Anarchism in practice

[Holden Caulfield]

i like anarchism..
if i thought it could work any time soon i would support you guys,
i dont think it can, a state is needed and needed for a while after thr revolution, and maybe always needed in some form,

so if anarchists took power tomorrow, what exactly would they do?

[which doctor]

Anarchists don't necessarily take power, the proletariat do.

[Crest]

Well, I don't know this for a fact (As I'm not an anarchist), but I'd assume the point would be that the anarchists wouldn't be in power. That no one would be in power, thus they wouldn't neccesarily do anything.

[Colonello Buendia]

Anarchists wouldn't take power, we would take part in froming collectives and communes throughout the area we control.

[Luís Henrique]

Moved to learning, as this is not "in depth" discussion.

(In fact, I fear it is just sectarianism, and would gladly trash it, but perhaps people will be able to make something better of it. I'm paying to see.)

Luís Henrique

[chegitz guevara]

If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.

[Faux Real]

If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.Is that a meager attempt at humor or are you just being a thick-minded imbecile?

I suspect it's invariably the latter. :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.

If, by anarchism, you simply mean the lack of a recognized state apparatus, then this would be correct.

But ultimately anarchism is not just about doing away with the state.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems it's getting worse, instead of better. If it turns to be nothing else than a mud-slinging party, I'm going to trash it.

Luís Henrique

[Fedorov]

All you need to do is take some time and read this. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ It should answer a lot of questions on anarchism.

[crimsonzephyr]

doesn't it matter what type of anarchy it is? It would vary from group to group

[Bilan]

so if anarchists took power tomorrow, what exactly would they do?

We don't want to 'take power', comrade, we want the working class as a whole to exercise it, and an end to class systems and hierarchical social and economic (And political) organization.

Are you more asking, what would an anarchist 'society' look like?

*sigh* And now on to the assholes



Well, I don't know this for a fact (As I'm not an anarchist),

Well, at least your honest!



but I'd assume the point would be that the anarchists wouldn't be in power.In power? You mean, we wouldn't usurp the bourgeois political structure for our own ends?



That no one would be in power, thus they wouldn't neccesarily do anything.No, on the contrary, everyone exercises power. Again, it's 'all power to the people'.
We don't use the bourgeois political system because we are against it. We don't want to create another bourgeois political structure covered in red because we see through it.

Pick up a book, comrade.



If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.Absurd.
Almost as bad as "If you want to see communism in practice, vote for Obama!"

Grow up.

[rsinger09]

While there are many different kinds of anarchism the most common view point is the belief in a society without hierarchies and oppression, this is entirely possible because in my opinion, it is the power structures and oppression within society that leads people to act out and exploit other people. If people were able to work together in a freer society without having to worry about all the negative problems that people face living in a capitalist society, the quality of life for all people will improve. Hope and love are instinctive to us all and anarchy is about putting humanity first.

[Forward Union]

If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.

Good point. Except it's a very specific form of Anarchism, specifically Anarcho-Capitalism. There's no workers power of federation of democratic workers assemblies.

Instead., the market riegns in Somalia, and there are no trade restrictions. Everthing from Kids to class A drugs are tradable, and people compete in every way possible, including killing eachother for profit.

[Fedorov]

Lets all not get over ourselves, Somalia is not anarchist in any way except that the government, that exists, has no control over the country. Its more of a fuedal warring states period, not anarchism. Lets not use Somalia as a way to trash either side.

*On point though, the documentary on expropriation in Argentina is a good example on how it is a workable system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL4Dm5n-n2o
Already posted on the films section but why not.

[Organic Revolution]

If you want to see anarchism in practice, look to Somalia.

And if you want to see socialism in practice, take a gander at the Soviet Union. Try again.

[abbielives!]

the arguement for the state taking power is similar to the arguement used by the Capitalists for their anti-"terrorism" laws (security) Commies should be ashamed of themselves for thinking like bourgie scum, also never explained is how the state will vanish, other than it will somehow magically "wither away". What it comes down to is that we have different conceptions of what the state is. I belive that the state not only preserves class it also produces it.



And if you want to see socialism in practice, take a gander at the Soviet Union. Try again.

Or China, Cuba, Vietnam, Mozambique, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, etc..

the failures of and eventual return to capitalism are due to the "material conditions" of course, not anything the the leaders or party did:lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good point. Except it's a very specific form of Anarchism, specifically Anarcho-Capitalism. There's no workers power of federation of democratic workers assemblies.

