The Anarchist Paradigm for Transition

[The Feral Underclass]

I have noticed in several threads an apprehension towards anarchism based on the fact that no transitional phase has been clearly outlined.

Actually, funnily enough, collectivism is usually discussed as the transitional phase between a capitalist and anarchist society. In John Griffen's book titled 'A Structured Anarchism' it outlines the collectivist paradigm: "Collectivist anarchism stems from the works of P.J Proudhon and later developments made by Bakunin and Malatesta...collectivists adopt the maxim 'from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her deeds.' In that collectivists wish to relate consumption to work done, there is an attachment of exchange and therefore the market."

Daniel Guerin clarifies Proudhons position by saying: "Every associated individual to have an indivisible share in the property of the company, remuneration to be proportionate to the nature of the position held." Bakunin went further: "The associations of productive workers were to be freely allied within the communes, and the communes in their turn freely allied among themselves." This is what happened in Spain, and it is believed that this would then develop into a gift economy. i.e. communism.

Further to that James Guillaume wrote a pamphlet called 'Ideas on Social Organization' where he "...discusses the transition from capitalism to anarchism — a synthesis of “Bakuninist” ideas on how this transition could be effected without the restoration of authoritarian institutions.”

'Ideas on Social Organisation' (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm)

[Severian]

I see. Sounds kinda Yugoslavia-style: without any central authority, it seems likely the collectives would relate to each other on a market basis, seeking to maximize profit for themselves and their members. That has its own problems...but anyway.

Also seems parallel to what Marxists usually call socialism or what Marx called "the first phase of communism". So it answers part of the question.

But it doesn't answer what anarchists see in place of the phase Marx called...the dictatorship of the proletariat. Or if this is the first phase you envision, how the transition from capitalism to collectivism could happen.

[NovelGentry]

Also seems parallel to what Marxists usually call socialism or what Marx called "the first phase of communism". So it answers part of the question.

Indeed, I see this quite in line with the economic organization of Marxism -- although the "market" idea is a bit strange. There should be no subjective value to labor and no "price" per se, only the value which is intrinsic in the cost of production, that is the labor power expressed at the time it takes to make this labor, should be utilized in fixing a cost.

Again, I will link to what I believe is one of the greatest papers on the subject, which everyone here should read:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/

-- Of course, as Sevarian has pointed out, it answers only part of the question.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:03 PM
But it doesn't answer what anarchists see in place of the phase Marx called...the dictatorship of the proletariat. Or if this is the first phase you envision, how the transition from capitalism to collectivism could happen.
We are talking about the transition of capitalism to anarchism. This method of organisation is argued as the transitional phase between the two..

[Severian]

Upon reflection, also: this is a partial answer to the economic side of the question.

On the political side, though, anarchists do favor going from the capitalist state directly to no state. That's what anarchism is all about; if you proposed a transition there you wouldn't be an anarchist.

So in that sense it remains true that anarchism denies the need for a transition period.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:19 AM
Upon reflection, also: this is a partial answer to the economic side of the question.

On the political side, though, anarchists do favor going from the capitalist state directly to no state. That's what anarchism is all about; if you proposed a transition there you wouldn't be an anarchist.

So in that sense it remains true that anarchism denies the need for a transition period.
I think your clutching at straws here.

Political and military organisation can be organised any way you chose. Either you chose to use means which will destroy the revolution theoretically, or you dont.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would be interested to have more debate on this. Many people say that anarchist don't have a clear programme for transition, then when one is proposed it is overlooked. Whatever the reason for that, it would be good to see Leninists in particular give their comments.

[NovelGentry]

Well I'm not sure a simple maxim is a clear plan. Granted, the likes of Marx never really set a clear plan in motion, but he did leave us with quite a bit to deem what was proper.

One thing I'm not sure I like is the "renumerated to be proportionate to the nature of the position held."

This is something which is argued against, at least in the later stages of socialism in that paper I linked to. It is something which may be established initially, but really should be abolished as immediately as possible.

So your clear plan doesn't make it very clear what is to come of this renumeration, or even how "from each according to their means; to each according to their deeds." is to transform into "from each according to their ability; to each according to their needs."

If the works of these people do make this clear, please do tell. Even still, I continue to find it utterly hilarious that a "clear plan" and thus something of and indoctrination is presented by a group opposed to even the simplest forms of coercion.

Continuing on that note, Severian is proper in pointing out that no political resolution has been made. You assumed the revolution itself will take back what has been taken, or maybe you won't take it back -- I'm not sure, but upon doing so, how is the use of the old bourgeois property (aside from means of production) handled.

My primary gripe with anarchists will and always will be semantics. You say that the people will decide, and that the people will suppress the bourgeoisie from regaining power -- and this is exactly what I say. But I realize that when the people, more specifically the WORKERS, organize and exact this power, they have created a state. Even if no president or prime minister is present, the state body exists. And much like any other state, these workers are alienated from those who they suppress, the bourgeoisie.

It is still a portion of society which rules over another, rising from society, but placing itself above. Their organization and supression/oppression is still class oppression against their enemy. You seem so quick to denounce the horrors of the state: class oppression, alienation, power over individuals (even if only a very small amount), etc.... but you think by removing the label you remove these horrors, or maybe the task itself which is at hand.

So call it workers democracy (and thus lack of democracy for the bourgeoisie), communal federation, call the people that coordinate and represent these efforts delegates, etc -- call the specifics whatever you want -- but if you can bring yourself to realize it's function (which is indeed class suppression), call it a state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by NovelGentry+Apr 21 2005, 05:39 PM--> (NovelGentry @ Apr 21 2005, 05:39 PM) So your clear plan doesn't make it very clear [/b]
The Guillaume article 'Ideas on Social Organisation' goes into some depth on the subject if you'd taken the time to read it.


Even still, I continue to find it utterly hilarious that a "clear plan" and thus something of and indoctrination is presented by a group opposed to even the simplest forms of coercion.

This is a misrepresentation.

If you look at the material consequences of exploitation and oppression and the numerical illogicality of capitalism it is justified that the mass of those who create profit should have a say over how the society they have created is organised.

In a philosophical sense what is it that human beings desire from their existence? The answer generally is; no one knows. Present society by its very nature stifles creativity, frustrates and depress the great mass of people into submissiveness.

Dream's and aspirations are usually kept inside the mind while they work and pay taxes. The drudgery of day-to-day life is uninspiring and unexciting. Should we really live like this?

From capitalist exploitation to the suppression of existence I would argue that the great mass of people whom this effects is justified in taking control of society. I would go even further and say that it was an act of self-defence.

I don't think it's necessary to "coerce" the bourgeoisie into being workers or anarchists or communists. They simple have to accept the logical conclusion of the workers and oppressed. If they mount a resistance to that, we have the justification to defend ourselves.


Continuing on that note, Severian is proper in pointing out that no political resolution has been made. You assumed the revolution itself will take back what has been taken, or maybe you won't take it back -- I'm not sure

The means of production and property come into control of the workers or of the commune.


Originally posted by Guillaume+--> (Guillaume)Therefore, the government will be uprooted, along with the Church, the army, the courts, the schools, the banks, and all their subservient institutions. At the same time the Revolution has a positive goal, that the workers take possession of all capital and the tools of production.[/b]


[email protected]
Let us begin with the peasants and problems concerning the land. In many countries, particularly in France, the priests and the bourgeoisie try to frighten the peasants by telling them that the Revolution will take their land away from them. This is an outrageous lie concocted by the enemies of the people. The Revolution would take an exactly opposite course: it would take the land from the bourgeoisie, the nobles, and the priests and give it to the landless peasants. If a piece of land belongs to a peasant who cultivates it himself, the Revolution would not touch it. On the contrary, it would guarantee free possession and liquidate all debts arising from the land. This land which once enriched the treasury and was overburdened with taxes and weighed down by mortgages would, like the peasant, be emancipated. No more taxes, no more mortgages; the land becomes free, just like the man!


Guillaume
All houses are property of the commune

The process of organisation is talked about in relative detail in the essay.


but upon doing so, how is the use of the old bourgeois property (aside from means of production) handled.

Sorry, can you clarify this point for me.


Even if no president or prime minister is present, the state body exists.

The free organisation of workers into Industrial and communal collectives or military militia's is not a "state body." A state body is a mechanical and restrictive organisation of tools used to control, suppress, protect and serve a ruling minority.

The very nature of a state creates institutions which are inherently hierarchical in order to protect its perpetuation. It is not a federated collective of people, equal to each other working for a common goal of co-operation and solidarity.


And much like any other state, these workers are alienated from those who they suppress, the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are the ones suppressing; not the other way around. Any act of violence in a revolutionary period is self defence. The workers simply take control of what is justifiably theirs and when those people who wish to maintain suppression and exploitation attempt to subvert the gains made, self defence will be necessary.


It is still a portion of society which rules over another, rising from society, but placing itself above.

No one is placing themselves above or attempting to rule over anyone. The workers are simply taking back what justifiably belongs to them. Their means of subsistence and their lives.


You seem so quick to denounce the horrors of the state: class oppression, alienation, power over individuals (even if only a very small amount), etc.... but you think by removing the label you remove these horrors, or maybe the task itself which is at hand.

Your concept of revolution is misplaced? What is the revolution for? It is not to suppress or alienate or have power over individuals, it is to create a communist society.


you think by removing the label you remove these horrors, or maybe the task itself which is at hand.

No, I simply have a different understanding of what revolution is.


So call it workers democracy (and thus lack of democracy for the bourgeoisie)

The bourgeoisie are free to participate as equals in the running of an anarchist communist society.


f you can bring yourself to realize it's function (which is indeed class suppression), call it a state.

I don't agree that it is "suppression." It's a justified act of logic.

If you lived in a house I had built from my own pocket and sweat and you refused to leave, then forced me to clean it every day, would the act of me taking back my house be suppression?

[NovelGentry]

The Guillaume article 'Ideas on Social Organisation' goes into some depth on the subject if you'd taken the time to read it.

The pamplhet takes much agreement with points I've already argued against in other threads -- even still, saying this goes into "some depth" is outrageous. There is little to no depth other than maintaining trade control (effectively corporations) and communal organization -- this doesn't particularly answer the questions I pose though. I agree with federation, but there is no need for federation to determine control or even free range access to means of production, only to determine and work within the economic practicality involved to "share numbers" and "ensure trade" (trade for lack of a better word) so to speak.

There is absolutely no depth given to the practical nature of how this occurs -- aside from lines like this:

"The statistics of production, coordinated by the statistical bureaus of every corporative federation, will permit the determination in a rational manner of the hours of labor, the cost price of products and their exchange value, and the quantities in which these products should be produced to meet the needs of the consumers."

And BOOOOOOO I say to that. I realize this is maintained for the "transitional phase," but even so, what is this talk of exchange values? Why must one determine in a "rational manner" as opposed to an objective manner? There's a lot of economic talk here that seems to follow along the lines of Faurian economics with their "statistical bureaus."

Even still, the pamphlet doesn't go into depth. My original statement is completely valid as to the nature of this pamphlet and presents much of the vagueness which seems to entrench the anarchists in all aspects of thinking.


