anarchism in practise

[vordhosbn]

hi there. i'm new to the ideas of anarchism - i have been doing a bit of reading and am becoming quite interested in it.
i'm a little confused as to how anarchism would actually work if put into place. i've just finished reading crimethinc's days of war nights of love, and it presents a very utopian society where each individual contributes according to his or her passions and skills. this may seem obvious, but for this kind of society to function, would it not require 100% participation? ie, it would not work if only a small percentage of the group chose to remain capitalists? is anarchism generally thought of as a worldwide revolution, or in smaller isolated cells? does anybody actually expect it would work in reality, or is it more of an idealistic goal?

and even if an working anarchist society did exist, is the idea of a 'government' necessarily a bad thing, so long as it governs without exploitation and domination? surely there would have to be some sort of committee to oversee the running of a society... or is this just my own learned assumptions coming into play? and what about the jobs that nobody wants to do? and what about laws and crime? surely a peaceful, working society would need to be built on shared ethical values, or chaos would ensue. and what to do with members that break this 'code'? what if members decide they no longer want to contribute to the society, and become greedy/lazy?

sorry for all the questions, i know i have a very coarse understanding of the topic :unsure: any help understanding this would be great.

Thanks

[PRC-UTE]

in practice there's no examples of anarchism working, let alone dealing with external or internal threats.

[Junius]

Check out the Paris Commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune) of 1871. Most anarchists and Marxists support that as a working model, albeit one that was crushed.

[#FF0000]

in practice there's no examples of anarchism working, let alone dealing with external or internal threats.

Excuse me? What about Anarchist Catalonia?

EDIT: OP, I suggest you look around in The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) for the answers to most of your questions. I'd answer them myself but I've got loads of work to do and I'm only able to pop in for a moment. I also suggest you look into the following books at some point:

The Conquest Of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
The ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman

I'll PM you some more suggested reading.

[Bilan]

in practice there's no examples of anarchism working, let alone dealing with external or internal threats.

A/ Don't post one liners
B/ Keep your sectarian drivel to yourself. No one cares.

---

As for the Original Poster, Crimethinc is not one of the best places to get an understanding of how an anarchist society would work - primarily, because Crimethinc is more based around getting an entertaining read, rather than any sort of practical ideas that don't involve eating out of a bin, or throwing rocks at cops/fascists/banks, which subsequently, don't turn out to be the most realistic of tactics, let alone anything of substance.

To understand how an anarchist society would look varies between the nature of the anarchist movement, and the dominant political tendency within a certain geographic (this is of course due to anarchisms lack of defining principles, except for "against hierarchy, the state, for freedom").

For purely the purpose of propagating of one form of anarchism which I personally, and most anarchists here, and abroad, share as a goal - Libertarian communism - I will mention.

This, in my opinion, is the only goal and tendency (with its varying methods of attaining this goal) which actually presents a solution to capitalism and the state.

Please see the anarchist group, we have some links in there to some good texts on Libertarian Communism, and its methods (e.g. Platformism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist communism).
The link is in my signature.

[F9]

hi there. i'm new to the ideas of anarchism - i have been doing a bit of reading and am becoming quite interested in it.
hi & welcome:)

I'm a little confused as to how anarchism would actually work if put into place. i've just finished reading crimethinc's days of war nights of love, and it presents a very utopian society where each individual contributes according to his or her passions and skills this may seem obvious, but for this kind of society to function, would it not require 100% participation?

When you say 100% participation you mean 100% participation of all the workers of whole community?If so, no its not needed the 100% participation, i believe the half would do not just enough but more of the needs we have, although the % would be higher than 50% just because people wont want to sit all day long at home.


ie, it would not work if only a small percentage of the group chose to remain capitalists?

if some people disagree with the economical system,or anything else, of the commune they can freely leave, plus the commune would provide them something to live until they find a new commune to settle.However people wanted to remain capitalists would may be existed, a capitalists commune would be a very very difficult to exist because all of those "capitalism lovers" would wanted to be bosses as in past, and they would have no "workers" to work for them, because workers work for themselves and their community.So choosing to be oppressed when 100 meters away you are free, there isnt a possibility a person would accept it!


is anarchism generally thought of as a worldwide revolution, or in smaller isolated cells? does anybody actually expect it would work in reality, or is it more of an idealistic goal?

