Some have seriously suggested that leftists should become professional drug-dealers to accumulate resources for the revolution...but how long would it be before we forgot about the revolution and became just drug-dealers?

It is mathematically possible (in the U.S.) to win sums in excess of $100 million in the largest multi-state lotteries -- but the odds against winning are even higher (1 chance in 160 million).

Speaking personally, I was once part of a group that decided to purchase a printing press; our idea was that we would do a lot of commercial printing and use the profits to subsidize printing our own political stuff.

It didn't work...we didn't have the right "business-like" attitude to get out there and solicit enough commercial jobs. Once the press was paid for, we dropped the commercial work altogether...nobody wanted to do that shit.

I think that is making the assumption that we need necesarily use capitalist means to accumulate material wealth.

There are other means, and we don't have to wait for a new society to start using them.

There is the possibility of an alternative economy. It is not going to just happen, and if we do just 'make it happen' the transition period will be extremely uncomfortable. We have to start acting in our day to day lives like we do not live in a capitalist society.

Admittedly, this may seem difficult. At first we will have to still use money to represent the goods that we are accumulating. However, some have suggested that even in a new society there would be some form of 'currency' or 'credit' to represent what each person should have.

Personally, i believe that we should be striving for an entirely moneyless society in which we use our technologies to make sure there is a surplus beyond even what people want (not just need) to ensure that nobody ever goes short of anything. It's not like our technology couldn't do this now, it is just a lack of proper organisation that prevents this.

For the time being though, we must to at least some extent use money.

Where we can avoid doing so, we should.

If we want a box, do not buy one, make one.

If we want something that requires skills we do not have, we should learn the skills, and then make it.

Some things require more than one person to make it. We need to start co operating with other people of our leanings to produce these things for all of ourselves. And make it a closed system. Only those who participate should be able to benefit. If we truly do benefit (which i believe we would) then others will begin participating, and eschewing money.


I am not getting on a train run by beginners.

No matter what their politics might be.

how would you define begginers? everyone is a begginer at some point. At the point that we begin learning. Once we have learnt, we are no longer begginers. Sure you can say that they need real experience. Ofcourse they do, that is part of learning. If we, say, wanted to run a train system, there are ways to gain experience. Such as working for a time with a train company. There are, though, even other means. We can get experience in the related fields. An experienced engineer should be able to apply their knowledge and experience to any field in engineering, whether it be trains or bridge-building/maintenance or anything else.

When trains were first invented, who could have run them except people who were begginers at running trains?

Admittedly, at first there were accidents. But these accidents have allready been made and learnt from. Can we, in our learning, not learn of these accidents, and also attempt to accomodate them?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Commie Bastard
If we want a box, do not buy one, make one.

Boxes are "trash" after one use...it's pretty easy to find one that's been thrown away.


If we want something that requires skills we do not have, we should learn the skills, and then make it.

But neither you nor I would live long enough (especially me) to "learn the skills and then make everything."

Or even most things. Or even a few things. If we manage to learn how to do two or three things with reasonable competence, we become practically "renaissance men" (or women) in the eyes of our contemporaries.

Einstein was a genius at physics, a fair chess-player and violinist, and a duffer at politics.

Your formula suffers from another time-related defect: if I need something, I usually need it now to accomplish an immediate purpose. It's no use telling me that I should take 10 years off to learn how to make it myself...the purpose has long since disappeared.


We need to start co-operating with other people of our leanings to produce these things for all of ourselves.

To what purpose...if simply purchasing the capitalist equivalent is easier and more convenient? And probably even cheaper, all things considered?

Of course, we have no desire to enrich our class enemies unnecessarily. My "new" computer is a factory-reconditioned model...at less than half the cost of a new one. In fact, I hardly ever buy "new stuff".

But telling people to undergo massive inconvenience to secure even the most basic commodities is not, I think, going to win us many supporters.

"You mean to say that I have to grow my own tobacco if I want to be a good anarchist smoker? Piss off!"

In fact, that's probably the principal objection to the "alternative economy" strategy...it simply cannot compete at a reasonable level (outside of certain limited exceptions) with capitalist options.

There is, for example, an anarchist "bicycle collective" in my city who will teach you how to maintain or even build a bike. And I'm sure there are people who go there for that utilitarian purpose instead of spending a lot of cash for a new bike.

But for most people, if they decide to start bike-riding for exercise or urban transportation, will just go to Wal-Mart and purchase one...it's easier that way.


When trains were first invented, who could have run them except people who were beginners at running trains?

And wasn't that an "adventure"?

I'll wave to you from the station platform. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[CommieBastard]

I mentioned how I could elaborate on one of my earlier stated positions, namely the individual(ist?) one. I have done so here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...t=0#entry488598 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=31898&st=0#entry488598)

[CommieBastard]

Boxes are "trash" after one use...it's pretty easy to find one that's been thrown away.