This is a misrepresentation.

If you look at the material consequences of exploitation and oppression and the numerical illogicality of capitalism it is justified that the mass of those who create profit should have a say over how the society they have created is organised.

Yes, capitalism does justify that, and I agree with it 100%. But there is also an issue of whether or not this is to become the doctrine, more, there is the issue of what the doctrine proposes, specifically. Most communists have no issue making it very clear that "this is what we propose, this is what society will HAVE to do, if you attack these structures, you will be mowed down" -- even with all our different factions. I agree that there is no way I can determine the outcome of post-revolutionary society to be exactly how I (personally) wish, nor do I believe that to be proper. But what is decided must be held as the determined method by which that society functions and all those who oppose must be suppressed by the total of the working class, EVEN IF THEY ARE AN INDIVIDUAL WORKING CLASS PERSON.

My issue with the anarchists is quite simply that this goes against some of the most fundamental philosophical beliefs. In what you present here, and in the case of the communists this suppression (or oppression) is considered a means to an end... but you refuse to call it this. For all your statistical bureaus how does one ensure that these individual factories form one? How does one ensure that each trade formed by this federation works consistently with the other... no doubt you create an even higher federation of ALL trades.

But what happens if certain factories, or even trades disagree? Whatever the democratic outcome, one must enforce the democratic decision of the people -- or any overwhelming majority will enforce it themselves. If you do NOT enforce this, and simply allow these different functions to break away and "do their own thing" you fall to the ways of the individualists and mutualists.

So for every statement you make about abolishing the state and it's oppression and suppression of people economically and politically, you presume to have the very same function. You just refuse to call it a state. Or maybe you don't have such a function, but if you do not, you again have no way of separating yourself from those that would allow these break-aways.


Dream's and aspirations are usually kept inside the mind while they work and pay taxes. The drudgery of day-to-day life is uninspiring and unexciting. Should we really live like this?

No. I'm not saying we should.


From capitalist exploitation to the suppression of existence I would argue that the great mass of people whom this effects is justified in taking control of society

And again, what of those outside of the mass? What of those factories who won't join the trade in federating when the delegates come? What of those trades who won't join in the total federation and agreement on how to determine production/distribution?

The communists have no problem saying that we will push them into the total -- by force if need be. This doesn't mean it has to be a vanguard with a red army forcing people this way and that... but the proletariat, by enforcing a majority will essentially becomes this "red army"... and those leaders with the respect of the people essentially become that vanguard.


I don't think it's necessary to "coerce" the bourgeoisie into being workers or anarchists or communists.

No, we don't have to convince them of following these political beliefs. But we do have to coerce their compliance with the will of the workers. We have to force them into the role of an every day worker, because they should no longer be able to live off anyone elses labor. We have to make them workers, so while they may not agree to doing such, they WILL BE WORKERS.

They may not agree with the anarchist or communist principles underlying the economic work but they WILL ADHERE TO THEM.


They simple have to accept the logical conclusion of the workers and oppressed.

Yes, and if they do not willfully accept it, they will be made to accept it with the threat of their life -- through the very same force they applied to the proletariat.


If they mount a resistance to that, we have the justification to defend ourselves.

But there are different forms of resistence. Trying to take a factory back by force is an obvious form of resistence that will require us to violently oppose them. Arguing that they will not work and constantly interfering with the interests of the workers in a more passive way will also require force, not necessarily violent, but certainly force you may disagree with.

Anarchists seem to view communism through the Leninist lense -- your issue is not with the force itself, your issue is quite simply that the force came from above, at the decision of a few, rather than at the decision of the many. What I am saying is that the force itself is what determines the state. It is class oppression with the proletariat as the ruling class... unless you agree to let capitalists do their thing, such a force will exists. Just because it's determined by the many rather than the few doesn't mean it's not a force, and it IS a class force, which directly attacks those who refuse to assume the position which all members of society should now play.


The process of organisation is talked about in relative detail in the essay.

If by relative you mean relative to a children's book... yes.


Sorry, can you clarify this point for me.

Who determines what becomes of the mansions? Who determines what becomes of all their cars? There is more that has been taken from the working class than factories and land -- their surplus value is spread amongst the personal items of the bourgeoisie, and these things too must be returned.

Even though I ask, who determines what becomes of them is not the real issue. The fact that somsone other than them is to determine points out the oppressive nature of the new ruling class and their organization has the function of a state, oppressing the non ruling class, who is now the bourgeoisie.


The free organisation of workers into Industrial and communal collectives or military militia's is not a "state body." A state body is a mechanical and restrictive organisation of tools used to control, suppress, protect and serve a ruling minority.

It is mechanical yes... hopefully your industrial and communal federations are mechanical though. It is restrictive... hopefully too your working class is restrictive of the rights of people... that is to say, specifically those who are in opposition to what is going on. It is indeed a tool used to control, suppress, and protect and serve a ruling... and here's where we differ. A single word. You say minority, I say class.

And I will certainly agree... that word does change a lot. Because a class can be a majority class, such as the proletariat will be. But the anarchist argument has never been "who is in power" -- at least no in terms of the state, it has always been that such a power exists. As I have shown here, such a power will HAVE to exist -- just because it exists within the hands of a majority class does not mean it doesn't exist.


The very nature of a state creates institutions which are inherently hierarchical in order to protect its perpetuation. It is not a federated collective of people, equal to each other working for a common goal of co-operation and solidarity.

Why do you assume EVERYONE is going to be working for the common goal of co-operation and solidarity?

Your system is just as hierarchical -- you just refuse to admit it. The workers exact control over the bourgeoisie, essentially saying, if you don't work you die (not necessarily from physical cause, but by whatever such cause).

Then you federate your factories into a trade and create a statistical bureau for each -- this federation exacts control over each individual factory which constitutes it. What happens if one factory decides to jump ship on what you all agree with and wants to maintain a more capitalist nature? i.e. if they want to create a trade market or worse an open market with currency for their products? What does the federation of these factories do? Let them go?

Then you federate these trades into the total productive force. And this unified federation exacts control over each individual trade. It is not feasible for one trade to determine it's production "price" by a different measure than that of other trades.

Such organization may achieve a level of equality. That is, people may all have equal say and equal determination for what is to happen. But it is not "free" by any means. No single factory is free to drop out and attempt to market it's goods... no trade is free to determine it's product's values by different measure either, or else it throws the whole system out of whack.

This hierarchy which maintains economic and political control is very much a state. It's a subtle one... difficult to notice... it doesn't meet in a "state house' and again, there is no figure head of the whole thing (no president or prime minister) but it maintains the same exact function of a state.

As I said before, your gripe is with the function of a state, is it not? Not with who runs it. So realize that it can be run on majority decision, realize it can be decentralized, etc... but realize it maintains that function and thus maintains it's position as a state.


The bourgeoisie are the ones suppressing; not the other way around.

I'm talking about post-revolutionary society. The workers should be suppressing the bourgeoisie.


Any act of violence in a revolutionary period is self defence.

No doubt. I suppose then it comes down to what is the "revolutionary period" -- is the revolutionary period the entire transitional phase? Or is it merely the overthrow itself?


The workers simply take control of what is justifiably theirs and when those people who wish to maintain suppression and exploitation attempt to subvert the gains made, self defence will be necessary.

And if these people are too workers? Say you got a few thousand factories (not much when you look at the total probably in existence) -- all from different trades. These workers favor an open market, where they can produce what they can, buy materials off other factories, buy means off other factories, and have those factories buy things back off them.. but they want no rational determination. They want to be able to set their own price... they want a market and they want it to be open and free (in terms of capitalism). So all these factories talk and decide to "drop out" of the federations and create this market between themselves. They are all various producers and all various consumers and deem it's possible that they form a society of their own, embedded within this other society, and they believe they can function.

What action is taken? The workers fight it, yes? (I sure as hell hope so). But is this not a hierarchy? Do the existing federated laborers not push these organizations back into the federation? Do they not suppress these factory's "wishes and dreams" ?


No one is placing themselves above or attempting to rule over anyone.

But they are. The workers are placed above the bourgeoisie, and they rule over them. Even more, a majority of workers will be placed above, and rule over a minority who wishes to do things differently... this is hierarchical. It is a broad hierarchy, but it is a hierarchy. At it's base is the whole of society (all classes remnant from capitalism and every person). At it's mid-tier is the working class. At it's highest tier is the majority of the working class if not these statistical bureaus.


The workers are simply taking back what justifiably belongs to them. Their means of subsistence and their lives.

I know. You seem to turn this into an argument, almost making it as if I'm opposing workers taking power. I'm not. I'm in much of the same boat as you. I'm just realizing that not everyone thinks the same.

Some quotes, from one of my essays:


The proletariat, in order to succeed in a singular goal of overthrowing capitalism must be willing, at the cost of individual ideals, to fight for that singular goal as a unified revolutionary force. Without revolutionary solidarity the revolution can only exist as a warring body of segregated and alienated groups which would more appropriately resemble civil war than proletariat revolution.


What we as communists must realize from this belief is that the struggle against capitalism cannot be directly equated to the struggle for communism. We must take into account a very Marxist differentiation between the proletariat and the communists; not for the sake of alienating ourselves as a separate class, but for the sake of admitting not every proletarian wants communism, or for that matter understands it.


To ignore these differences, and fail to distinguish between the proletarians and the communists we will enter blindly into post-revolutionary society. This is precisely what some people want and consequently support it through what can only be considered pure idealism. It is this idealism that tells them somehow the proletariat will organize itself, that somehow the unified goal of abolishing capitalism will equate to a unified goal of establishing communism, and even more far-fetched, that everyone will agree with the way in which society does this. While this may be settling for anarchists and even some anarcho-communists, it should not be settling to the fastidious communist.

The problem with the anarchists is they will distort this. They will say "he wants the communist party to take control and rule over the proletariat!!!!" This is not what I propose in the least. It is how you see us though, grabbing for power, and placing that power in the hands of a minority, and establishing that as the state. It is the same distortions Bakunin made against Marx, and it is the continuing distortions which have been made against communists today. And your only response is "We were proven right... look at the USSR!!!" -- But the USSR is not my model, nor is it the model for a fair amount of communists and others who adhere more directly to Marxism.

So what you walk away with is this distortion. But this is not my proposition as to a means of control, it is merely a realization. It is a recognition that we CANNOT above all walk into this like lemmings off cliffs and assume that every worker just wants the same damn thing.

The GCP was a foundation for what I believed to be the needed organization to do this. The Communists do not have to all be Marxist-Leninists, they do not have to be Maoists, Anarchists, etc. They can be a broad range of proletarian organizations who all agree to this final end. The GCP was open to all lefists, both individuals and parties.

By unifying all these different parties and individuals, this new organization becomes representative of those striving for communism... striving for the same end results. What we then find is that all of the sudden, because we have brought all of these people under the same umbrella is that we WOULD have a majority of the proletariat. If we did not, we probably wouldn't get anywhere anyway (in terms of actually overthrowing). So this group then takes on an active role, pushing the whole of the working class towards revolution, after it has already presented it's power and organizational role for a certain period of time.

