Emerging nations in an Anarchist society

[spartan]

So i was just wondering what would stop a commune or a series of neighbouring communes in alliance/agreement over an issue in a future Anarchist society from breaking off from the rest of Anarchist society and setting up their own nation made up of all the communes in the alliance? What if one commune or an alliance of communes disagreed with another neighbouring commune or series of communes with a different viewpoint on a matter which led to both sides coming to blows with their militia forces?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:15 pm
So i was just wondering what would stop a commune or a series of neighbouring communes in alliance/agreement over an issue in a future Anarchist society from breaking off from the rest of Anarchist society and setting up their own nation made up of all the communes in the alliance?
Nothing in the formal processes of an anarchist society. But material reality would make a move unlikely.


What if one commune or an alliance of communes disagreed with another neighbouring commune or series of communes with a different viewpoint on a matter which led to both sides coming to blows with their militia forces?

If they disagree on a political matter then so what? the councils are made up of individuals who freely associate, and as such anyone could leave, or continue to argue their case if they thought their community or workplace was not as it should be. So the laws and statutes of an area would accurately reflect the will of the people. What business is it of yours if you don't live there? and why, if it didn't have any material impact on you would you attack them?

Furthermore, if a council did declared war on another. Both communes would have to agree, as neither would have a monopoly over the actions of the army. That means one of them would have to agree for the peoples army to attack it, because the purpose of the army in an anarchist society is to act upon the mandates of the workers councils. And if a decision is made to deploy it, all effected councils would have to agree.

:lol:

I suppose they might do!

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:15 am
What if one commune or an alliance of communes disagreed with another neighbouring commune or series of communes with a different viewpoint on a matter which led to both sides coming to blows with their militia forces?
Imperialist anarchism, anyone? :P

Autonomous communes won't agree on everything with their neighbors. Isn't that the point of a classless, stateless society? The self-determination of workers?

What examples could possibly lead to such a violent conflict between the two?

[spartan]

rev0lt:
What examples could possibly lead to such a violent conflict between the two?
Say one commune (Called C1) wanted more wood from the factories of a neighbouring commune (Called C2). Now C1 has a much larger population then C2 so unless the vote is by percentage according to corresponding numbers (In other words if 50% of the larger C1 population voted in favour of getting more wood from C2's smaller population who voted 50% against then it would still be 50-50 even though C1's population is larger than C2's making voting equal and fair in terms of percentages) and then C1 with it's larger population who all agree on the matter will win the vote against C2's smaller population who will consequently lose some of their wood on account of them having a smaller population unable to defeat via votes C1's larger population.

So naturally C2 would be pissed off and may violently opposse this taking of wood which they cut down and are processing from them by C1.

[Faux Real]

Yes yes, I know people can disagree on things with a small margin of one opinion over another. But what specific situations would necessitate the use of armed force? It seems unnecessary to me if everyone still lived in communism.

[RGacky3]

The reason disagreements turn into violence in todays Societies, is because todays Societies have governements and Laws, which put authority into peoples hands, so people want their ideas to be laws. In an Anarchist Society if you disagree with someone, fine, that other person is'nt your superior, it does'nt matter.

Desicions that are made in an Anarchist Society would purely utalitarian ones i.e. desicions that need to be made, not ideological ones that don't need to be made.

Also since property is'nt an issue, there is no private property, there also is no profit, so what reason would a commune have for wanting more than what they need?

I'm not saying it will be perfect, and that there won't be problems, but I am saying that these problems are not ones that can't be taken care of in a civil manner with concensus. People arn't naturally violent selfish idiots, they can work things out as equals given the oportunity to. Unfortunately this system does'nt give people the opportunity too, Anarchism will.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 02, 2007 11:29 am
That means one of them would have to agree for the peoples army to attack it, because the purpose of the army in an anarchist society is to act upon the mandates of the workers councils.
People's militia.

There can't be an army when the state is abolished.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:09 pm
rev0lt:
What examples could possibly lead to such a violent conflict between the two?
Say one commune (Called C1) wanted more wood from the factories of a neighbouring commune (Called C2). Now C1 has a much larger population then C2 so unless the vote is by percentage according to corresponding numbers (In other words if 50% of the larger C1 population voted in favour of getting more wood from C2's smaller population who voted 50% against then it would still be 50-50 even though C1's population is larger than C2's making voting equal and fair in terms of percentages) and then C1 with it's larger population who all agree on the matter will win the vote against C2's smaller population who will consequently lose some of their wood on account of them having a smaller population unable to defeat via votes C1's larger population.

