Centralisation and other things.

[Post-Something]

Recently after reading up on the state, I decided that I was actually quite fed up with my previous notion of it. I think my views will probably change quite a bit as I do a bit more reading, so I've come to ask for a bit of advice.

Basically, I pretty much always tended to agree with the Trotskyist analysis of issues that came up, even though I've tried pretty hard to avoid locking myself into one strand. For example with national liberation and internationalism, I almost always agree with the Trotskyists. But I'm getting really fed up of Democratic Centralism. As a result, I'm going to stretch out and see if there are any other schools of thought out there that I could read up on in more depth, or whether I'm just going to have to agree with loads of different theories.

1. I'd like to know if there are any "communist" currents which support a fully decentralised system of organisation. I'm especially interested in what the left communists have to say here.

2. I'd like to know if there are any Anarchists which support national liberation movements.

3. I'd like to know what Trotskyists think of this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/index.htm)

4. I'd like to know what the Left communist conception of the state in relation to Lenin's is.

5. And I'd like to know how Anarchists see a revolution being defended without a state? Specifically Without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?


Thanks in advance :)

[apathy maybe]

"1. I'd like to know if there are any "communist" currents which support a fully decentralised system of organisation. I'm especially interested in what the left communists have to say here."
Anarchist communists by definition support decentralised systems of organisation.


"2. I'd like to know if there are any Anarchists which support national liberation movements."

In general anarchists oppose the establishment of a new ruling class anywhere. Where people from another country rule in a place, we want those people out. But we don't want new native rulers, we want no rulers.

We thus oppose "national" liberation, and support instead simply liberation. The liberation of all people around the world from their bosses and rulers. Not the liberation of the native rulers from external rulers.

"5. And I'd like to know how Anarchists see a revolution being defended without a state? Specifically Without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?"
Anarchists have a different definition of "state" to Marxists, and think that to say that a "state" must be used to defend the revolution is incorrect. We feel that a state will never just go away. Anarchists don't oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat", so long as it isn't a "state" by the definition which anarchists use. Generally it is felt that of course there is going to be a transitional phase, but it is going to be a democratic, and decentralised phase. There isn't going to be a state (by the definition anarchists use, which is not the same as what Marxists use), because a centralised system cannot lead to anarchism.

As such I've heard descriptions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" given by Leninists, which wouldn't sound too odd if it was said they were written by anarchists.

[Post-Something]

"1. I'd like to know if there are any "communist" currents which support a fully decentralised system of organisation. I'm especially interested in what the left communists have to say here."
Anarchist communists by definition support decentralised systems of organisation.

+1 for Anarchist communism.


"2. I'd like to know if there are any Anarchists which support national liberation movements."

In general anarchists oppose the establishment of a new ruling class anywhere. Where people from another country rule in a place, we want those people out. But we don't want new native rulers, we want no rulers.

We thus oppose "national" liberation, and support instead simply liberation. The liberation of all people around the world from their bosses and rulers. Not the liberation of the native rulers from external rulers.Hmm, yeah, I have a big problem with this. I think it really ignores the material reality. Sure, it would be nice to have a world where that was possible, but I really don't think it is. At least by trying to stop the advances of imperialism, you are taking it back to a national level, rather than a global one. Incedently, one of the few Anarchists I know in real life is actually more adamant about National Liberation than me, so I thought I'd throw it out there.


"5. And I'd like to know how Anarchists see a revolution being defended without a state? Specifically Without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?"
Anarchists have a different definition of "state" to Marxists, and think that to say that a "state" must be used to defend the revolution is incorrect. We feel that a state will never just go away. Anarchists don't oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat", so long as it isn't a "state" by the definition which anarchists use. Generally it is felt that of course there is going to be a transitional phase, but it is going to be a democratic, and decentralised phase. There isn't going to be a state (by the definition anarchists use, which is not the same as what Marxists use), because a centralised system cannot lead to anarchism.

As such I've heard descriptions of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" given by Leninists, which wouldn't sound too odd if it was said they were written by anarchists.Well, what is the Anarchist definition of the state? By state right now, I am simply using it as a term for a monopoly on organised coercive force, that's all. Things like the police and the military. How would an Anarchist revolution be able to defend it's society's gains against hostile external forces?