This is a political syndicalism if you will. The overall plan is obviously a lot more complex and deals with different stages. The point, however, is that anarchists find no real solution to this political solidarity, only economic solidarity. Instead they unify the political and economic aspects, and assume (possibly rightfully so, possibly not) that one resolution solves the other. Instead of developing this side by side, they develop one within the other. And what you are left with is a system where economic suppression is used for political suppression and vice versa. This is a dangerous and unflexible system, far more dangerous than the system I propose where I will gladly admit the proletariat organizses itself as a state.

By tying these two together, you abolish the differentiation between the two forms, and when political suppression is no longer necessary, it's function remains as a remnant of the economic roles.


Your concept of revolution is misplaced? What is the revolution for? It is not to suppress or alienate or have power over individuals, it is to create a communist society.

Yes, but in order to do that you're going to have to suppress, have power over, and thus, alienated and for that matter abolish those who OPPOSE the creation of a communist society. Again, I'm not saying this has to be in the hands of a minority -- quite the contrary. But I don't ignore the fact that it will have to happen.


No, I simply have a different understanding of what revolution is.

A continually idealistic and vague one.


The bourgeoisie are free to participate as equals in the running of an anarchist communist society.

There will be no bourgeoisie come communist society... but I'll assume you meant in the transitional phase, in which case....

Economically I agree. That is to say, they will be folded in as workers, and have every right to have their opinion heard within their respective workplaces as far as function, method, etc... but politically, and thus over the whole spectrum of the economic function, I disagree. Again, this is why I firstly separate the two roles as much as possible, and secondly, will allow such a place for the bourgeoisie in one... but not the other.


I don't agree that it is "suppression." It's a justified act of logic.

If you lived in a house I had built from my own pocket and sweat and you refused to leave, then forced me to clean it every day, would the act of me taking back my house be suppression?

No. But we're not really talking about these acts alone. We're talking about the motives of the class. It is class suppression... it is removing them from the position as the ruling class, and stripping from them all their power over society, and limiting their ability to reestablish any society based on their ideals and motive. That IS class suppression -- it is suppression of their class interests.

[The Feral Underclass]

I will reply to you soon Novel. I have no permenant internet so it is difficult to reply to such indepth threads.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:27 PM
But what is decided must be held as the determined method by which that society functions and all those who oppose must be suppressed by the total of the working class, EVEN IF THEY ARE AN INDIVIDUAL WORKING CLASS PERSON.

And again, what of those outside of the mass? What of those factories who won't join the trade in federating when the delegates come? What of those trades who won't join in the total federation and agreement on how to determine production/distribution?
I'm assuming you have an understanding of whom these people are who want to break away. I'm at a loss to be honest?

Are you referring to workers generally who may have a different idea of how to organise society? A group of intellectuals or capitalists? Who are these people "outside the mass."

Political neurosis if you ask me. Nevertheless, the creation of an equal and free society presumes that people are equal and free to organise themselves how they see fit. Bakunin said in his 'Revolutionary Catechism' that people could create a capitalist community if they freely chose to their exploitation.

Unfortunately if freedom in a society is what you are attempting to achieve you have to accept variables of such a society. However, I find it highly unlikely that members of the working class would want to form a capitalist commune.

It was capitalism they were getting rid of in the first place. A bunch of peaceful capitalists should have the freedom to choose to live in a capitalist commune if they want, but how realistic or logical is that? How would it even work, isolated in such a way?


But what happens if certain factories, or even trades disagree? Whatever the democratic outcome, one must enforce the democratic decision of the people --or any overwhelming majority will enforce it themselves. If you do NOT enforce this, and simply allow these different functions to break away and "do their own thing" you fall to the ways of the individualists and mutualists.

Of course arguments and disagreements will arise, but how realistic is to presume that they will lead to people refusing to co-operate with each other. If we assume that this revolution was anarchist in nature, a reason for its creation would be because people wanted co-operation and solidarity.

It makes no logical sense to then refuse to do what it is you wanted to do. The development of anarchist ideals to the point of revolution would mean that people look at disagreements and arguments in an objective way. Debate should be encouraged, it creates progress, and I think people can remain mature enough to see that, to the point of not having a tantrum.

Unfortunately however, we live in the real world and it is always possible that these disagreements, illogical as they may be, would lead to feuds and entire splits. Of course everyone in the entire world can't like everyone else, but if this voluntary split was to happen; so be it.


No, we don't have to convince them of following these political beliefs. But we do have to coerce their compliance with the will of the workers. We have to force them into the role of an every day worker, because they should no longer be able to live off anyone else’s labour. We have to make them workers, so while they may not agree to doing such, they WILL BE WORKERS.

They may not agree with the anarchist or communist principles underlying the economic work but they WILL ADHERE TO THEM.

There are several issues here, which have to be addressed. The concept of freedom is entirely connected with the concept of suppression and the concept of vengeance is connected with both also. These three concepts determine the answer to your neurosis.

What is freedom? In the context of anarchism it is the self-determination of the individual in the confines of the limits of freedom. An individual is free to be, think, act and do what they choose provided that it does not encourage on the freedom of others.

This concept of freedom does not apply solely to the working class or to a select amount of people whom a leadership or political movement deems worthy. It is not for the righteous minority or the intellectually apt to determine who deserves this freedom and who does not. It extends to humanity as a whole or no one at all.

An anarchist revolution will come about because of the political struggle and activity of the working class. It will culminate after years of fighting into several explosive situations where the working class, the oppressed class, will say that they want to take control of their lives.

The working class have a justified reason to demand these changes. In terms of freedom, they have the "right" to be free from exploitation, political, social and economic oppression.

Simply going onto the streets, into the factories and into the police stations etc is enough. Unfortunately however we will be met by confrontation, and as I have said already it is our justifiable responsibility to defend ourselves...

Anarchism must be a conscious decision by the working class. It must come about because they believe it to be the only way to liberate themselves from capitalism and the state. By making that choice they are committing themselves to a theory and to a plan of action.

Why, after such a revolution, would people suddenly turn around and demand a return to the system they destroyed in the first place? Why would people, after fighting for a society based on solidarity, decide to reject that solidarity? I find it unlikely.

It if were to happen though, what could be done? Nothing is the answer. Freedom means that people can choose what they want to do with their lives. We have a responsibility as political conscious people to form groups and attempt to persuade people to communism, but ultimately it is a choice.


Yes, and if they do not wilfully accept it, they will be made to accept it with the threat of their life -- through the very same force they applied to the proletariat.

You cannot build a society based on peace, co-operation and solidarity if you force people into unhappy lives - That is why we are communists.

It is not necessary to force people to accept what you are telling them. You simply present an alternative and they can choose to be apart of it or they can choose not to be. There is nothing more that can be done.


Arguing that they will not work and constantly interfering with the interests of the workers in a more passive way will also require force, not necessarily violent, but certainly force you may disagree with.

I am sure there will be individuals who will attempt to subvert in a passive role the efforts of the workers, but so what?

The revolution existed in the first place in order for the workers to get to where they are. The influence of a few individuals is not going to change that. I have belief and respect in the determination of revolutionary workers.


What I am saying is that the force itself is what determines the state. It is class oppression with the proletariat as the ruling class... unless you agree to let capitalists do their thing, such a force will exists.

No, what determines the state is the tools and organisation, which exacts that force and the amount of power it takes away from the workers.

You say that we must crush the capitalists at all costs, invariably. I am saying, as an anarchist, that the concept of forcing someone to abide by your belief, simply because they are a capitalist is an absurd concept.

Our task is not to exact revenge, it isn't to force capitalists to do what we tell them. It is to create a communist society. Of course violence is necessary, but necessary in terms of self-defence. If capitalists want to join in the mass of people in their endeavours to create a fair society, then we should welcome them. If they chose to go and live in a hut somewhere and have nothing to do with it, then so be it. If they want to build their own commune, separate from the rest of society, where they grow their own vegetables then so be it.

If however, they attempt to subvert, violently or through development or sedition, the gains made by the workers, then it is our task to defend ourselves, either through force of arms or force of conviction. Having said that, the workers are not children with whom we tug and pull between our ideologies. They are human beings, capable of rational thought, and the choice is ultimately theirs.


Just because it's determined by the many rather than the few doesn't mean it's not a force, and it IS a class force, which directly attacks those who refuse to assume the position which all members of society should now play.

I accept the use of force in defending ourselves. I accept the use of violent tactics at events like the G8 or on anti-fascist actions. Force is necessary in order to defend ourselves and to resist exploitation and oppression. But it is not the purpose of our course.

People who do not want to participate in our society, cannot be forced to do so. It contradicts the reason for the fundamental change we want to create.


If by relative you mean relative to a children's book... yes.

Neurosis is often accompanied with Marxism. I'm sure you people still wouldn't be happy if every last little detail were planned down right to the last person. Unfortunately we cannot go into such detail. Creating a revolutionary society is very much a work in progress, and any plan of transition will always be vague.

I would like to point out that Marx himself never made any coherent plan for pre-revolutionary struggle or post revolutionary society. Lenin on the other hand did have a detailed plan for transition, and look what happened.


Who determines what becomes of the mansions? Who determines what becomes of all their cars? There is more that has been taken from the working class than factories and land -- their surplus value is spread amongst the personal items of the bourgeoisie, and these things too must be returned.

The world is what it is and you're concerned with who's going to get the cars and mansions?


The fact that somsone other than them is to determine points out the oppressive nature of the new ruling class and their organization has the function of a state, oppressing the non ruling class, who is now the bourgeoisie.

Things will be expropriated and divided based on need. It's numerical logicality and it's perfectly justified.


It is restrictive... hopefully too your working class is restrictive of the rights of people

Rights? What rights? The right to exploit? The right to oppress? The right to own profit?


that is to say, specifically those who are in opposition to what is going on.

Those in opposition will have a choice. Either they join in, or they don't. There opposition is irrelevant.


You say minority, I say class.

A minority of people is not the working class.


But the anarchist argument has never been "who is in power" -- at least no in terms of the state, it has always been that such a power exists. As I have shown here, such a power will HAVE to exist -- just because it exists within the hands of a majority class does not mean it doesn't exist.

Earlier you defined a state as being force and said "your issue is not with the force itself, your issue is quite simply that the force came from above"

Anarchists have no problem with workings using "force" or having "power." What we object to is that this force and power is organised into functions that are controlled by a minority of people and serves to control society. This power the workers have is now handed over into the state and is directed by people on their behalf.

The design of a state is so that a small, rather than a large, group of people can direct this power and force. This is what we object to, and this is what a state is.


Why do you assume EVERYONE is going to be working for the common goal of co-operation and solidarity?

Why wouldn't they?


The workers exact control over the bourgeoisie, essentially saying, if you don't work you die (not necessarily from physical cause, but by whatever such cause).

Human beings are not stupid, fragile creatures. Adult humans have the potential to be strong, mature and rational. No one has to die because society has changed, they just have to accept the change. If they don't want to accept it, or they want to have a tantrum and reject equality then they must take responsibility for themselves.

