Anarchist transition

[anomaly]

A few nights ago, I had a discussion with my very leftist former student government teacher about the possibilities for transition from capitalist to anarchism. He played devil's advocate. And he really got me thinking critically about it.

I assume some sort of collectives will be set up, using a TLV system, or some system of rationing. However, will each collective specialize in the production of a certain good? Because surely any immediately post-revolutionary collective cannot be self-sufficient. And if they do specialize in producing one good, how can their apparent monopoly over its production be controlled? And would this imply trade between communes rather than free distribution?

Any in-depth ideas of a transitional period would be appreciated as well.

Also, if the input may be limited to fellow anarchists/libertarian socialists/autonomous Marxists, that would be most helpful to me. Thanks.

[JazzRemington]

Anarchists around the time of Bakunin believed in what is called Collectivism, sort of like communism but it used LTVs and the workers actually owned and used (as opposed to just use) the means of production collectively (all carpenters owned all the carpenting tools, all bakers owned the baking tools, etc.) They all saw this as a temporary measure since they believed as production picked up and ties between the collectives and communities became stronger, a full blown communist society would bloom.

A follower of Bakunin named James Guillaume wrote a summery of such a society in a paper called "Ideas on Social Organization." It answers some of your questions rather well.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...works/ideas.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm)

[rouchambeau]

This is why I don't like talking about "what comes after 'teh revolushun'". These sorts of things need to be decided when we get to them and when we can see the problem right in front of us.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:54 PM
This is why I don't like talking about "what comes after 'teh revolushun'". These sorts of things need to be decided when we get to them and when we can see the problem right in front of us.
They will certainly be decided on later, but there's no harm in discussing which options would be best given some hypothetical circumstances.

[Phugebrins]

If we can forsee a problem, better to have a solution ready, if we can find one,o than be unable to deal with it when the time comes.

What you mention, anomaly, has been one of the biggest things about anarchism that trouble me: as I understand it, the possibility that it will get to a point where unions control workplaces - but stop there, and end in a sort of commune-capitalism.

I also wonder about those workers who would not quite fit into unions - casual workers, people whose jobs fall between two categorisation - would those who have no union be marginalised? Even if they are accepted by a union, that union cannot be easily representative of their interests if in a distinct minority.

[Janus]

as I understand it, the possibility that it will get to a point where unions control workplaces
The workers would control the work places themselves. The unions are simply an entity made up of them which is used as a sort of tool against the bourgeois.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:54 PM
This is why I don't like talking about "what comes after 'teh revolushun'". These sorts of things need to be decided when we get to them and when we can see the problem right in front of us.
Serious error! These sort of things must be decided before revolution otherwise 1)you could not to involve masses of workers to fight for revolution.
2) revolution could failed


anomaly

I assume some sort of collectives will be set up, using a TLV system, or some system of rationing. However, will each collective specialize in the production of a certain good? Because surely any immediately post-revolutionary collective cannot be self-sufficient. And if they do specialize in producing one good, how can their apparent monopoly over its production be controlled? And would this imply trade between communes rather than free distribution?

Good question

(I have no time to reply therefore I shall sit in a hall)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:54 PM
This is why I don't like talking about "what comes after 'teh revolushun'". These sorts of things need to be decided when we get to them and when we can see the problem right in front of us.
I tend to take the same view with regards discussing bus timetables in communism. However I'm more than happy to think about developments immediately post-revolution (what I call socialism). The bourgeois state has been overthrown... so what now?

[elmo sez]

They way i see it is that communities will already be fairly well organised because of the revolutionary process itself, thus aiding in post revolutionary organisation

I dont see how one area will specialise in production because the means of production are already mostly in place due to capitalism

[KC]

Any in-depth ideas of a transitional period would be appreciated as well.


You're looking for a systematic model of a transitional period? How unmarxist.

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:00 PM

I assume some sort of collectives will be set up, using a TLV system, or some system of rationing. However, will each collective specialize in the production of a certain good? Because surely any immediately post-revolutionary collective cannot be self-sufficient. And if they do specialize in producing one good, how can their apparent monopoly over its production be controlled? And would this imply trade between communes rather than free distribution?


I think each collective(union) will specialise in the production of a certain good.surpluses of these goods are placed in collection points by each collectives so that it may be shared by others in the community.because there are many groups of producers within the collective itself,i dont think monopoly of a single group would be a problem.
If needed then it would be trade.when people are ready to do away with selfishness and money,it would be free distribution

[The Feral Underclass]

I started a thread over a year ago called the 'anarchist paradigm for transition' (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34437&hl=Anarchist+Paradigm) which may help?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Aug 29 2006, 10:33 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Aug 29 2006, 10:33 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 07:54 PM
This is why I don't like talking about "what comes after 'teh revolushun'". These sorts of things need to be decided when we get to them and when we can see the problem right in front of us.
I tend to take the same view with regards discussing bus timetables in communism. However I'm more than happy to think about developments immediately post-revolution (what I call socialism). The bourgeois state has been overthrown... so what now? [/b]
Bus timetables, and education? :unsure:

[Enragé]

from TAT's thingy

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."

:blink:

isnt that just capitalism with people owning the companies?
As in competition continues?
Inequality continues?

:blink:

I've always seen a transition like with LTV's and the like but people working together (across the entirety of society not just one company) and everyone getting an equal share in relation to what they need...not what they by circumstance have the talent/ability to do.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:57 PM
TAT's thingy
:wub:


isnt that just capitalism with people owning the companies?

No.

The collective "own" the "company".


As in competition continues?

It's like Socialism, but without centralised state control of the means of production. Rather a "collectivist federalism" (I made that up) is how the means of production is organised.


Inequality continues?

Well yea, to a certain degree it will, but that's unavoidable. The point is that this process works towards creating a communist society without maintaining a state structure.

[Enragé]

all sounds nice, but abstract as hell


No.

The collective "own" the "company".


and different collectives compete?


"collectivist federalism"

which means exactly...?


:wub:

:lol:

[Umoja]

'Competition' isn't necessarily capitalistic.

Exploitation and coercion are the enemy, not competition, not ownership.

Competition encourages people to produce higher quality goods.

Workers should be allowed to own what they produce.

Any State instituion that gets in the way of those rights is exploitive and coercive.

[YSR]

Damn, JazzRemington totally beat me to "Ideas on Social Organization." I just read it for the first time the other day and was really impressed by it.

Federated systems seem like such an effective method of communication and solidarity.

Anarchism is just so damn relevent! :cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:19 PM
and different collectives compete?
No. Why would they compete? The economy would be structured based on what was necessary to produce not on who could produce the best product, faster.




"collectivist federalism"

which means exactly...?

When you say "company" it's actually a collective and these collectives would federate with each other.

For example there would be the Federation of Bread Makers who would organise themselves throughout regions, "nations" and internationally to organise the production of bread.

If you take Spain for example, in 1937 a Plenum of collectives was called in which decisions were made about the production and distribution of goods. This was an organisational development that would most likely happen again.

[Enragé]

oh right

well that makes sense.

i just got the wrong vibe mainly cuz of semantics

( "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."
)

[anomaly]

Ah, yes, thank you TAT. That was a very good document. There are, of course, minor issues, developing mainly as a result of its age. These, however, can easily be overcome. The document, I think, is a good guide for post-revolutionary organization.

(I'm talking about Ideas on Social Organization)