anarchism

[voice of the voiceless]

Would an anarchist support the nationalisation of a natural reserve (i.e gas) as a step forward, or reject it as authoritarian and part of the state?

Taking any industry from the hands of private profit is surely a step forward, are anarchists sometimes too uncompromising?

what do you think?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Sounds like reformism to me. I would not support it.

[STI]

It's not a matter of anarchists objecting to it because it is "authoritarian and part of the state", but because, whether owned by private individuals or the state, the gas industry will operate, fundamentally, the same way. There will be bosses and there will be workers. There will be wages and there will be exploitation.

Then there's the question as to whether or not such reforms are even possible in the advanced capitalist world anymore. I don't think they are, and so then logically choose to spend my time and energy on things I deem to be more important.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by voice of the [email protected] 24 2006, 09:44 PM
Would an anarchist support the nationalisation of a natural reserve (i.e gas) as a step forward, or reject it as authoritarian and part of the state?

Nationalisation does not bring work into the control of the workers directly and all that has happened is you get a different boss.

The message should be no bosses.


Taking any industry from the hands of private profit is surely a step forward

A step forward to what? It has nothing to do with the destruction of capitalism, the state and the creation of a communist society.


are anarchists sometimes too uncompromising?

I pride myself on being uncompromising and oppositionist, as do many other anarchists. It's an important political position to take.

[voice of the voiceless]

Lation america for example has privatised resources usually under DFI form Foreign multinationals, nationalising of of these industries would mean that more money is invested back into wages etc. Exploitation yes, but less exploitation cetainly.

For example, the NHS is nationalised, privatising it is of course completely against what any socialist should believe in, but surely anarchists also? surely democratic ownership of a company is better than private ownership?

[Social Greenman]

The thing is: the very concept of 'worker democratic control" is very alien in the minds of workers. Workers do many things in the absence of bosses and yet they are not actually aware that they are doing those things independently. Hopefully it will dawn on them.

On the other hand, when we talk about nationalization we have to realise that it is government that is in control being the new boss. When certain utilities (gas and electric) are brought under government control the rates become cheaper for the customer because they don't make profit. What is paid by the consumer is the electric or gas used, matainence and replacement of equipment, wages, benefit packages, and administration cost. Usually, what customers pay are 30 percent lower than for-profit outfits. This is also the argument for a national health insurance program in the U.S. because the taxes would be a lot cheaper than premiums being non profit. Of course, the Libertarians, White Nationalist , et al, throw up a stink. One will cite that their taxes are wasted on people they don't know and it is not fair that some of their monies cares for the poor and minorities. Capitalism not only produces social ills but social mental health ills as well if that makes any sense to you.

A friend wrote this to me today:

Marx fought Bakunin and Proudhon with unfair methods and he was a madman. Just study the history of the first IAA (international workers association) and how Marx destroyed the socialist group. And how he behaved. I quote Pierre Joseph Proudhon:"The typical weapon of Mr. Marx is a bucket full of dirt".

[STI]

Originally posted by voice of the [email protected] 24 2006, 09:08 PM
Lation america for example has privatised resources usually under DFI form Foreign multinationals, nationalising of of these industries would mean that more money is invested back into wages etc. Exploitation yes, but less exploitation cetainly.

For example, the NHS is nationalised, privatising it is of course completely against what any socialist should believe in, but surely anarchists also? surely democratic ownership of a company is better than private ownership?
No, because, at its core, the state isn't democratic.