The individual must makes choices and must be responsible for them. I cannot be responsible for your choices, nor you mine. We are justified in changing society and so we should do it. It would make our lives better. The mass of individuals will choose to live in co-operation and solidarity. It's logical. Those who chose something else, do so because they are free to.


This hierarchy which maintains economic and political control is very much a state. It's a subtle one... difficult to notice... it doesn't meet in a "state house' and again, there is no figure head of the whole thing (no president or prime minister) but it maintains the same exact function of a state.

We will just have to disagree on that.


As I said before, your gripe is with the function of a state, is it not? Not with who runs it. So realize that it can be run on majority decision, realize it can be decentralized, etc... but realize it maintains that function and thus maintains its position as a state.

You personally can define it as such, but in reality a state is very specific in its functions and its organisation and should be opposed.


And if these people are too workers? Say you got a few thousand factories (not much when you look at the total probably in existence) -- all from different trades. These workers favor an open market, where they can produce what they can, buy materials off other factories, buy means off other factories, and have those factories buy things back off them.. but they want no rational determination. They want to be able to set their own price... they want a market and they want it to be open and free (in terms of capitalism). So all these factories talk and decide to "drop out" of the federations and create this market between themselves.

Our own task now is, for those who want to maintain a gift economy, to defend ourselves and attempt to argue, propagandise and debate our objectives and our success'.


What action is taken? The workers fight it, yes? (I sure as hell hope so). But is this not a hierarchy? Do the existing federated laborers not push these organizations back into the federation? Do they not suppress these factory's "wishes and dreams" ?

If these factories make a choice to do so, and no one is being exploited or oppressed in the process, what can be done? Nothing. They have freely chosen to co-operate with each other in this way and there is nothing we can do. It is their choice.


The problem with the anarchists is they will distort this. They will say "he wants the communist party to take control and rule over the proletariat!!!!" This is not what I propose in the least.

I think your knowledge of anarchist history is somewhat misplaced. The anarchist communist movement has worked along side libertarian Marxists for years. The autonomists and council communists are of course comrades and it is not that we believe all communists or Marxists want the Leninist paradigm.


It is how you see us though, grabbing for power, and placing that power in the hands of a minority, and establishing that as the state.

No, it is the recognition that a state is nothing more than the organised power in the hands of a minority, taken directly from those it claims to serve.

Anything else is simply semantics, and you can define your "model" anyway you like. Providing it isn't the anarchist definition of a state, fine.


It is a recognition that we CANNOT above all walk into this like lemmings off cliffs and assume that every worker just wants the same damn thing.

But I think we can agree that in order for the workers to destroy capitalism and the state, they have to want it.


A continually idealistic and vague one.

I didn't realise materialism extended to pure unadulterated violence.


It is class suppression... it is removing them from the position as the ruling class, and stripping from them all their power over society, and limiting their ability to reestablish any society based on their ideals and motive. That IS class suppression -- it is suppression of their class interests.

Call it what you will.

[NovelGentry]

I'm assuming you have an understanding of whom these people are who want to break away. I'm at a loss to be honest?

No, and why should anyone pretend to know. The fact is the left is ideologically split, and while the left is not the entire proletariat, by the time they are taking up arms they will be "left" and quite radical left at that. How the different ideas for organizing what follows plays out is anyone's guess.


Are you referring to workers generally who may have a different idea of how to organise society? A group of intellectuals or capitalists? Who are these people "outside the mass."

Who are the ones on the inside? We're talking about those who agree with the "anarchist paradigm for transition." Those are the people on the "inside." I want to know, what of those who have a different paradigm for transition, proletarians of course. One cannot be so quick to just watch society fractionalize into different ideological paradigms post-revolution.


Nevertheless, the creation of an equal and free society presumes that people are equal and free to organise themselves how they see fit.

I understand. What I do not understand is how they will all see it the same way, or for that matter, see it even only so differently that significant enough compromise can be made.


Unfortunately if freedom in a society is what you are attempting to achieve you have to accept variables of such a society. However, I find it highly unlikely that members of the working class would want to form a capitalist commune.

Variable accepted... now we just need to know what is done about it. I find it quite discomforting to rely on words like highly unlikely, no matter how highly or how unlikely it may be. But this is not just an issue of forming "capitalist communes." It is an issue of any fractionalization which will not settle for compromise. It becomes even further questionable when the numbers are so divided to make any truly majority opinion nearly impossible to perceive.

Again, I do not think we can presume the fight against capitalism to be the same as a fight for a single paradigm.


It was capitalism they were getting rid of in the first place. A bunch of peaceful capitalists should have the freedom to choose to live in a capitalist commune if they want, but how realistic or logical is that? How would it even work, isolated in such a way?

Well now you've made this solely about capitalism. The reality was that I questioned any deviation from the "anarchist paradigm for transition." Even if it were, for example, a desire for Leninism. What is to be done about those who oppose in favor of a state, and for that matter a rather bureacratic one?

Certainly the fairest solution is to enforce the proletarian majority will. But as I pointed out earlier, then you are enforcing majority opinion on a minority, including workers who disagree. The communists have no problem with this, and more, we recognize this power for what it is, class power, and we recognize this suppression for what it is, class suppression, even if it proletarians over proletariatns (majority over minority respectively). Of course other communists would prefer the proletarians not represent their will directly, but either way, we have recognition of the power itself -- you seem to brush it away simply for the sake of a single word, state.


Of course arguments and disagreements will arise, but how realistic is to presume that they will lead to people refusing to co-operate with each other.

I personally find it quite realistic, particularly when looking at the history of certain communist ideologies vs anarchists in the past.


If we assume that this revolution was anarchist in nature, a reason for its creation would be because people wanted co-operation and solidarity.

We can assume a lot, unfortunately the only thing we can truly know at the time the proletariat is overthrowing capitalism is very simply that they no longer want that. Making assumptions about what they are striving for and calling it a paradigm doesn't make it a real solution.


It makes no logical sense to then refuse to do what it is you wanted to do.

If that is indeed what everyone or at least a severe majority wanted, no, it doesn't make any logical sense. But again, the only thing we are certain of is what such a majority didn't want.


Unfortunately however, we live in the real world and it is always possible that these disagreements, illogical as they may be, would lead to feuds and entire splits. Of course everyone in the entire world can't like everyone else, but if this voluntary split was to happen; so be it.

I also find it difficult to achieve a completely voluntary split. No doubt with a state more than likely forming out of one of these, the regional aspects will play a huge role. Who gets what land for instance... and of course, who decides this?

Again, the primary solution is to enforce the vote of the proletarian majority, which may or may not be your solution (you've not really given a solution other than assumptions, highly unlikelies, and so be its). If this is your solution, why not recognize it for what it is?


What is freedom? In the context of anarchism it is the self-determination of the individual in the confines of the limits of freedom. An individual is free to be, think, act and do what they choose provided that it does not encourage on the freedom of others.

I would say this is very much in agreement with most (if not all communists) -- particularly anyone claiming to be Marxist.


This concept of freedom does not apply solely to the working class or to a select amount of people whom a leadership or political movement deems worthy. It is not for the righteous minority or the intellectually apt to determine who deserves this freedom and who does not. It extends to humanity as a whole or no one at all.

Still with ya.


Why, after such a revolution, would people suddenly turn around and demand a return to the system they destroyed in the first place? Why would people, after fighting for a society based on solidarity, decide to reject that solidarity? I find it unlikely.

This is really where our split comes. Up until this point, aside from what seemed like non-material basis for consciousness, I agree. But then you start talking about consciousness as if it's a decision really, and I think this is a hard fallacy.

Unfortunately it is difficult for any of us, or even the numbers we have to choose when we've "had enough." Some of us have had enough already, others haven't had nearly enough. Catch my drift? Our consciousness is very much in line with things that are beyond our control. That being said, what determines this action will not so simply be when people decide they've had enough and decide anarchism is the way, but very simply when they've "had enough." And that time is different for probably just about everyone. Certainly this is why we agree it will be a long standing and still determined movement... maybe consciousness can be raised by making people aware of things they are simply not aware of, by showing them their own reality, but why you assume this automatically conjures into full anarchist solidarity, I'm not sure.


Unless you kill all the capitalists and even the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, you will see strives for capitalism. Unless you kill all the Leninists/Stalnists/Trotskyists/Maoists/whatever-else-you-wantists, you will see opposition from them too, at least opposition to the anarchist paradigm for transition. And yet, some of these people are already the most conscious proletarians out there, as well as are many anarchists. So what you are left with is quite a few people who "get it," but don't agree on what is to be done about it aside from destroying capitalism.


You cannot build a society based on peace, co-operation and solidarity if you force people into unhappy lives - That is why we are communists.

Well no, that is why you're an anarchist, and I'm a communist. I don't care for the peace, co-operation, and solidarity of the capitalists, they will become workers, or they will die. I'm not talking about whips and chains here. I'm talking about equalizing the force of labor. Making life and life necessity dependent on labor -- your own personal labor, as opposed to the labor stolen off the backs of the class they used to control. I have no issue with applying this force, the very same necessity to work to survive which they applied to the proletariat for more than enough time.

Lastly, what we can strive for first, above all, before we even think about cooperation and solidarity is equality, which can be determined right away by applying this force to the old bourgeoisie.


It is not necessary to force people to accept what you are telling them. You simply present an alternative and they can choose to be apart of it or they can choose not to be. There is nothing more that can be done.

I'm not going to force anyone. I suspect the proletariat will and should enforce it's majority decision. And that is what I consistently strive for, but in recognition of that force, I'm more than willing to call it a state. Decentralized? Yes. In the hands of the workers? Yes. But still foreceful, and still demanding that more must be done in such instances.

I know this kind of talk scares you, and all that runs through your head is visions of massive intelligence organizations, the state supervising our every move, blah blah blah. But really, try and understand what I'm presenting here.


I am sure there will be individuals who will attempt to subvert in a passive role the efforts of the workers, but so what?

The revolution existed in the first place in order for the workers to get to where they are. The influence of a few individuals is not going to change that. I have belief and respect in the determination of revolutionary workers.

Passive or active, subverting the efforts of the workers should not be tolerated. Why should it?

<I&#39;ll finish the rest later>

[NovelGentry]

No, what determines the state is the tools and organisation, which exacts that force and the amount of power it takes away from the workers.

The state itself is the tool. Nazi Germany had a state. The USSR had a state. The US has a state. All of these states took very different forms. What you propose is a few name changes here or there -- replace state police with community police (which I agree with), replace representatives with delegates, and generally tie the economic organization to the political organization, which convinces you that somehow you have wiped out the political aspect.


Having said that, the workers are not children with whom we tug and pull between our ideologies.

I&#39;m not presenting that they are or that we do. Instead, I&#39;m saying that they will form their own ideologies, or agree, or disagree with ours, and thus agree or disagree with others/one another.


They are human beings, capable of rational thought, and the choice is ultimately theirs.


And we, as human beings, are also capable of a whole lot worse. What we do is always our choice, it is our choice now whether or not we want to try and rip down the government, kill someone, lie, cheat, be kind, be generous, help all of society, etc. What I will refuse to pretend, is just that because we are capable of making a choice that it is a) rational b) something we let slide.