Instead., the market riegns in Somalia, and there are no trade restrictions. Everthing from Kids to class A drugs are tradable, and people compete in every way possible, including killing eachother for profit.

chegitz, I'm afraid Wat owns you here. :(

Nevertheless, the quoted material above is good for my anti-libertarianism thread in OI. :)

[Bastable]

a state is needed and needed for a while after the revolution, and maybe always needed in some form,


do you know what communism is?

[RHIZOMES]

so if anarchists took power tomorrow, what exactly would they do?

Anarchists taking power.


Lol.

An anarchist. Taking power.

[Holden Caulfield]

i mean if an anarchist led revolution took place tomorrow and you guys stromed the parliment, would you as effective popoular leaders of a state immidaety dissolve it and allow all of the worst elements of society to act freely or would you guys form some sort of national council in order to deal with any nation wide issues, and form committees for nation wide ventures such as transport and foreign relations etc...

as for the state in some form comment i would like to say that i do o mean a state but some form of central council/soviet of workers to discuess issues that would effect us all, not to rule over people but as a group for all people to voice their opinion in a 'native american council type of fashion'

my apologies for my poor explaining skills,

[Lamanov]

Workers' councils take power. 500 posts and you didn't learn much.

Maybe this would help: Diego Abad de Santillan - After the Revolution (http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm).

[Holden Caulfield]

i do learn much i just dont think it could realistically work, i was asking for some detail and opening my mind to be swayed however i havent been,

apparently we cannot go into more detail than, workers councils will be set up, i am a Trot if i got in power i would like to see workers councils/soviets set up,

would your anarchist group do the setting, control the media in the early days to spread the message, or have your revolution then nothing else and allow the spontanious set up of these councils?

1,267 posts and you cant answer a simple question,

[apathy maybe]

That's because it isn't a simple fucking question.

You can simplify your answer by saying "state" "state", as to how you would run things, but anarchists don't rely on such backward concepts.

Basically, when you ask, "would your anarchist group do the setting [up], control the media in the early days to spread the message [etc.]", you are showing that actually you still don't trust the workers. You know, the people who will actually do the work!

It won't be an anarchist group that controls the media, it will be the workers who are organised by themselves who will do that.

You see, while you can just talk about top-down leadership and giving directions (Chavez for the win!), when it comes down to it, that doesn't produce a free society.

[Holden Caulfield]

and if one collective is set up by white supermicists and they have considerable support as the BNP do in the UK atm, would their group be 'allowed' to exsist and allowed to spread their propaganda providing 'scape goats' for people with problems (problems that could in time be fixed).

as surely this is what the workers want if that is what they chose to do?

it is hardly super complex at this therortical stage, anarchists lead the coup, fight the barricades and a nation looks to them for guidance, will it be given in a form of first helping how to set up soviets or setting them up and handing them over to the people,

i am aware of the workers, i am from a shit working class area with parents with working class jobs and im headed the same way which is more that can be said for most type on revleft, but in my area the people seem more likely to follow the BNP than anarchists, through ignorance and propaganda albiet but still...

[Colonello Buendia]

as with Marxists, anarchists believe that there must be a certain state of mind for the revolution to happen. white supremacists would be wiped out during the revolution or before it because they can't actually exist in an anarchist society

[Holden Caulfield]

as many marxists i think that is idealistic and that if an opportunity for a vanguard led revolution presented itself the anarchists would be like left trying to play snooker with rope

[Colonello Buendia]

who said we wouldn't partake? we'd have our revolution and then we'd administer any areas we liberate in an anarchist fashion leaving the vanguardists to do their thing and then once they make some mess over let's say stealing food off farmers and suppressing democracy and clamping down on other socialists we'll wade in and save the day:tt2:

[Holden Caulfield]

A) shouldn't you be at school young man!

and B) all of the 'Red Terror' and aqusition squards etc under Lenin were entirely necessary to secure the revolution of the workers and to keep up a war effort against the whites and interventionists while trying to share sparse resources very thinly over a large population

you will find that most nations in times of war suspend democracy, as it is difficult to hold elections when so much resource and time is going towards keeping men alive, and so many eligable voters are at the front lines,

you sound like Karl Kautsky resurrected as an anarchist,

[RedFlagComrade]

Communists at least make it clear what they believe a socialist society would look like but anarchists are pretty vague on what living in an anarchy would be like. So far this thread has completely failed to describe a post-revolution anarchic society with any level of clarity.Answer the question what would anarchism be like in practise?

However an the Somalia issue-obviously the place was a disaster-but there were certain advantages of even anarcho-capitalism over the usual regional autocracies

"An economic survey by the World Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank) found that the distribution of wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth) was more equal, and the extent of extreme poverty lesser than in governed West African nations. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-10) Scholarly research indicates that living standards in Somalia increased in absolute terms, relative to the government era, and relative to other African nations during this period.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-powell-11)"

Im definately not in favor of Somalian anarchy-but like the soviet union it is in some ways better and in some wys far worse than other systems.