Anarchism is global, as Communism!
Yeah we do expect it would work in reality, otherwise we wouldnt believe it.


and even if an working anarchist society did exist, is the idea of a 'government' necessarily a bad thing, so long as it governs without exploitation and domination?

Government IS exploitation and domination by it self, so yeah is a "bad thing" it it cant go with Anarchism!


surely there would have to be some sort of committee to oversee the running of a society... or is this just my own learned assumptions coming into play?

just yours:D


and what about the jobs that nobody wants to do?

Like?I can assure you that for every job every person knows another that likes that particular job!


and what about laws and crime?

Laws wont exist of course and crimes when they would seldom happen would be decided from commune what to do.Basical way "against" people who make crimes i see the help of some psychologist or the help from the family or near people so he can re-enter the commune knowing what he did as a mistake.



surely a peaceful, working society would need to be built on shared ethical values

Ethical values?Hell no.There are not such things!


or chaos would ensue

Why?


. and what to do with members that break this 'code'? what if members decide they no longer want to contribute to the society, and become greedy/lazy?

What "code"?If people become lazy (greedy for what?) let them be....



sorry for all the questions, i know i have a very coarse understanding of the topic :unsure: any help understanding this would be great.

Thanks

Why sorry?We are here to answer to anyone who wants answers, and we like when people make questions, so I thank you!;)
Hope i helped!

Fuserg9:star:

[PRC-UTE]

A/ Don't post one liners
B/ Keep your sectarian drivel to yourself. No one cares.


Nice way to avoid debating with what I said. And there's nothing sectarian about it at all- I've worked with anarchists, still have anarchists friends, I just don't think their methods will work, cos they never have.

Okay, show me the anarchist revolutions that worked? this will be good...

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs:, the billionaires today in Russia were former communist party members, same with prolly a good bunch of chinese millionaires. The whole "anarchist revolutioon doesnt work" coming from a marxist is a tad bit hypocritical.

I do think, however, that anarchism has very "utopian socialist" tendencies, not because their ideas are "utopian" themselves, but because they spend a considerable amount of time thinking how "anarchist society would look" and therefore, making anarchist organization a principle rather than a mean to struggle. Organization should be flexible, it should not be based on "organizing principles" - the organization should be a means for something.

[PRC-UTE]

:shrugs:, the billionaires today in Russia were former communist party members, same with prolly a good bunch of chinese millionaires. The whole "anarchist revolutioon doesnt work" coming from a marxist is a tad bit hypocritical.

however Marxists have carried out successful revolutions. What happened is that it didn't spread to more developed countries and it stagnated and fell apart, which was expected.

[PRC-UTE]

Excuse me? What about Anarchist Catalonia?

many of its rank and file were quite revolutionary. but it's undeniable that its bureaucracy and leadership sold out. so even under those conditions, anarchists could not carry through an anarchist style revolution, they ran into the same problems with an unaccountable bureaucracy as any communist party.

[Forward Union]

in practice there's no examples of anarchism working, let alone dealing with external or internal threats.

Anarchist Ukraine 1916-1921

Anarchist Korea 1923-1925 (I think)

Anarchist Catalonia 1936-1939

And arguably the Zapatista Territories in Chiapas Mexico 1994-Present

[PRC-UTE]

Anarchist Ukraine 1916-1921

mainly bandits honestly.



Anarchist Catalonia 1936-1939

some inspiring struggle here, but the most revolutionary elements broke with anarchist practice and called for ideas parallel to marxism such as a junta to repress counter-revolutionaries.



And arguably the Zapatista Territories in Chiapas Mexico 1994-Present

it would be better for you not to use that exampe, as the EZLN, while brave and fighting the good fight, had reformist politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

mainly bandits honestly.

Have you ever read anything about this struggle that wasn't written by a Leninist propagandists?


some inspiring struggle here, but the most revolutionary elements broke with anarchist practice and called for ideas parallel to marxism such as a junta to repress counter-revolutionaries.

Yes, we should have stuck to our anarchist tactical principles, because they would have worked whereas the Marxist ones failed.

[Vendetta]

however Marxists have carried out successful revolutions. What happened is that it didn't spread to more developed countries and it stagnated and fell apart, which was expected.