You propose that line is drawn somewhere. It&#39;s ok for you to see a capitalist go off and live in a hut and grow his own food, but, and I can only imagine you would not allow him to keep his factory even if he no longer exploited workers to produce with it. And that&#39;s fine, cause at one time he did exploit the workers... fine by me, but what is the means by which that resistence to the capitalist actions is organized?

From what I can tell you propose that it be the economic organization. You assume the opposite is always a capitalist, but again, what if some factories wish to determine distribution differently, paying no attention to others? Do the unions gain control? What if there is a split in deciding the means by which all this stuff is kept track of? Do they break into two unions?


I accept the use of force in defending ourselves. I accept the use of violent tactics at events like the G8 or on anti-fascist actions. Force is necessary in order to defend ourselves and to resist exploitation and oppression. But it is not the purpose of our course.

People who do not want to participate in our society, cannot be forced to do so. It contradicts the reason for the fundamental change we want to create.

And where do they go? Do we set aside land for all those who wish to not take part? Do we have to ensure this land is fertile and feasible for living? Who determines where they go? Or can they just go anywhere? Can they live amongst us? Can they use the means of production? Even if you cut off as much as possible and totally void any links you had, never seeing a human face again for decades, what of the resources which are being consumed?

I can only imagine you wish to abolish private property, as do I (although I don&#39;t believe that&#39;s feasible right away). Who determines that private property no longer exists? What if the capitalist claims land with a abundant natural resource the others need to produce? Do we have a right to violently throw them off if they refuse to allow us on? Who&#39;s land is it? What gives us the right to say that we have rights to the land?

My point is quite simply, you have to exert some form of control. You cannot let the capitalist do whatever so long as it isn&#39;t violent, because they will be exerting control based on their ideology. Control of land, resources, and whatever they produce from there on.


Creating a revolutionary society is very much a work in progress, and any plan of transition will always be vague.

But not nearly as vague as you present it. Not so vague as to avoid answering any of these questions that I have asked.


I would like to point out that Marx himself never made any coherent plan for pre-revolutionary struggle or post revolutionary society. Lenin on the other hand did have a detailed plan for transition, and look what happened.

Marx theorized that the proletariat would organize itself as a state and wrest from the bourgeoisie the existing property, means of production, etc, and socialize it. But there is the state to protect that socialization.... you offer nothing to ensure it remains that way other than saying "this is the way it should be, so we&#39;ll all deal with it because we can rationalize." But the bourgeoisie rationalizes far differently than we do, and far differently than the proletariat of that day will.


The world is what it is and you&#39;re concerned with who&#39;s going to get the cars and mansions?

These things all belong to the working class, we have every right to appropriate them, and every NEED to do so to increase the available resources so that we can begin the task of building communism and have whatever excess we can for whatever purpose is necessary.


Rights? What rights? The right to exploit? The right to oppress? The right to own profit?

Does every human not have a right to the land and the resources on earth? They will not accept that we can simply come on "their" land and use it equally amongst them -- and again, you say it&#39;ll be OK to use force if they do... but why? What gives us the right to use that force because they are protecting the land they&#39;re using to survive? What if we take things they need necessary?

I have no qualms about placing this control within the hands of the proletariat and allowing them to democratically decide the rights and priveledges of the old ruling class. I have no qualms about the proletariat organizing to ensure everyone is complementing the standards for production and distribution and utilizing the same means to track these aspects. I have no qualms about giving the proletariat the right to determine the socialization of production and distribution. I don&#39;t even have an issue with allowing the capitalists to take part in the economic factors, SO LONG AS THEY WORK THE SAME AS THE PROLETARIAT.

There are two aspects to being a member of society. The first is regionally and physically being a part of it, living amongst it, utilizing the same land and resources. The other is socially being a part of it, taking up the same social conditions and agreements. I&#39;m not sure what you propose the capitalist have a right to violate. If indeed they are to live amongst society physically, then they should be required to uphold these social agreements. But if we are to reject them from that society on the grounds that they do not uphold these agreements, that they simply cause chaos (even if non-violently), consuming resources, means of production, etc... then we need to reject them physically so... WHERE DO THEY GO? WHO DECIDES?


Those in opposition will have a choice. Either they join in, or they don&#39;t. There opposition is irrelevant.

But if they do not, to what ends are they allowed to defy it? Who decides these ends?

For example... capitalist bob is consistently harvesting trees from a lumber farm which is used to produce necessary wood to build houses. Who stops him? Do the workers organize and kick him out? restrict him? He&#39;s not acting violently.


A minority of people is not the working class.

You misunderstood what I was saying... almost seems as if you purposefully did it to try and subvert my point. I&#39;m not saying the working class is a minority. I&#39;m staying our definition of the state differs. You see the state as the tool of a minority to oppress... I see it as a tool of class oppression REGARDLESS of whether that class is a minority or a majority.


Anarchists have no problem with workings using "force" or having "power." What we object to is that this force and power is organised into functions that are controlled by a minority of people and serves to control society. This power the workers have is now handed over into the state and is directed by people on their behalf.

Then you should have absolutely no problem with what I propose, other than the fact I call it a state -- but I assure you, it is merely a label.


I propose majority rule by the proletariat. That is, the proletariat are given economic and political control, as the bourgeoisie is folded into the working class, they too are given a "say." Majority of this class takes the cake every time. Both economic power and political power applies locally and is completely decentralized to those which the "ruling" would affect.


The design of a state is so that a small, rather than a large, group of people can direct this power and force. This is what we object to, and this is what a state is.

The design of a state is so that a portion of the population smaller than the whole can direct this power and force. This is what we need so long as two opposing classes and class antagonisms exist, and this is what a state is.


Why wouldn&#39;t they?

Because we still have people who believe Jews do not have a right to live. I can get you more examples of things like this.


No one has to die because society has changed, they just have to accept the change. If they don&#39;t want to accept it, or they want to have a tantrum and reject equality then they must take responsibility for themselves.

Agreed, no one HAS to die. I certainly believe many will, but no one has to. Hell... since we&#39;re all pretty rational, we should just get together with everyone right now and discuss it. Why even all this talk of revolution? Seems like nonsense if we can all get together and discuss rationally and maturely.

We can&#39;t do this now. We can&#39;t do it even a year after society has changed. We can&#39;t do this until class antagonisms and the alienation which has occured from thousands of years of class society have disappeared, and we can&#39;t make those things disappear until we have established equality. This is why we have a transitional period to begin with. Because we have to establish equal responsibility, objective production/consumption, equal power, etc. Only then can we begin to even think about making assumptions and talking about the highly unlikelies. Although I would still argue there&#39;s no place for that still.

Marxism and thus most communists recognize the state as what it is. A tool of class struggle. It comes into existence when you have separate classes, it does not create them, but is dependent upon their existence and the need for one class to maintain power over another. This is something that will be necessary to deprive every last bit which has been taken from the proletariat by the capitalists from their grip. Only when we have socialized all that existing property can we talk about equalizing any of the other aspects. The state post-revolution becomes "the proletariat organized as a ruling class."

It is their oganization that defines the structure of the state, it is their existence as a separate class from the old ruling class that defines the existence itself, and thus their goals.


You personally can define it as such, but in reality a state is very specific in its functions and its organisation and should be opposed.

It is not more or less specific than the goals of the class that it represents.


Our own task now is, for those who want to maintain a gift economy, to defend ourselves and attempt to argue, propagandise and debate our objectives and our success&#39;.

But what is our task after we have overcome the old system?


If these factories make a choice to do so, and no one is being exploited or oppressed in the process, what can be done? Nothing. They have freely chosen to co-operate with each other in this way and there is nothing we can do. It is their choice.

Then you maintain trade/factory control. Always. There is no way this can create a classless society. The threat of economic necessity and control of specific necessities in the hands of certain factories or trades will consistently loom overhead, and even if it is not acted upon, the existence of that control still exists, and the threat can always be used.


I think your knowledge of anarchist history is somewhat misplaced. The anarchist communist movement has worked along side libertarian Marxists for years. The autonomists and council communists are of course comrades and it is not that we believe all communists or Marxists want the Leninist paradigm.

You have shown no such agreement here. I would probably most aptly be defined as a council communist, and very simply because of my use of the term state, you reject it, regardless of how that state is formed. You refuse to see the function and you refuse to accept it merely because of it&#39;s label.


No, it is the recognition that a state is nothing more than the organised power in the hands of a minority, taken directly from those it claims to serve.

Anything else is simply semantics, and you can define your "model" anyway you like. Providing it isn&#39;t the anarchist definition of a state, fine.

It has pretty much always been a matter of semantics. I thought I made this fairly clear in my original posts.


But I think we can agree that in order for the workers to destroy capitalism and the state, they have to want it.

We most defintely cannot. Regardless of our want or desire there will come a time when it is simple necessity due to the material conditions. Property relations will become obsoleted by capitalism itself -- certainly I do not pretend revolution changes these property relations to this degree, merely shifts the existing relations. Only when these relations can be completely overcome are we capable of achieving communism, and I see that occuring a fair amount of time after revolution.

Revolution does not determine these material changes/reality, but they determine revolution, and the eventual overall progression to communism.


Call it what you will.

Then I will call it what it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:20 AM
No, and why should anyone pretend to know. The fact is the left is ideologically split, and while the left is not the entire proletariat, by the time they are taking up arms they will be "left" and quite radical left at that. How the different ideas for organizing what follows plays out is anyone&#39;s guess.
The Paris uprising was not necessarily ideological. If the radical left have not learnt from history and moved out of sectarian bickering and learnt a way to compromise by the time a revolution comes, we don&#39;t deserve a new society.


Who are the ones on the inside?

The exploited and the oppressed.


We&#39;re talking about those who agree with the "anarchist paradigm for transition."

No, you&#39;re talking about "those who agree with the "anarchist paradigm for transition."" I&#39;m talking about the working class.


I want to know, what of those who have a different paradigm for transition, proletarians of course. One cannot be so quick to just watch society fractionalize into different ideological paradigms post-revolution.

This is your neurotic prediction. I don&#39;t see why difference of opinion should factualise society. In fact, I think it has the potential to strengthen it.

The anarchists and the libertarian Marxist worked very well along side each other in Spain. I don&#39;t see why it should be any different. The problem comes when the Leninists attempt to exact their control over the situation.


What I do not understand is how they will all see it the same way, or for that matter, see it even only so differently that significant enough compromise can be made.

I don&#39;t understand why they wouldn’t? it is difficult to respond to such a question without knowing why this would be an eventuality.


I find it quite discomforting to rely on words like highly unlikely, no matter how highly or how unlikely it may be. But this is not just an issue of forming "capitalist communes." It is an issue of any fractionalization which will not settle for compromise. It becomes even further questionable when the numbers are so divided to make any truly majority opinion nearly impossible to perceive.

I wouldn&#39;t want to be apart of any revolution where this was to happen. In fact, it wouldn&#39;t be a revolution in the first place.

