Log in

View Full Version : Social Anarchy, what it is, and how I see it



angus_mor
21st July 2005, 04:39
It was a couple days ago that I was walking home from a friends house, and thinking about the various groups involved in RevLeft, the fact that, allthough it doesnt entirely make sense to me, both anarchists and various kinds of socialists are together in the same setting. I thought about this, and thought about a combination in theory. Anarchy is the absense of government, in my system, a complete revolution occurs, giving control to a group, and they institute a Democratic Socialist government. All federal and provincial governments dissolved, and democratic socialist councils instituted. All capital is logically socialised, including land, and in towns of less than 10,000 people, almost no government regulation. In towns exceeding 10,000 people, local socialist councils installed.

This allows for those skeptical to get a look at a glance, if this practice is limited to really small communities, than no counter-revolutionary coup could form strong enough to pose any threat. In a socialist system that has total jurisdiction over National, provincial, and metropolitan areas. To elaborate further, counties and cities above 10,000 people will of course have a socialist council. In a town in said county w/ LESS than 10,000 people, all local goverment of that town will be dissolved and left alone w/ nothing.

A friend of mine pointed out that everyone would exploit that and the system would be left fending for those people, but if this occurs, the communities would very quickly exceed 10,000 people, and a socialist council installed. The process of people seeking new terrain in the regulation free areas will spread the people and socialism in a less hostile way.

Karl Marx theorised that it would take 100's of years of socialism for communism to truly succeed. In this way, socialism will take its course naturally, and move along in a manner which will provide the system w/ the largest probability of success. This would ease the impetus of social reconstruction, and make housing shortages almost unheard of.

Please consider this, ponder it, and tell me what you think.

violencia.Proletariat
21st July 2005, 04:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:39 PM
In a town in said county w/ LESS than 10,000 people, all local goverment of that town will be dissolved and left alone w/ nothing.


ok, so there are no neigborhood councils? everyone would mind there own buisness and not do anything? would there be no union?

black
21st July 2005, 14:20
anarchists and various kinds of socialists are together in the same setting

In real life, we hate each other and for good reason. Also we wont co-operate with authoritarians and their plans to "lead the movement" because they're crackpots and we've been through this a million times, we should learn from our mistakes by now.

angus_mor
21st July 2005, 14:51
What I meant was here on the site, rev left, there are anarchists and various socialists in the 'radical left'.
But a true anarchist believes that all forms of government are immoral, and therefor should not be placed at all on the political spectrum.

black
21st July 2005, 19:22
Anarchists are not apoliticists. We're very much concerned with power, not that of the few, the minority, the elite ruling over us but the many, the masses, everyone which indeed is the greater power.

BTW,

Karl Marx theorised that it would take 100's of years of socialism for communism to truly succeed.

Where did he say that?

angus_mor
22nd July 2005, 01:18
it says it in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

black
22nd July 2005, 23:50
where?

angus_mor
25th September 2005, 02:30
Whoops, my mistake, wasn't in the manifesto, I'm not sure in which selection of his he stated it, but he most certainly did.

kurt
27th September 2005, 07:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:01 AM
Whoops, my mistake, wasn't in the manifesto, I'm not sure in which selection of his he stated it, but he most certainly did.
I don't recall ever reading anything about that coming from marx. But even if he did, transistional demands are/were something that I believe marx got wrong.

RASH chris
27th September 2005, 13:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:51 PM

anarchists and various kinds of socialists are together in the same setting

In real life, we hate each other and for good reason. Also we wont co-operate with authoritarians and their plans to "lead the movement" because they're crackpots and we've been through this a million times, we should learn from our mistakes by now.
I think that's a very strong statement and it most certainly does not apply to all anarchists. It is extremely secterian and dogmatic, which is something anarchists are often accused of. Anarchiam is very similar and has common ground with classical marxism, autonomous marxism, libertarian marxism, and council communism. Please recall that in the Spanish civil war the POUM (an independ Marxist militia) and the anarchists fought along side and lived along side each other. Because both had such a similar vision for post-revolutionary society.

cormacobear
22nd October 2005, 16:47
I think it could potentially be used as a transitional method of political organization between National and iternational socialism and more anarchist style communism. So we'd still be talking about several hundred years but this could provide a valuable stepping stone for the transition to communism from Socialism.

By that point hopefully there will no longer be authoritarians to deal with.

Commie Rat
27th October 2005, 11:45
my 2 cents

Ecinomically a commune is needed for sustained human development and life

Socially anarchism is needed to devolpe free though and empower people