Question

[Enragé]

I have been reading some pamphlets by Afed, and i must say they are pretty fuckin good :) I agree with them.

except


The need to control our lives, to use our skills in a ‘good’ cause, to choose who we transact and interact with, to achieve a balance between giving and receiving, to entrust our lives to others, all are central to us as human beings and all can be experienced through work only on a personal or local level, never within a mass society. Inevitably smaller-scale production will spread throughout the free society.[1] The revolution may be led by an awakened proletariat breaking out of the prison of the workplace but is just as likely to begin with a radicalised populace calling the workers out to join them. The true test of the revolutionary potential of a situation will be the extent to which workers struggling within the workplace connect with those acting outside. The revolution will re-connect workers and non-workers as people, not classes, it will be made and led by affinity groups sharing common values about work, the environment and social relations, rather than trade unions. These groups will be free associations built on mutual respect rather than associations created by economic necessity. The free society will be a society where there is no social coercion compelling the individual to work. But it is also one where the work that needs to be done will be done because it must be done. The boundaries between what we call work and play will disappear until all we are left with are the things we choose to do.[2] There will never be a moment in our waking lives that we are not individuals expressing ourselves through our activity and our leisure and members of a society contributing who we are and what we do to it. And we will know that what is true of ourselves will be true of all else.
(from The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation (http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/ace/roro.html))

[1] wouldnt this be kinda inefficient? Actually thereby causing people to have to work more?

[2] there will always be certain things that have to be done, but are pretty shitty jobs. Ofcourse we should let everyone do their share of these kind of jobs, to alleviate the strain of these jobs on each individual, but they'll still have to be done.

Also the last part (after [2]) is well, abstract, a bit out there, utopian.

[RebelDog]

Inevitably smaller-scale production will spread throughout the free society.

I would assume that this means more localised production which is indeed more efficient as it is close to its consumers as apposed to the current situation where a huge amount of goods are made in say China and shipped to the UK. Also local areas will know to a great degree what they need to produce.


The boundaries between what we call work and play will disappear until all we are left with are the things we choose to do.

Not totally sure what this means. In terms of work the development of new technology will always be making life easier. It would be great going to work knowing you are not being exploited and consuming products that are not made by exploitation, environmental destruction etc. It would be great to think things will always get better. Such a society will breed a great feeling of cooperation and solidarity between all humans. This could grey our concept of work and the idea that it is 'work' could largely dissapear.

[Enragé]

I would assume that this means more localised production which is indeed more efficient as it is close to its consumers as apposed to the current situation where a huge amount of goods are made in say China and shipped to the UK. Also local areas will know to a great degree what they need to produce.

well ok, perhaps partially more localised, but what im sure we dont need is like tiny little factories in every little town.

because that is ineffecient

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:12 AM
[1] wouldnt this be kinda inefficient? Actually thereby causing people to have to work more?

I am of course a member of the federation, but my response is only my personal interpretation. I think these issues are covered in "Anarchism as we see it" (http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/ace/aswecit.html) in a little more depth. If you want I can send you a copy of it.

But by localised I assume it means a lessening of unneeded dependency on external sources of goods. For example, here in the uk there are plenty of coal mines, that were all shut down by Thatcher for various reasons, one of which being that it's cheaper to import coal from Europe. The transportation of such goods, as well as the use of them, contributes to air pollution. It'd make more sense to "localise" that particular industry.


[2] there will always be certain things that have to be done, but are pretty shitty jobs. Ofcourse we should let everyone do their share of these kind of jobs, to alleviate the strain of these jobs on each individual, but they'll still have to be done.

Jobs that are shit, such as cleaning the sewers or road sweeping do need to be done. But as a very tiny % of the population could technically produce enough for everyone else, shit jobs could either be automated (done by machines) or rotated amongst everyone so nobody really had to do very much of it. There would be no "work" or "profession" ..simply duties, that people would naturally want to do, as it'd be in their interests. I assume these are the issues the generation following the revolution would have to debate about.

[Enragé]

I am of course a member of the federation, but my response is only my personal interpretation. I think these issues are covered in "Anarchism as we see it" in a little more depth.

Ok i'll read it :)


But by localised I assume it means a lessening of unneeded dependency on external sources of goods. For example, here in the uk there are plenty of coal mines, that were all shut down by Thatcher for various reasons, one of which being that it's cheaper to import coal from Europe. The transportation of such goods, as well as the use of them, contributes to air pollution. It'd make more sense to "localise" that particular industry

makes sense


Jobs that are shit, such as cleaning the sewers or road sweeping do need to be done. But as a very tiny % of the population could technically produce enough for everyone else, shit jobs could either be automated (done by machines) or rotated amongst everyone so nobody really had to do very much of it. There would be no "work" or "profession" ..simply duties, that people would naturally want to do, as it'd be in their interests. I assume these are the issues the generation following the revolution would have to debate about.

true
basicly what i meant.

thanks for answering.

[Donnie]

there will always be certain things that have to be done, but are pretty shitty jobs. Ofcourse we should let everyone do their share of these kind of jobs, to alleviate the strain of these jobs on each individual, but they'll still have to be done.