The anarchist movement, I’m afraid to say, do not concern itself with these neurotic details about possibilities, which seem so ridiculously implausible. If you think that&#39;s a bad thing, then you are free to think it.

I on the other hand am more than content with what the history of anarchist revolutions have created. From the idea to the practice to the creation of a working model of transition or society people have worked in co-operation with each other. There is no reason to assume that this won&#39;t happen again.

Anarchists have an innate belief in the ability of human beings. You can call this idealism if you wish, I genuinely don&#39;t care. I am however happy in my experiences with other human beings, both in the working class, the anarchist movement and in the wider world.

What you talk about assumes as the basis that human beings are actually incapable of deriving any rational thought. Do you not trust the workers? Having accepted the need for revolutionary change the benefits of solidarity will become evident and they will work together to achieve it. People aren&#39;t stupid.


Even if it were, for example, a desire for Leninism. What is to be done about those who oppose in favour of a state, and for that matter a rather bureacratic one?

Anarchists will continue to struggle against capitalism and the state until they don&#39;t exist anymore. Be it from Leninists or the bourgeoisie.


I personally find it quite realistic, particularly when looking at the history of certain communist ideologies vs anarchists in the past.

I think we should learn from history otherwise we would repeat the same mistakes.


Again, the primary solution is to enforce the vote of the proletarian majority, which may or may not be your solution (you&#39;ve not really given a solution other than assumptions, highly unlikelies, and so be its). If this is your solution, why not recognize it for what it is?

I repeat: Our goal is to collectivise the means of production and federate trade and industry. If a voluntary split occurs then that is what happens. In order to deal with that a forum for debate on the issues should be encouraged, if that is not possible then the federations will have to work to accommodate that loss.


That being said, what determines this action will not so simply be when people decide they&#39;ve had enough and decide anarchism is the way, but very simply when they&#39;ve "had enough."

I agree. One people have "had enough" though, a choice is made is it not?


This is really where our split comes. Up until this point, aside from what seemed like non-material basis for consciousness, I agree. But then you start talking about consciousness as if it&#39;s a decision really, and I think this is a hard fallacy.

A revolution exists in order to take control of the material conditions of society. If the material conditions of society force an ideological change then this will happen, and will happen beyond our control.


And that time is different for probably just about everyone.

Hence the existence of movements. When the material conditions in society start to become more obvious to the working class the working class will look for an alternative. We propose libertarian socialism as an alternative and they will either make that choice or not.

Hopefully the working class will choose libertarian socialism above authoritarian socialism. If it is split half and half, then we, on both sides need to learn to compromise.


maybe consciousness can be raised by making people aware of things they are simply not aware of, by showing them their own reality,

That&#39;s precisely what the revolutionary left movements are attempting to do. Correction, it is only what the Anarchist movement is attempting to do. In the UK at least. The SWP have now become participants in bourgeois electoral politics. There are no other overt revolutionary movements in Britain. Except the Socialist Party, but they don&#39;t know where they&#39;re going.


but why you assume this automatically conjures into full anarchist solidarity, I&#39;m not sure.

Have you ever been on picket? Demonstrations? Direct action? In times of struggle the working class unite. If you look at huge strikes like the miners strike, the dock workers strikes or more recently the fire service strikes, you can see quite clearly the solidarity of people.

For example, food was organised to give to the workers and their families who were on strike. Money was raised to help support living costs for these families. When the fire people went on strike they managed to raise thousands of pounds through people supporting them. They had other workers, and members of the middle classes taking them food and drink etc while they stood and slept on the picket lines.

This solidarity was completely voluntary, they had no organisation or leadership telling them to do this. The workers came out and voluntarily, spontaneously offered support in solidarity to their fellow workers.

In a revolutionary situation, the struggle will be a thousand times more intense. Workers, when in struggle, come together. They stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity. They don&#39;t need anyone to persuade them. Anarchist principles will exist even without the anarchist movement attempting to persuade people. Our task will simply be to offer inspiration, confidence and ensure that debate for economic and social organisation remains libertarian.


Unless you kill all the capitalists and even the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, you will see strives for capitalism.

So?


Leninists/Stalnists/Trotskyists/Maoists/whatever-else-you-wantists, you will see opposition from them too,

Fine. Unlike the Leninists/Stalnists/Trotskyists/Maoists however, we will not imprison or murder them. We will encourage them to participate in any success&#39; we may have. If our model begins to fail however, then we must encourage debate to find a solution among all revolutionary socialists.


And yet, some of these people are already the most conscious proletarians out there, as well as are many anarchists. So what you are left with is quite a few people who "get it," but don&#39;t agree on what is to be done about it aside from destroying capitalism.

The anarchist movement is not interested in party politics or what they think or who gets what. In a revolutionary situation we will be interested in defending our gains and re-organising society. But we must accept that compromising may be necessary.


Well no, that is why you&#39;re an anarchist, and I&#39;m a communist.

No&#33; This is why you&#39;re a Marxist.


I don&#39;t care for the peace, co-operation, and solidarity of the capitalists

Not even the workers who voluntarily opt out of your communism to create a capitalist commune?


they will become workers, or they will die

Even if they don&#39;t resist? What if they simply choose not to be workers but wish us all the very best?


Making life and life necessity dependent on labor -- your own personal labor, as opposed to the labor stolen off the backs of the class they used to control.

I agree. I just don&#39;t see why it is necessary to kill people who opt out of it.


And that is what I consistently strive for, but in recognition of that force, I&#39;m more than willing to call it a state.

You&#39;re more than welcome to call it what you wish.


Decentralized? Yes. In the hands of the workers? Yes.

A state by its very nature is centralised in order for it to perpetuate itself. If cannot be in the hands of the workers unless these workers are a minority; even then though, they would become something other than workers.


I know this kind of talk scares you, and all that runs through your head is visions of massive intelligence organizations, the state supervising our every move, blah blah blah. But really, try and understand what I&#39;m presenting here.

:D

Thanks, but I do get what you&#39;re presenting, I just think your definition of a state is different to mine. It&#39;s not big deal really.


Passive or active, subverting the efforts of the workers should not be tolerated. Why should it?

I agree.


The state itself is the tool. Nazi Germany had a state. The USSR had a state. The US has a state. All of these states took very different forms.

They may have taken different form but they were in essence, exactly the same. They were simply variations of the same thing.


What you propose is a few name changes here or there

What I propose is the destruction of the organisation and functions of minority rule and the tools used to perpetuate itself.


state police with community police (which I agree with),

That depend on how this "communist" police is organised.


Instead, I&#39;m saying that they will form their own ideologies, or agree, or disagree with ours, and thus agree or disagree with others/one another.

Then we are in agreement.


And where do they go? Do we set aside land for all those who wish to not take part? Do we have to ensure this land is fertile and feasible for living? Who determines where they go? Or can they just go anywhere? Can they live amongst us? Can they use the means of production? Even if you cut off as much as possible and totally void any links you had, never seeing a human face again for decades, what of the resources which are being consumed?

I can only imagine you wish to abolish private property, as do I (although I don&#39;t believe that&#39;s feasible right away). Who determines that private property no longer exists? What if the capitalist claims land with an abundant natural resource the others need to produce? Do we have a right to violently throw them off if they refuse to allow us on? Who&#39;s land is it? What gives us the right to say that we have rights to the land?

:lol:

You&#39;re like my grandmother.


And where do they go?

Where ever they want.


we set aside land for all those who wish to not take part?

No, they should find their own. Although that would depend on the compassion of a collective.


Do we have to ensure this land is fertile and feasible for living?

No.


Can they live amongst us?

That&#39;s something which a collective must decide.


Can they use the means of production?

No.


Even if you cut off as much as possible and totally void any links you had, never seeing a human face again for decades, what of the resources which are being consumed?

Any resources consumed would have nothing to do with society. If you choose to opt out of society, then you must find your own way.


Because we still have people who believe Jews do not have a right to live. I can get you more examples of things like this.

You can&#39;t stop someone from believing something.


Who determines that private property no longer exists?

Property becomes that of the collective.


What if the capitalist claims land with an abundant natural resource the others need to produce? Do we have a right to violently throw them off if they refuse to allow us on?

I suppose that could happen. Or, we could have a compromise with them, which would be more sensible.


Who&#39;s land is it? What gives us the right to say that we have rights to the land?

Land is land. It belongs to no one. Those who find it, can work it.


Does every human not have a right to the land and the resources on earth?

Equally.


They will not accept that we can simply come on "their" land and use it equally amongst them

If the land they are working on is giving them a living, then they can continue to work it. Maybe more people can work on the land to earn a living, and maybe they will resist.


you say it&#39;ll be OK to use force if they do... but why?

It is not justifiable for one person to own hundreds of acres of land, while there are hundreds of others with no means of subsistence.


For example... capitalist bob is consistently harvesting trees from a lumber farm, which is used to produce necessary wood to build houses. Who stops him? Do the workers organize and kick him out? restrict him? He&#39;s not acting violently.

yes, the workers have the "right" to kick him out, or restrict him. It is subversion and an aggressive act against an equal society. They justified in defending themselves.


Then you should have absolutely no problem with what I propose, other than the fact I call it a state -- but I assure you, it is merely a label.

I am fully aware of what a state is. There is no need for you to assure me of anything.

[NovelGentry]

The Paris uprising was not necessarily ideological. If the radical left have not learnt from history and moved out of sectarian bickering and learnt a way to compromise by the time a revolution comes, we don&#39;t deserve a new society.

It was also trampled into the ground.


The exploited and the oppressed.

...

No, you&#39;re talking about "those who agree with the "anarchist paradigm for transition."" I&#39;m talking about the working class.

Which you assume will all agree with this paradigm, while I do not.

It&#39;s easy for you to label it the working class when you make this assumption, but let&#39;s get one thing clear. You&#39;re talking about a supposed paradigm, it expresses both the means of economic organization, how the people are represented, etc, etc -- I continue to fail to see how the working class is going to automatically agree with the anarchist paradigm for transition.


The problem comes when the Leninists attempt to exact their control over the situation.

... ... ...


I don&#39;t understand why they wouldn’t? it is difficult to respond to such a question without knowing why this would be an eventuality.

Let me quote someone on the why:


The problem comes when the Leninists attempt to exact their control over the situation. -- The Anarchist Tension


What you talk about assumes as the basis that human beings are actually incapable of deriving any rational thought. Do you not trust the workers?

What I talk about assumes that all irrational thought aside, we cannot simply assume it is a want or desire so great that people will dunk their head in "the cause" after. Instead, what I talk about assumes that revolution to begin with is born out of very real and objective circumstances in which the old society no longer fits the means of the new society.

It has nothing to do with "trust" of the workers, and a whole lot more to do with realizing what develops our consciousness. This said, I "trust" everyone when we have already abolished that alienation, and I do trust a good amount to seek to abolish it by demanding equality, but it&#39;s also quite easy to trust that there will be those upholding the Leninist model, and certainly trying to make it a reality for all.


Having accepted the need for revolutionary change the benefits of solidarity will become evident and they will work together to achieve it.