[welshboy]

If you want an idea as to what an Anarchist society would look like and how it would function you won't go far wrong by reading The Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff.

Sorry I know this thread is a bit old but I wanted to point out the book.

[Wake Up]

The abolition of the state isn't actually as huge a deal as it sounds. Life goes on.

In a way anarchism is about starting again. In the process of humanities advancements there have been many mistakes made regarding equality, liberty and so on. An anarchistic society aims to let the proletariat take control and self-govern themselves, doing away with private property (capitalism) and state beaurocracy that impedes on the proletariate.

SO lets assume that the anarchist movement has won a revolution. First you must remember that the anarchist revolution is hugely almost unanimously popular amongst the proletariat, as otherwise it would not work - Anarchism cannot be 'forced' on the population of a whole.
Let us also assume that during the revolution the capitalists and bourgeois were all defeated and have no power left.

The next step would be to abolish the state and in the process of doing so transfer power to the proletariat at an individual level. because the proletariat are behind the anarchist movement and are therefore prepared for the abolition of the state the transition process shouldn't be too lengthy.
The proletariat are then likely to build communities and syndicates as this is natural human behavior. These communities would then function on direct democracy and a general opposition to capitalism. In a sense society is starting again, but with the benefit of hindsight and enlightenment.


A common question asked of anarchists often goes along the lines of,
"So if I'm hungry can I just go and rob that store. Afterall theres no police to stop me"

True there are no police but there is a store owner who might not be too happy about you robbing your store. Mob law then? Well no because it is likely that the age old custom of arbitration will be set up to settle disputes. So instead of in a statist society were there is a blanket law for everyone, cases are taking individually.


I think you may be skeptical about the leaders of the revolution not taking power and abusing the situation. This is obviously a risk but one that must be guarded against during any revolution and after it. If direct democracy is to be used universally then education would be a prime concern of any anarchist movement and education is a dictators worst enemy in my book.



Oh and finally there have been many anarchist communities throughout human history. I don't know the details of them all but in the vast majority of cases the closure of those anarchist communities has been down to outside influences rather than a social collapse or powergrabbing individuals. (good list on wikipdeia)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

i mean if an anarchist led revolution took place tomorrow and you guys stromed the parliment, would you as effective popoular leaders of a state immidaety dissolve it and allow all of the worst elements of society to act freely or would you guys form some sort of national council in order to deal with any nation wide issues, and form committees for nation wide ventures such as transport and foreign relations etc...

as for the state in some form comment i would like to say that i do o mean a state but some form of central council/soviet of workers to discuess issues that would effect us all, not to rule over people but as a group for all people to voice their opinion in a 'native american council type of fashion'

my apologies for my poor explaining skills,

Huh? An anarchist revolution is a social revolution, what you have described is a palace coup. Anarchists organize this thing called "dual power." Which are instituions that provide needs in the here and now but also take the shape of what we want to do in the future. As we want worker's control in the future, we organize worker's organizations run on those principles. Other workers may be organizing a network of worker's co-ops to create a model of what an alternative society might look like. This pattern is replicated in all other anarchist oriented struggle. Our organizing is geared towards democratic self management, and all the while we build alternatives that put this into practice.

When you see an anarchist revolution the whole of society moves, not some insurrectionist sect. So don't worry this scenario would never happen.

[Kropotesta]

i mean if an anarchist led revolution took place tomorrow and you guys stromed the parliment, would you as effective popoular leaders of a state immidaety dissolve it and allow all of the worst elements of society to act freely or would you guys form some sort of national council in order to deal with any nation wide issues, and form committees for nation wide ventures such as transport and foreign relations etc...
Basically the revolution won't happen with anarchists storming parliament one day. A liberatarian revolution would need mass support from the working class to be successful, or even initated, this would need class conciousness leading to a general strike. So through the fighting of the revolution, industry would have to be maintained, of which anarchists would advocate the setting up of co-operatives and the like, which the class conciousness revolution fighting workers would most likely proceed to do without prompt, surely it makes sense to run industry with worker control?


as for the state in some form comment i would like to say that i do o mean a state but some form of central council/soviet of workers to discuess issues that would effect us all, not to rule over people but as a group for all people to voice their opinion in a 'native american council type of fashion'
We reject the idea of any state, however I feel a confederation of communes would fill in on non-local issues.

Well there's my view for what it's worth.