So how did they work?

[Hostage]

Someones an anarchist Aphex Twin fan :p

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh man, I've just had a total deja vu...

I could have sworn that the topic concerning the effectiveness of Marxist tactics vs. the effectiveness of anarchist tactics has been discussed before...

[Bilan]

Nice way to avoid debating with what I said.

I'm not doing debate a stupid one liner post.



And there's nothing sectarian about it at all- I've worked with anarchists, still have anarchists friends, I just don't think their methods will work, cos they never have.

Yet, the successful Leninist revolutions have degenerated like socio-political Frankensteins.
Don't bore me, or anyone else with, "material conditions" - we're well aware. But you can't negate material conditions to one (anarchism), and solely blame it for another (Leninism).
It makes your approach and you're understanding unscientific and wrong.Period.



Okay, show me the anarchist revolutions that worked? this will be good...

I somewhat think that, had the previous anarchist revolutions been successful, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Equally, had the Leninist ones actually lived up to their expectations, this conversation to would be redundant.
Perhaps one day you will face the fact that, abolishing the existing bourgeoisie is only part of the goal, achieving socialism is the other. A success is not half baked.

[PRC-UTE]

Have you ever read anything about this struggle that wasn't written by a Leninist propagandists?

I've read the official CNT historian Jose Pierat's book Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, I've read the documents by the Friends of Durrutti, I've read two of Bookchin's books, I've read The Anthology of Anarchism, With the Peasants of Aragon, Sabate's Guerilla Extraordinary... all anarchist work or sympathetic to anarchists.

Actually the funny thing is, now that you mention it, I've never read any books by Leninists on the Spanish Civil War.



Yes, we should have stuck to our anarchist tactical principles, because they would have worked whereas the Marxist ones failed.

If they'd stuck to anarchist principles exclusively, there never would've been a popular front since the anarchists with their numbers were essential to it- and thus no civil war or revolutionary situation.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm not doing debate a stupid one liner post.

What I said was factual, and you haven't actually responded to it once. You've just attacked me as "sectarian" or ranted about Leninists. Of course there's a very good reason for that. However anarchist sensitivities aside, the comrade who asked the quesiton in the OP should get an honest answer.



Yet, the successful Leninist revolutions have degenerated like socio-political Frankensteins.
Don't bore me, or anyone else with, "material conditions" - we're well aware. But you can't negate material conditions to one (anarchism), and solely blame it for another (Leninism).
It makes your approach and you're understanding unscientific and wrong.Period.

Erm, no it doesn't. Any workers revolution would've eventually failed if it was isolated. The point I made, that you can not refute is that anarchists can't even survive the counter-revolution or lead the working class to political power. Survival is kind of important if you want to carry out a revolution. So is industrialisation. Anarchists have always been defeated before the workers even have a chance to take power, and it's been a very long time since they've been involved in a revolutionary struggle. Or care to prove me wrong?



I somewhat think that, had the previous anarchist revolutions been successful, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Equally, had the Leninist ones actually lived up to their expectations, this conversation to would be redundant.
Perhaps one day you will face the fact that, abolishing the existing bourgeoisie is only part of the goal, achieving socialism is the other. A success is not half baked.

Of course if anarchist revolutions been successful we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the whole point. :lol: Anarchists have never accomplished the first part: abolishing the existing bourgeoisie.

[PRC-UTE]

So how did they work?

by abolishing the bourgeois state, arming and mobolising the working class to defend the revolution and leading the way to industrial development.

[Devrim]

If they'd stuck to anarchist principles exclusively, there never would've been a popular front since the anarchists with their numbers were essential to it- and thus no civil war or revolutionary situation.

The popular front meant the anarchists joining with other bourgeois parties. It singled the end of the revolutionary situation.


Yes, we should have stuck to our anarchist tactical principles, because they would have worked whereas the Marxist ones failed.

Are these the same anarchist principles that they had in 1931 when they supported the Republic in the elections or the principles of November 1930 when the CNT intervened to stop the mass strike and sent strikers back to work on the request of bourgeois republican politicians?

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

The popular front meant the anarchists joining with other bourgeois parties. It singled the end of the revolutionary situation.