I agree this is the case, it will be quite easily noticed as they band together for the demise of capitalism. I think it&#39;ll be quite a different case when the question of "what now?" arises. While many, maybe even a majority will be capable of working together to achieve it, what if your majority chooses to institute a state for the transitional period? Even a state in your terms? What will the anarchists do? What if they work together for a completely different paradigm?


Anarchists will continue to struggle against capitalism and the state until they don&#39;t exist anymore. Be it from Leninists or the bourgeoisie.

Then it is quite possible you will be opposing the working class and their decision. Even if it is not strictly Leninist, but upholds a state you will continue to "struggle against it." Certainly you will struggle against the type of state I propose, and for that matter against every communist who realizes the state for the transitional phase. I have no numbers on how many leftists are anarchists and how many are communists, but certainly you would oppose what amount the communists would like to add.

You will not work together with me, but instead you will oppose one of the very basic aspects that I believe must be a part of post-revolutionary society. So in reality, you become just as sectarian. What kind of opposition will you rely on for this? How will you struggle against the communist desire to replace the state mechanism? Will you attack us? Invite us over for tea and discuss it promptly?


I think we should learn from history otherwise we would repeat the same mistakes.

And if history has shown us something it&#39;s that we no longer have any real system to lay claim as a working model. If these models did not fail economically or politically they failed militarily; both communist and anarchist models.

Each of these models differed, some more subtle from one another and differing only by means of material progression of the existing society before socialism/anarchism was attempted. We must certainly realize that the countries of today are not the countries of yesterday and that some things that didn&#39;t work before my work now, but likewise we must realize some other things will continue to be broken. For this I reject all previous models in full, including your previous "examples of Anarchism."

Marxist thinking, fortunately, allows us to bend in this fashion, understanding and adapting based on the progression of society since Marx was alive. Leninism and it&#39;s subsequent ideologies are more fragile, requiring very backwards or under developed nations to make sense to begin with. Anarchism, however, seems too far at the other end of the scale, remaining so vague that the principle can be seemingly adopted to any society because it "trusts in the worker" and that is all.

Maybe it is because I am too demanding of political thinking, but I don&#39;t see how anyone can take Anarchism or Leninism seriously. Leninism because of its crystalization in the sands of time and Anarchism because of it&#39;s raw idealism.


I repeat: Our goal is to collectivise the means of production and federate trade and industry. If a voluntary split occurs then that is what happens. In order to deal with that a forum for debate on the issues should be encouraged, if that is not possible then the federations will have to work to accommodate that loss.

What is the forum for debate? How does one debate it? What if a factory wants to split, but others in the trade do not feel that is proper? What if some of the workers of the factory want to, and others do not? The only feasible solution to determine this after all the debating and all the talking is through democratic means. Who enforces the democratic decision? What if the other factory workers attempt to block out a majority decision to remain part of the original federation?

I do believe rational discussion and debate is possible -- what I don&#39;t believe is possible is pure agreement on all these issues, and furthermore, I do not believe it&#39;s possible to say those disagreements never result in less than perfect conclusions and circumstances, at least not until alienation and all the divisions even within the working class have been completely overcome. This is the differentiation we make between socialism and communism... you never seem to make this differentiation, but instead assume that revolution itself is the only necessary engagement for this change.

If you want me to say I have no faith that the working class can do this, then I will say it. I have no faith that the working class can do this, as of now, and for that matter, the day after revolution, or even a year after revolution, or ten years after the revolution, even if the revolution itself took 10 years.


I agree. One people have "had enough" though, a choice is made is it not?

No, that is why it is when you&#39;ve "had enough." Because there is no longer a choice to be made. If there was a choice to be made you haven&#39;t really had enough have you? You might say you&#39;ve had enough, but you haven&#39;t really.


A revolution exists in order to take control of the material conditions of society. If the material conditions of society force an ideological change then this will happen, and will happen beyond our control.

I&#39;m not very fond of the terms here. Material conditions are effectively beyond our control to begin with. The means of production which advance these conditions are not completely, but there is still natural limitation. There may become a time when this is not the case, when we have totally taken control over all aspects of reality, but that time is not now.

The material conditions set a need and thus force the ideological change, however, that ideological change is not all encompassing, namely because they have not yet advanced enough. That is to say, the productive forces, necessary population upkeep, etc will force us to take control over the means of production long before the means of production allow us to exist above them. Marx theorized this and considered it to be an alienation of our own labor and for that matter our own labor force -- this is not overcome simply by changing who controls these means, at least not in the instance it occurs. We must advance from collectivized production and distribution to socialized production and eventually socialized distribution, but we cannot do this simply out of the necessity for control.

It&#39;s going to take time. I cannot consider collectivized production and distribution to be any form of total equality, but it is an advancement towards equality which then allows us to take further steps, advancing towards socialized production, which then allows us to advance towards socialized distribution.

Only when we have achieved a fully socialized model can one claim to have reached total equality. Before that point we maintain inequalities, including the division of labor. Though these inequalities may be subtle, they continually alienate us. Thus there must be a consistent battle to push to abolish these things as quickly as possible -- This does not mean pretending they don&#39;t exist and just saying the issue of such alienation causing problems is highly unlikely.

We must recognize these issues and fight against them every step of the way. To do this there must be a means of enforcing and guiding this drive -- that means is the state. But again, we differentiate on the definition of the state, so surely you will disagree based on that alone.


Hence the existence of movements. When the material conditions in society start to become more obvious to the working class the working class will look for an alternative. We propose libertarian socialism as an alternative and they will either make that choice or not.

Hopefully the working class will choose libertarian socialism above authoritarian socialism. If it is split half and half, then we, on both sides need to learn to compromise.

But neither will. You have already pointed out that you will consistently struggle against the state. And we are already well aware of what authoritarian socialists do to those who disagree.


That&#39;s precisely what the revolutionary left movements are attempting to do.

Agreed, but in doing so we present solutions... we have to, or the consistent thinking will be "Well what can be done to change it?" You&#39;re not going ot raise consciousness earlier unless you can present most of these people with the solution to the problem, not just the problem itself. In doing this there is indoctrination from both sides. They certainly think on their own, and may disagree or agree with only portions of one solution and maybe portions of another, but in the end they have a set understanding of "what is to be done." These understandings will differ, and if we all were just capable of agreeing and having it come down to complete compromise, we would not be sitting here arguing.


Have you ever been on picket? Demonstrations? Direct action? In times of struggle the working class unite. If you look at huge strikes like the miners strike, the dock workers strikes or more recently the fire service strikes, you can see quite clearly the solidarity of people.

These are all movements against the current existing functions, not solid movements to build up the solution. When that time comes the only solution that makes sense is democracy. Unfortunately though that democratic decision must stand against all opposition, including internal opposition. When you simply say "everyone can have it their way." You lead to individualism that breaks down society and only leads to stronger alienation.

Again, I have no problem agreeing that there will come a time when the overwhelming majority of workers will seek to abolish capitalism -- but I do not equate that to a time when the overwhelming majority of workers will seek to establish a unified means of acheiving communism.


For example, food was organised to give to the workers and their families who were on strike. Money was raised to help support living costs for these families. When the fire people went on strike they managed to raise thousands of pounds through people supporting them. They had other workers, and members of the middle classes taking them food and drink etc while they stood and slept on the picket lines.

This solidarity was completely voluntary, they had no organisation or leadership telling them to do this. The workers came out and voluntarily, spontaneously offered support in solidarity to their fellow workers.

But you see, the problem is that this is a movement built on top of an existing system, certainly opposing a portion or fraction of that system (or maybe even the whole thing) but still finding it&#39;s solution of life in that system. They did not have to harvest the food, but could buy it to give to them. They did not have to make the necessities they bought with the money, but could simply offer them money. They did not have to purify and transport the water from an ensured source, but simply bought it, or had the existing infrastructure to do so.

We do not have an underlying infrastructure and organizational system that takes care of these things post-revolution, but instead are trying to build one up anew using the existing means available. Revolution is a far more complex scenario than a picket or protest, and the issue will not be one of bringing food, but producing food, who produces, how much they produce, who it goes to, what tools they produce with, who produces those, etc..etc..etc.


In a revolutionary situation, the struggle will be a thousand times more intense. Workers, when in struggle, come together. They stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity. They don&#39;t need anyone to persuade them. Anarchist principles will exist even without the anarchist movement attempting to persuade people. Our task will simply be to offer inspiration, confidence and ensure that debate for economic and social organisation remains libertarian.

I&#39;m not sure about you, but I&#39;d like to see a day when struggling is over. The struggle of overthrowing capitalism itself will prove far more difficult than the struggle of determining the system to follow it. But that is precisely the problem. Necessity looms during the struggle to overthrow and quite probably the immediate struggle of building up that system afterwards, but this threat of necessity should not last so long so that we are in constant worry about it and then simply nod our heads in solidarity all the time.

When that necessity itself continues to alienate itself after the revolution and workers are breathing a sigh of relief is when other alienation becomes more apparent, namely the alienation from one another and the alienation of these workers from their labor. These issues are blinded at first by how apparent necessity has become.


So?

So they will all go live in huts in the woods?


Fine. Unlike the Leninists/Stalnists/Trotskyists/Maoists however, we will not imprison or murder them. We will encourage them to participate in any success&#39; we may have. If our model begins to fail however, then we must encourage debate to find a solution among all revolutionary socialists.

Your model is still completely and utterly vague. It consists of maybe 2 or 3 sentences about economic organization, and that is about it.

There&#39;s a lot of nonsense surrounding it, even in the original essay, which likes to puff it up, make it seem like there&#39;s a lot going on, but the core of it is extremely simplified and almost purposefully untelling.

So when whatever it is you actually propose fails the solution will most obviously be something you do not propose, and thus will be in opposition to your principles and beliefs, and no doubt you will struggle against it.


The anarchist movement is not interested in party politics or what they think or who gets what. In a revolutionary situation we will be interested in defending our gains and re-organising society. But we must accept that compromising may be necessary.

If I&#39;m not mistaken you argued in another thread not that long ago that it was the compromises of the anarchists that led to the demise of the movement in Spain, and the crushing defeat at the arm of the authoritarian communists. Just how much will be compromised?


No&#33; This is why you&#39;re a Marxist.

Fair enough, and I will openly admit I&#39;m not very accepting of communist thought without a Marxist base. I&#39;ve yet to see any movement founded with Marxist thinking truly in mind, and I&#39;ve also yet to see one that lasts. I have no reason presume that deviation from that base will do anything other than create intrinsic flaws in whatever ideology grows from it or in spite of it.


Not even the workers who voluntarily opt out of your communism to create a capitalist commune?

I am for enforcing the democratic decision of the proletariat on all levels. If indeed these workers will simply all agree in solidarity, as you propose, there should be no issue. If they all disagree, but are at least willing to respect the democratic means which gives them their equal and fair say in what occurs, there too should be no problem. If you are a worker and oppose the will of that worker majority, one can only question why, and what is the intention of doing so.

This deals very easily with the alienation which might have been occuring pre-revolution. Wealthy workers who are "OK" with capitlaism, reactionary workers who have embedded themselves in unions/parties/whatever. They will not go "live in a hut" the same way none of the communists today go an "live in a hut." Instead, if they truly believe what they are spewing, they will struggle, verbally and possibly physically, and in both cases there should be suppression by the working class majority.