So naturally C2 would be pissed off and may violently opposse this taking of wood which they cut down and are processing from them by C1.
I'm not sure i understand.
First, i don't believe it would be an issue between the two communes, but an issue between a neighborhood assembly/commune and the wood factory union.

i don't see the purpose of commune 1's vote. Even if 90% of commune 1 was in favor of gettin more wood, if it is not within the current material means of the factory, they cannot supply the wood.

I don't see a 50-50 split happening in your situation. The factory can either have the abundance to supply the wood to the commune or not.

But i could be wrong.

[Tower of Bebel]

A nation? Do you know what a nation is?

[spartan]

blackstone:
I don't see a 50-50 split happening in your situation. The factory can either have the abundance to supply the wood to the commune or not.
Yes but what if C2 does not want to supply C1 with wood which is needed by both C1 and C2? A solution to this problem could be for C1 (Who does not have the wood) to look elsewhere to another commune for wood (And who are willing to give some of there wood away unlike C2) but what if the next nearest commune is too far away too suit C1's demand for the wood? This could create a supply problem! Especially if C1 needs the wood desperately and gets impatient for the wood. This could lead to C1 getting violent!

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:42 pm
blackstone:
I don't see a 50-50 split happening in your situation. The factory can either have the abundance to supply the wood to the commune or not.
Yes but what if C2 does not want to supply C1 with wood which is needed by C2? A solution to this problem could be for C1 to look elsewhere to another commune for wood (And who are willing to give some of there wood away) but what if the next nearest commune is too far away too suit C1's demand for the wood? This could create a supply problem! Especially if C1 needs the wood desperately and gets impatient for the wood. This could lead to C1 getting violent!
Well, in that case the wood factory of commune 2 has a union which is part of a larger federation of wood factory unions, which could be regional, national or international. If someone can supply it, it wouldn't take long for the commune to receive it.

Again, i think we have to think about rules of order.

In an anarchist/communist society there will be stages of planning before voting takes place.

If your part of a group, do you vote you all go to Egypt without first checking the traveling expenses and seeing whether it's in your budget?

Wouldn't be too clever. And you'll be in for a surprise..


Say the Eastside neighborhood council makes part of Commune 2, a commune which is made up of various neighborhood councils and workers assemblies. The neighborhood council received requests to build more houses and raised the issue in the next commune meeting. The commune took note of it and calculated how much wood and other supplies would be needed for the project.

The Commune either contacts Commune 1 or The Federation of Wood Factory Workers. They tell them of the amount of wood it needs. The workers of the factory take note of their supplies and production goals, and see if they can supply the amount of wood.

Two Scenarios
The Federation says yes they can supply the wood. The commune rep says thanks. Later that week, their is a commune council meeting, where the commune and neighborhood council votes to build new houses. If this passes, then they recontact the Federation to deliver the goods and production of the houses starts soon after

However, if the Federation cannot supply the wood. The rep contacts the commune and says no can do, it's not within the basis of their supplies. The commune rep says thanks, informs the eastside neighborhood council. Case closed.

There's nothing for the Commune or council to vote on. They can't vote on building houses, because they can't get the supplies for it. Just like it's no point of voting for a trip to egypt if it's out of your budget.

The commune can either readjust their needs to match the quota that the Federation can deliver, or put the project on hold.

[syndicat]

well, by my understanding of social ownership of resources, a forest isn't the private property of the people living around there, nor of the local wordworkers either. the idea of social planning is that the entire population, through their various local neighborhood assemblies and regional delegate meetings develop plans for what they want produced in regard to public goods -- things that are provided collectively, such as health care, housing, transportation, education, and so on. Now if this involves construction, then this would effect the plan's allocation of a proportion of total labor time to construction versus something else, to build the things that require wood for construction, as well as of course the wood.

The worker organizations that would do the work of construction and provide the materials, including the wood workers organization that provides the lumber, etc. would need to also indicate what they require in order to meet these requests. This will have effects on the plan in that expansion of capacity of the building materials industries and ripple effects throughout the economy, requiring reductions in other areas.

You'd need to have some process for negotiation of an agreement, a plan, about how the resources will be allocated. but the workers organization that provides wood can't make unilateral decisions because that is inconsistent with social ownership of the economy. They would be treating the wood and the lumber mill equipment as if it were their private property.

But I don't see how this has anything to do with "nations"? The usual idea about nations is that they are based on cultural differences such as a different language. If regions have autonomy in many areas, such as the language they use, and other matters that pertain to their local culture, where is the problem? If this is a revolutionary region, there are gains to be had through their participation in the federation with the rest of the revolutionary regions.