Ok I would like to answer this particular question as it comes up in most communist and anarchist debates.
If I may conclude that the 'shitty jobs' you are talking about are jobs like 'Road Sweeper', 'Gutter Cleaner' etc.
In our current capitalist system things are valued according to money standards i.e. a good job is viewed as one that brings in a lot of money. In my opinion of course the most useful of work are lowest in the social scale when there employment is ill paid.
However, if something was to happen in which the street cleaner go paid £100 an hour while say a Doctor’s wage was to fall to something like £3.00 an hour, the ‘nasty’ street cleaner would rise in social station and he or she would therefore go from ‘filthy labourer’ to something of a sought individual with good income.
In our present capitalist system it is the pay that determines the value and worth of an individual and not say her or her social good deed towards society.
However, under an anarchist communist society we would have of course have highly different standards of judging someone because obviously we wouldn’t be judging them on their wage because there would be no wage in a communist society. People under a communist society would be appreciated by their ‘willing to be socially useful’.

Now many non-communists and anarchists at this point would say that who would want to clean the street or gutter the sewers? Not even the kindest of person would want to do such a thing.
But if we look at humans, everyone yearns for the respect and admiration of his brothers & sisters; it is a drug we cannot live without. The opinions of our circles rule our behaviour. The social atmosphere to a profound degree determines our values and attitudes.

Also if we look at the doctor and the street cleaner both are pretty much the same in the fact that they help contribute to people’s positive health. For example the street cleaner prevents diseases while the doctor tries to help people who may have diseases. Both at some point have to get there hands dirty for example the street cleaner may have to brush away much and grime and the doctor may at one point have to help treat leg sores or gangrenous wounds.

Also it’s surprising what people will do if there is a few improvements to there work in life. For example a Plumber is a fairly paid job in the UK and there are many people wanting to be plumbers and to be honest a plumber isn’t the most prettiest of jobs is it.

But also under communism we will have rid the workplace of most, if not all of its impoverished conditions. Work hours will have been shortend to 4 hours; also tools and technologies will also make our jobs easier.

[Enragé]

Ok, i read "anarchism as we see it".
And again, i like it.
except for;



Whilst workers may seek libertarian solutions to their problems in revolutionary periods, there are those like the Trotskyists and middle class politicians who will try to use them for their own climb to power.

the comment about trots is unnecessarily divisive, and even worse, bullshit. 99% of trots do not want to climb to power, they just think that their way is the best way to achieve a revolution. I'm not saying we should not criticise trotskism and the like, but we should do so in a decent way, by means of a critique of their entire programme, not by saying they are power hungry fucks or by distributing blatant lies which anyone with an IQ in the plus can see through such as the following


Yet, remarkably, organisations like Militant and the Socialist Workers Party continue to peddle the same old message. "The workers are backward", they say, "they need the leadership of organisations like ours", they continue. "There is a crisis of leadership; only we know the way forward...we need party discipline...a party of leaders and led..." and so on.


spreading shit like this instead of a good critique about the trotskyist programme paves the way for nothing but a backlash against the AF and the undermining of working class unity.

[Donnie]

the comment about trots is unnecessarily divisive, and even worse, bullshit. 99% of trots do not want to climb to power, they just think that their way is the best way to achieve a revolution.
Trust me British Trotskyism has a knack of just using workers for the party's own benefit, it's not about worker's liberation for them it's just about attaining power in Parliament. There’s no such thing as revolutionary Trotskyism in the UK. Even the Communist Party of Great Britain which say’s it leans more to Trotskyism is reformist and believes in a platform of election rather than revolution and Christ it's annoying hearing there party elite at demo's rant about a parliamentary road to Socialism and then Communism, I could have socked one of their party members at the last May Day rally.

The Social Workers Party, sorry should I say 'Socialist Workers Party' has the knack of using its members; that’s why nearly all of them turn Anarchist because of the lack of class struggle within the party. If your any sort of a revolutionary in the UK your Libertarian.


spreading shit like this instead of a good critique about the trotskyist programme paves the way for nothing but a backlash against the AF and the undermining of working class unity.
I do agree, but that comment generally comes from most workers in the movement.

[Enragé]

Trust me British Trotskyism has a knack of just using workers for the party's own benefit, it's not about worker's liberation for them it's just about attaining power in Parliament. There’s no such thing as revolutionary Trotskyism in the UK. Even the Communist Party of Great Britain which say’s it leans more to Trotskyism is reformist and believes in a platform of election rather than revolution and Christ it's annoying hearing there party elite at demo's rant about a parliamentary road to Socialism and then Communism, I could have socked one of their party members at the last May Day rally.

well im not that familiar with the exact situation in the UK.

Look, the point is, you cant generalise, you cant say "all trotskists are power hungry fucks" (which is implied), certainly not in this case since this british form of "trotskyism" seems hardly trotskyist at all.


The Social Workers Party, sorry should I say 'Socialist Workers Party' has the knack of using its members; that’s why nearly all of them turn Anarchist because of the lack of class struggle within the party.

glad to hear that. And thats what is needed, the mass defection of the SWP's members to organisations like Afed...but writing shit like in that article would only alienate those within the SWP from the Afed since its not that simple. "The trotskyist programme simply leads to the replacement of today's elite with that of tomorrow" seems a way more accurate description than "trots only want to climb to power"


I do agree, but that comment generally comes from most workers in the movement.

well that could be but that isnt really the point

the point is that I have never read an article by the SWP or their sister org IS which claims (and i've read quite few)

"The workers are backward"

and as far as them saying;

"they need the leadership of organisations like ours",
"There is a crisis of leadership; only we know the way forward...we need party discipline...a party of leaders and led..."

really depends on the trot involved. I know one who is disgusted by people who say stuff like this, yet who has been a hardcore member of the dutch sister org almost since it was founded (17 yrs ago i think).