A country in a state of revolution

[Enragé]

Alright, hypothetically:

A revolution has started in a country, the southwest is already under control while the rest of the country is still struggling to free itself from its oppressors. Should then the already liberated part in the south come under the control of the workers councils etc. or should they be controlled by a temporary, centralized, government untill the country is liberated (even if this takes a number of years)? (my opinion is that the revolutionary reforms, workers councils etc., should be implemented as soon as one part of the country is free, regardless of the state of the rest of the country.)

[More Fire for the People]

It should be controlled by worker's councils and have a temporary army to assist in the liberation of the rest of humanity.

[Parkbench]

A revolution has started in a country, the southwest is already under control while the rest of the country is still struggling to free itself from its oppressors. Should then the already liberated part in the south come under the control of the workers councils etc. or should they be controlled by a temporary, centralized, government untill the country is liberated (even if this takes a number of years)? (my opinion is that the revolutionary reforms, workers councils etc., should be implemented as soon as one part of the country is free, regardless of the state of the rest of the country.)

This is where you can see who is a communist or an anarchist. The "interim" government is something Communism argues is essential, while anarchism claims there is no need for it at all.

[Colombia]

The worker's council because too often the centralized governments become power hungry and never bother to give power to the people.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I think that it would depend on what you mean by "worker's council"?

Would not such a council be a government? Would it not take the role of one? I would see it passing laws and policies, restricting, allowing, making decisions for people in a general region ... would not such a thing be a government?

A government is a government, regardless of whether you call it a "council," a "duma," a "legislature" or a "happy-fun group." There is nothing wrong with government though, so why not just call it a government and get it over with?

But I have a question for you, would not a centralized government (not like super-dee-duper centralized, but within reason) make things more efficient and workable, especially in a revolutionary situation? Would it not help to unify a country towards one cause and escape sectionalism while not squandering its gains without confrontations over who is involved?

TGOW

[Enragé]

technically speaking, the extreme centralization (perhaps even in one person) of power is the MOST efficient you can have. That person leads, the rest follows, period. Isnt that the most efficient thing there is? BUT we must remember we are in this struggle not to make things as efficient as possible, but to make them as righteous as possible.

[Black Dagger]

technically speaking, the extreme centralization (perhaps even in one person) of power is the MOST efficient you can have.

What is 'efficient' about one person trying to make EVERY decision? Of course in reality decisions are filtered through a large bureaucracy (in this case an 'extreme' bureaucracy), which is hardly 'efficient'. Moreover, why is 'efficiency' necesarily 'good' anyway? The fetish of 'efficiency' seems like a pretty bourgeois hang-up, capitalists love making their factories more 'efficient', because more 'efficiency' means more $$$. It's far more important for a revolution to reflect the ideas and methods of anarchism/marxism in practice, than be coldy 'efficient'. Hopefully things will run smoother over time, but it's hardly the number one concern for infant post-capitalism. That is unless, you hope that 'efficiency' will mean YOU get to at the centre of this 'extreme centralisation'....


That person leads, the rest follows, period. Isnt that the most efficient thing there is?

You mean fascism, yeah? The 'efficiency' of totalitarianism is HIGHLY debateable, it's reactionay nature is not, the latter being the key here.



BUT we must remember we are in this struggle not to make things as efficient as possible, but to make them as righteous as possible.

I dont' want an 'extremly centralised' religious dictatorship, forget about 'righteousness'.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Moreover, why is 'efficiency' necesarily 'good' anyway?

Umm, that was probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. If it is necessary to deliver logs to a mill to make furniture, but you aren't efficient, and you don't do it on time or in the right quantity, then goods will not be able to be made, therefore, the people will lose out on the very material goods that "the Left" promises to provide. You can't just discount it, it needs to exist, otherwise, there would be no goods or services to speak of, we might as well live in caves.

But, I suppose that is not the point of this thread, so nevermind what I am saying.


technically speaking, the extreme centralization (perhaps even in one person) of power is the MOST efficient you can have.

Umm, you'll run into a problem with that, but yes, you are sort of right, so partial credit. But I'm talking about a general government, a center (not a man per se). If your "worker's council" wants to be the center, then so be it, but the fact remains that someone or something needs to be in control, there needs to be a common and specific goal to attain, not just a general goal. There needs to be clearly defined responsibility. A lot of hierarchy is simply responsibility, and no, not all hierarchy is evil or oppressive, be realistic. A center would be beneficial, but again, this is all a hypothetical situation, so who knows.


I dont' want an 'extremly centralised' religious dictatorship, forget about 'righteousness'.

I don't think that is what he was getting at.

TGOW

[Black Dagger]

. You can't just discount it, it needs to exist, otherwise, there would be no goods or services to speak of, we might as well live in caves.

You took my statement out of context. I was questioning the centrality of 'efficiency' in a newly created or infant post-capitalist society, ie. one still in the throes of revolution, im not saying that efficiency is not important, i'm opposing dictatorial 'efficency'. My point was, as per my last post,

"It's far more important for a revolution to reflect the ideas and methods of anarchism/marxism in practice, than be coldy 'efficient'. Hopefully things will run smoother over time, but it's hardly the number one concern for infant post-capitalism."

I'm not arguing against the idea of wanting efficient organisation, i'm arguing against, firstly that dictatorship is necessarily 'efficient', and secondly that pure 'effiiency' should be the motivating force of a fragile revolutionary process.



I don't think that is what he was getting at.

I know.

[Enragé]

"It's far more important for a revolution to reflect the ideas and methods of anarchism/marxism in practice, than be coldy 'efficient'."

thats exactly waht i meant

"BUT we must remember we are in this struggle not to make things as efficient as possible, but to make them as righteous as possible. " ( ;) )

[DoomedOne]

Even if only part of a country is revolutionized, the practices that are to be instated in a post revolutionary world must be followed or they'll never be installed. Compromise between centralized government and self-government has to be found.

By the way, to carlify a successful revolt in the south, you mean all military and government institutions are empty of their appointed personel, law enforcement has been overthrown and most of the politicians in the area have fled, correct?

[Enragé]

"By the way, to carlify a successful revolt in the south, you mean all military and government institutions are empty of their appointed personel, law enforcement has been overthrown"

yes

"and most of the politicians in the area have fled, correct? "

if those politicians are just power hungry fucks, yes, if they actually got something to say and do this within the framework of the revolution (even if they critisise the revolution) , they can stay.