I was of course referring to when the anarchists voted for the popular front as a tactic to get their comrades out of prison and the subsequent events. The far right rose up to overthrow that elected government, and then a period of dual power arose when the popular front govt did fuck all to defend the state and so armed workers organisations filled the vacuum. Of course the revolutionaries should've broken with the popular front when dual power was a reality.

[Devrim]

and then a period of dual power arose when the popular front govt did fuck all to defend the state and so armed workers organisations filled the vacuum.

The bourgeois parties did everything they could do to defend the state. Considering that the streets of Barcelona were held by armed workers, they can be considered quite successful in that they persuaded the CNT to join the government and in that way saved the state.

Devrim

[Bilan]

What I said was factual,

As was mine.



and you haven't actually responded to it once. You've just attacked me as "sectarian" or ranted about Leninists. Of course there's a very good reason for that. However anarchist sensitivities aside, the comrade who asked the quesiton in the OP should get an honest answer.

Oh, slander, how boring.




Erm, no it doesn't. Any workers revolution would've eventually failed if it was isolated.

Have I disagreed with that? No.
Did thou care to notice that every anarchist revolution was isolated? You think the Nazi's and Stalin, and the bourgeois state were not overlty hostile to the Spanish Revolutionaries? Dost thou know anything about the period?



The point I made, that you can not refute is that anarchists can't even survive the counter-revolution or lead the working class to political power.

Neither did the KPD in Germany; Equally, neither did the CNT in Spain.
You've simply proved me right that you are completely failing to materially analyse the situation, and are instead, preaching your dogma instead of trying to understand history. History does not necessarily fit into your narrow dogma unless you try and force it into it.




Survival is kind of important if you want to carry out a revolution. So is industrialisation. Anarchists have always been defeated before the workers even have a chance to take power, and it's been a very long time since they've been involved in a revolutionary struggle. Or care to prove me wrong?

What do you mean involved? You think that there were no Anarchists in Mexico? No anarchists involved in the General Strikes in Italy, Spain, Belgium and Colombia?
Don't be an idiot.



Of course if anarchist revolutions been successful we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the whole point. :lol: Anarchists have never accomplished the first part: abolishing the existing bourgeoisie.


And Leninists have never accomplished the latter, and inturn, reinstated a new former! So you better keep your laughter in your back pocket, because you just look stupid.

[Bilan]

Are these the same anarchist principles that they had in 1931 when they supported the Republic in the elections or the principles of November 1930 when the CNT intervened to stop the mass strike and sent strikers back to work on the request of bourgeois republican politicians?

Devrim


Devrim, know one is defending the stupid things the CNT did.

[Devrim]

Devrim, know one is defending the stupid things the CNT did.

There seems to be a suggestion that the CNT betrayed in 1936 because it didn't follow its principles. I was merely pointing out that it was following the same principles that it had been following for quite a few years by that time.

Devrim

[Bilan]

There seems to be a suggestion that the CNT betrayed in 1936 because it didn't follow its principles. I was merely pointing out that it was following the same principles that it had been following for quite a few years by that time.

Devrim

Perhaps so, but the principles it had been neglecting remained the same, whether in 30, 31 or in 36-39.

[Catbus]

So how did they work?



by abolishing the bourgeois state, arming and mobolising the working class to defend the revolution and leading the way to industrial development.


So why are we having this discussion? Oh yeah, because it didn't work.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Have you ever read anything about this struggle that wasn't written by a Leninist propagandist?
I've read the official CNT historian Jose Pierat's book Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, I've read the documents by the Friends of Durrutti, I've read two of Bookchin's books, I've read The Anthology of Anarchism, With the Peasants of Aragon, Sabate's Guerilla Extraordinary... all anarchist work or sympathetic to anarchists.

Actually the funny thing is, now that you mention it, I've never read any books by Leninists on the Spanish Civil War.He was talking about anarchist Ukraine.

To the OP, if you want a book on anarchist ukraine, this is excellent: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nestor-Makhno-Anarchys-Alexandre-Skirda/dp/1902593685
[/URL]
For spain, this is a collection of primary sources on how the economy was organised. Lots of detail and really good: [URL]http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Collectives-Workers-Self-Management-1936-39/dp/0919618200/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225896820&sr=8-3 (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Collectives-Workers-Self-Management-1936-39/dp/0919618200/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225896820&sr=8-3)