Nothing is trash. Any object which you own fulfills more than it's direct purpose. It also has an aesthetic purpose. You should always be seeking to have all objects around you fulfilling all of their purposes as well as they can. Thus, if you want a box, make your own box, that you think looks good. It's what i do, and to be surrounded by objects stamped with your own personal creativity is a very pleasant thing.


But neither you nor I would live long enough (especially me) to "learn the skills and then make everything."

Or even most things. Or even a few things. If we manage to learn how to do two or three things with reasonable competence, we become practically "renaissance men" (or women) in the eyes of our contemporaries.

Einstein was a genius at physics, a fair chess-player and violinist, and a duffer at politics.

I was not suggesting we make everything. I suggested that we make everything that we reasonably can.

Admittedly I did not make the point clear for those that require skills to be made, and those that require other people.
Those that require skills that we do not have the time to learn are those which i meant to be included within the category of those which require other people. Some people do dedicate themselves to the skills which take a long time to produce functional objects. Where there is a situation that each person dedicates themselves to learning this skill, their produce can provide more than for solely themselves. If they in co-ordination with other people producing those things create a surplus of that thing (surplus being the ultimate aim of any sensible productive project), then it does not matter that each person is only doing one or two of these difficult skills, everyone is provided for for that which they need or want.


Your formula suffers from another time-related defect: if I need something, I usually need it now to accomplish an immediate purpose. It's no use telling me that I should take 10 years off to learn how to make it myself...the purpose has long since disappeared.

I believe the point above answers this, but there is another too. It should be our intent that we identify the objects we need, before it comes to the point that we need them. This is not difficult to do. We have, after all, usually needed something similar in the past. When we need something at some point, and it is not available, someone using a sensible system ensures that they have something of that type present for when they will next need it. Yet, there is also the possibility of using the ability of inference to predict possible future hindrances, and obtaining the objects that deal with them.


To what purpose...if simply purchasing the capitalist equivalent is easier and more convenient? And probably even cheaper, all things considered?

Of course, we have no desire to enrich our class enemies unnecessarily. My "new" computer is a factory-reconditioned model...at less than half the cost of a new one. In fact, I hardly ever buy "new stuff".

But telling people to undergo massive inconvenience to secure even the most basic commodities is not, I think, going to win us many supporters.

"You mean to say that I have to grow my own tobacco if I want to be a good anarchist smoker? Piss off!"

In fact, that's probably the principal objection to the "alternative economy" strategy...it simply cannot compete at a reasonable level (outside of certain limited exceptions) with capitalist options.

There is, for example, an anarchist "bicycle collective" in my city who will teach you how to maintain or even build a bike. And I'm sure there are people who go there for that utilitarian purpose instead of spending a lot of cash for a new bike.

But for most people, if they decide to start bike-riding for exercise or urban transportation, will just go to Wal-Mart and purchase one...it's easier that way.

Capitalist economies are inneficient, have a lot of waste, and do not use their surpluses, even when people might need/want them. Or are you, a communist, actually saying that you think that capitalist economies work better than communist ones?
In which case, I would ask on what grounds you are a communist?

As for the growing your own tobacco, i never suggested this, and thought even in my previous post i had made it clear as to why. I said that "when an object requires more than one person to produce it etc.". Or do you wish to claim that tobacco cultivation (when done properly) does not require more than one person?


And wasn't that an "adventure"?

I'll wave to you from the station platform. :lol:

I have allready made a rebuttal to this point, please reply to this instead of reiterating the point again.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommieBastard
Any object which you own fulfills more than its direct purpose. It also has an aesthetic purpose.

If you say so.


It should be our intent that we identify the objects we need, before it comes to the point that we need them.

Yes, that would be nice too.


Or are you, a communist, actually saying that you think that capitalist economies work better than communist ones?

Yes, I, a communist, am actually saying that capitalist economies "work better" than tiny "alternative islands of anarchism" surrounded by an ocean of capitalism.

By "work better", I mean in this context that what you need is usually available at minimal inconvenience. It may be over-priced. (Buy it used.) It may involve rotten working conditions for someone involved in its production (in which case, you might want to consider a substitute).

But it's usually there when you need it.

That's an empirical observation -- it has nothing to do with my opinions.


In which case, I would ask on what grounds you are a communist?

On the grounds that I wish to be emancipated from wage-slavery.

That's a desire...which I think it is possible to fulfill in a high-tech society -- but I could be wrong.


I have already made a rebuttal to this point, please reply to this instead of reiterating the point again.

That is the reply to your rebuttal; no one with any sense is going to ride in a train operated by beginners.

Your scheme of an "anarchist railroad" is "other-worldly" for a whole series of reasons that I pointed out. It may sound superficially "rational" but it does not reflect any consideration of real world constraints.

I'm beginning to think that you are overly enamored of "pure reason" at the expense of empirical reality.

:redstar2000:

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