Even if they don&#39;t resist? What if they simply choose not to be workers but wish us all the very best?

Not becoming a worker is resisting, and they will die because of it. The same way a member of the proletariat today would die if they chose not to become a worker. Or are we going to pretend that we could all just go live in a hut right now and be OK?


I agree. I just don&#39;t see why it is necessary to kill people who opt out of it.

I never said we would kill them. I said they would die.


A state by its very nature is centralised in order for it to perpetuate itself.

Our state does not seek to perpetuate itself, it seeks to destroy itself. In doing so, a decentralized form works very well.


If cannot be in the hands of the workers unless these workers are a minority;

Why? I don&#39;t know where in the definition of state it was ever claimed that it must maintain minority control. It is a division of society, yes. And it places itself above society, yes. And because of this it incurs alienation, but whether it is a minority division or a majority division comes up no where in it&#39;s definition or even it&#39;s aim, unless you seek to perpetuate it -- in which case it has to constantly centralize power. But again, we do not seek to perpetuate it, but to destroy it, and thus above all we hold that it&#39;s power is not centralized, nor can it ever be centralized.


even then though, they would become something other than workers.

Yes, but as workers they would not be alienated from the workers. They are workers AND statesmen, but they are never statesman before workers or in spite of being a worker, in fact, if they are not a worker, they are not a statesman.


Thanks, but I do get what you&#39;re presenting, I just think your definition of a state is different to mine. It&#39;s not big deal really.

Maybe you understand it&#39;s not Leninism or anything of the like, but I find it very difficult for anyone on this board to understand what I&#39;m presenting, for no reason other than I&#39;ve never fully presented it under any single thread or in any summary form. In fact, to do so would be nearly impossible, which is of course, why I&#39;m writing my book.

While are definition of state is very different, I do think it becomes a big deal. It does so because it presents a certain understanding of what must be done and in sharp contrast, what is already achieved in revolution alone. Our differing definitions are extremely telling certain revolutionary necessities. For example, where I say it is the force which constitutes the state, not the form of that force (i.e. that a state can very easily be a majority) you reject this, and along with it you reject the kind of force I&#39;m talking about too, assuming that it&#39;s necessity is "highly unlikely."

While I see it&#39;s necessity as, well, necessity. These statements, that this force is a necessity, are in fact, what I believe you would find scary, or at the very least counterproductive.


I agree.

Then you certainly agree with passive efforts to subvert this... such as, open propaganda, should not be tolerated. No doubt if this was in OI they&#39;d be having a field day about my opposition to freedom of speech.


They may have taken different form but they were in essence, exactly the same. They were simply variations of the same thing.

As will our state be, in essence.


Then we are in agreement.

Probably not. While we may certainly agree people will differ, we apparently disagree on what impact this will have, and to what degree these differences are allowed to effect the existing system. If a single factory jumps from a federation because of it&#39;s disagreement, it may not seem like an issue. But if 10 do so because they are all in disagreement, it quickly becomes apparent that economically, things are falling apart.


You&#39;re like my grandmother.

Well apparently your grandmother and I share a certain taste in finding difinitive conclusions to issues as they may present themselves. On another note, this is the worst attempt to dodge such issues I&#39;ve ever seen.


Where ever they want.

A hospital room? My basement? The aisle of a "store"? The center of a corn field?


No, they should find their own. Although that would depend on the compassion of a collective.

So they wander around without food or water until they find unconsumed and unpopulated land, and then attempt to build their means of survival from whatever meager solutions that land provides. So what you&#39;re saying is, if they oppose the system, and wish to live outside of it, they die.


You can&#39;t stop someone from believing something.

I didn&#39;t plan on stopping them from believing it. I planned on accounting for it.


Property becomes that of the collective.

Who decides that?


I suppose that could happen. Or, we could have a compromise with them, which would be more sensible.

Well what the hell is all this stuff about revolution then? Let&#39;s just compromise with them now. You set up the conference call, get some workers on the line and a couple of capitalists. And we&#39;ll compromise whether or not they own and control whatever land they happen to own/control.


Land is land. It belongs to no one. Those who find it, can work it.

I was told it belongs to the collective. I was also told it&#39;s the collective&#39;s decision as to whether or not I can live on their land.


It is not justifiable for one person to own hundreds of acres of land, while there are hundreds of others with no means of subsistence.

Who determines this? Who determines it&#39;s justifiable for one person to own a single acre of land?


yes, the workers have the "right" to kick him out, or restrict him. It is subversion and an aggressive act against an equal society. They justified in defending themselves.

Then no doubt he would have the right to kick them off or restrict them from land that is subversive and an aggressive act against whatever society he&#39;s trying to create. For example, if him and a few others go populate some land, and some nearby lumber collective decides to harvest that land... he has a right to kick them off, right?


I am fully aware of what a state is. There is no need for you to assure me of anything.

So then tell me, according to you since you have already claimed you understand what I&#39;m presenting, and since you&#39;re fully aware of what a state is... is what I present a state?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:56 AM
It was also trampled into the ground.
I don&#39;t think trampled is a fair analysis.


Which you assume will all agree with this paradigm

No I don&#39;t assume that.


I continue to fail to see how the working class is going to automatically agree with the anarchist paradigm for transition.

They may not. This paradigm may not even be something the anarchist movement wants to adopt.


Then it is quite possible you will be opposing the working class and their decision.

No. The working class as a whole cannot control a state; therefore any struggle against one would be a struggle against the power of a minority attempting to control the workers and their actions on their behalf.


Certainly you will struggle against the type of state I propose

You only proposed a state in name.


You will not work together with me, but instead you will oppose one of the very basic aspects that I believe must be a part of post-revolutionary society.

As we already agreed, this about semantics. You call it a state because that is what you define as one. The anarchist definition of a state is something entirely different. We are agreed that we do not want that definition of a state and so the revolution moves on.


What is the forum for debate? How does one debate it? What if a factory wants to split, but others in the trade do not feel that is proper? What if some of the workers of the factory want to, and others do not? The only feasible solution to determine this after all the debating and all the talking is through democratic means. Who enforces the democratic decision? What if the other factory workers attempt to block out a majority decision to remain part of the original federation?

I cannot speak about eventualities that may or may not occur in a hypothetical revolutionary situation for the entire anarchist movement. The goal would simply be to work together in co-operation. That is the basis for creating a forum for debate. It has worked in the past and continues to work now.

A forum for debate is simply organising a conference, assembly to discuss matters, using an agenda and libertarian principles for decision-making. I believe that people will accept this, simply because we are in that situation. We couldn&#39;t be in that situation if people didn’t agree to basic things as how to debate with each other.


I do believe rational discussion and debate is possible -- what I don&#39;t believe is possible is pure agreement on all these issues, and furthermore, I do not believe it&#39;s possible to say those disagreements never result in less than perfect conclusions and circumstances, at least not until alienation and all the divisions even within the working class have been completely overcome.

I agree.


I have no faith that the working class can do this, as of now, and for that matter, the day after revolution, or even a year after revolution, or ten years after the revolution, even if the revolution itself took 10 years.

How did we get to the point of revolution in the first place then?


You have already pointed out that you will consistently struggle against the state. And we are already well aware of what authoritarian socialists do to those who disagree.

Let us hope then that the revolution is predominantly a libertarian one.


Agreed, but in doing so we present solutions... we have to, or the consistent thinking will be "Well what can be done to change it?"

The communist movement on all sides has been presenting alternatives to how to change the present world order for decades.


These are all movements against the current existing functions, not solid movements to build up the solution.

I think for all your theoretical and economical clout you lack the practical experience to really understand how things work.

You can show that there is an alternative to people but first people have to understand what the alternative is to. These moments of struggle exist as a vehicle to show people why they must struggle for this alternative and to spread revolutionary ideals.

Connecting with workers in order to actually show them what is going on, and why these alternatives exist in the first place. They exist within the present system yes, but they are stepping stone for creating wider understanding and class struggle.


But you see, the problem is that this is a movement built on top of an existing system, certainly opposing a portion or fraction of that system (or maybe even the whole thing) but still finding it&#39;s solution of life in that system.

First of all the point was that workers unite in struggle. Secondly, I think you have a very naive practical understanding of class struggle. In terms of strike movements, the miner strikes attracted hundreds of thousands of workers protesting against the closure of the mines. These are sparks in revolutionary consciousness. They are the vehicles to spread revolutionary ideals and to agitate the workers. Workers already angry and ready to fight.

These strikes attract more workers, as in Paris, where 9 million workers came out to support the striking students. These things spread, they pick up momentum and the revolutionary left must be there to propagate taking the fight further: That&#39;s how it works.

What do you propose as an alternative?


Revolution is a far more complex scenario than a picket or protest, and the issue will not be one of bringing food, but producing food, who produces, how much they produce, who it goes to, what tools they produce with, who produces those, etc..etc..etc.

You live in the realm of the abstract and theoretical and not in the reality of class struggle movements. We all know and understand that we will need to produce food, but we need to get to that point in the first place.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me as if you&#39;re dismissing mass strike action and spontaneous worker solidarity. Strikes and mass workers action is the beginning of a revolution and you will do well to recognise that.


When that necessity itself continues to alienate itself after the revolution and workers are breathing a sigh of relief is when other alienation becomes more apparent, namely the alienation from one another and the alienation of these workers from their labor. These issues are blinded at first by how apparent necessity has become.

This is one way of looking at it. I do not agree that it will be like this.


So they will all go live in huts in the woods?

If they want.


Your model is still completely and utterly vague.

Only to you Novel, and you&#39;re the most abstract and neurotic attempt at a theoretician on this board.


but the core of it is extremely simplified

Imagine things being simple.


If I&#39;m not mistaken you argued in another thread not that long ago that it was the compromises of the anarchists that led to the demise of the movement in Spain

Yes. We accept and participated in the state. Never again.


Just how much will be compromised?

Who knows.


I will openly admit I&#39;m not very accepting of communist thought without a Marxist base.

If you mean communism that rejects the state, then so be it. Class-struggle Anarchism has a material basis and accepts Marx&#39;s analysis of history. It is the practical application of his anti-capitalism, which creates the problems.


I have no reason presume that deviation from that base will do anything other than create intrinsic flaws in whatever ideology grows from it or in spite of it.

And if Marxists continue to behave as if Karl Marx was infallible you will continue to see the devastating results which refusing to accept that maybe Marx was wrong on some points has created.


Not becoming a worker is resisting, and they will die because of it.

Possibly, but not necessarily.


Our state does not seek to perpetuate itself

That is the fundamental function of the state. Otherwise it could not exact its control.


it seeks to destroy itself

Materially impossible, in terms of Leninism of course.


So then tell me, according to you since you have already claimed you understand what I&#39;m presenting, and since you&#39;re fully aware of what a state is... is what I present a state?

No.

[The Feral Underclass]

Another book for outlining transition to anarchist-communism: Fields, Factories and workshops - Peter Kropotkin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/fields.html)