[F9]

Amswering only the "Anarchists" parts, for the others, people from those ideologies should for have a fair "treatment".;)

2.I think supporting national liberation movements cant get along with principles of Anarchism, however i cant say that none Anarchists support them,as i cant speak for all Anarchists in person!
Nationalism brings us no "good" so no, it dont prevents imperialism to expand but in some way, helps imperialism to grow!Taking your personal defense to a "national" level, and that only people from the nationality defend is stupid!People with different "nationalities" who leave there can defend themselves too, but "nationalism" bans them from doing so!Something that divides people, even if can be "succesfull" in defence, shouldnt have support of true leftists imo!

5.There are numerous threads about this, if you can search you will find plenty answers.
Now saying that protection and defense needs a state or a "dictaroship of proletariat" the least i can say its very stupid!!We can defend ourselves, we dont need anyone to say us to do so!


Fuserg9:star:

[apathy maybe]

+1 for Anarchist communism.Grand


Hmm, yeah, I have a big problem with this. I think it really ignores the material reality. Sure, it would be nice to have a world where that was possible, but I really don't think it is. At least by trying to stop the advances of imperialism, you are taking it back to a national level, rather than a global one. Incedently, one of the few Anarchists I know in real life is actually more adamant about National Liberation than me, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
Yeah, some anarchists do support the idea of national liberation. But they don't support it for the sake of it, merely as the lesser of two evils sort of thing. It's still evil.

Seriously though, all serious "communists" of any stripe should oppose "national" liberation, and support international liberation. Whether, in the mean time, we support kicking imperialists out of other countries or not is a tactical issue, not a values issue.



Well, what is the Anarchist definition of the state? By state right now, I am simply using it as a term for a monopoly on organised coercive force, that's all. Things like the police and the military. How would an Anarchist revolution be able to defend it's society's gains against hostile external forces?
Yeah, Marxists talk about class a lot. Their definition is based around which class has power or something (I can't be bothered defining it more than that).
Anarchists tend to talk more about centralisation of power etc. OK, you have a revolution, you get rid of all the people with power, and then what? You don't set up a new army, a new police force, a new parliament etc., because it won't go away.

No, you set up decentralised systems of governance (and only where needed for the time being). You don't have a permanent police force, because that establishes a class of people above everyone else.

Rather then "representatives", at most any central talk shop would have delegates who aren't empowered to take decisions without consulting the people they are representing (or only allowed to agree within certain parameters). So, rather than a parliament, you would have a conference, where any major decision needs to be taken by the people back home. Or, alternatively, in this wonderfully technical world we have, everyone could vote on issues.

The whole, "but you need a state" issue has been addressed in many other threads, and I can't be bothered right now looking for them. I'm sure someone else will post some links.

[Invincible Summer]

Hmm, yeah, I have a big problem with this. I think it really ignores the material reality. Sure, it would be nice to have a world where that was possible, but I really don't think it is. At least by trying to stop the advances of imperialism, you are taking it back to a national level, rather than a global one. Incedently, one of the few Anarchists I know in real life is actually more adamant about National Liberation than me, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

From my experience, even Trotskyists are somewhat opposed to national liberation, as it usually leads to nationalism which is counter-productive to the revolution. You can't have a strong international revolution when people are cheering about their own country all the time.


Well, what is the Anarchist definition of the state? By state right now, I am simply using it as a term for a monopoly on organised coercive force, that's all. Things like the police and the military.
The Anarchist definition of the state is:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.

Point 3 is the most important for anarchists, though.

[Psy]

.
Yeah, Marxists talk about class a lot. Their definition is based around which class has power or something (I can't be bothered defining it more than that).
Anarchists tend to talk more about centralisation of power etc. OK, you have a revolution, you get rid of all the people with power, and then what? You don't set up a new army, a new police force, a new parliament etc., because it won't go away.

No, you set up decentralised systems of governance (and only where needed for the time being). You don't have a permanent police force, because that establishes a class of people above everyone else.

Rather then "representatives", at most any central talk shop would have delegates who aren't empowered to take decisions without consulting the people they are representing (or only allowed to agree within certain parameters). So, rather than a parliament, you would have a conference, where any major decision needs to be taken by the people back home. Or, alternatively, in this wonderfully technical world we have, everyone could vote on issues.

The whole, "but you need a state" issue has been addressed in many other threads, and I can't be bothered right now looking for them. I'm sure someone else will post some links.
You have the problem of large scale projects, do you think people traveling from say Buenos Aires Argentina to Halifax Canada would want to travel on a rail network that is made up of tiny local railways or do you think they want to travel on a regional rail system for all of South and North America were trains are regionally planed according to global transportation plans so trains are in synch with the arrival and departure of ships heading to and from Europe and Asia to minimize wait times?

What about global planning over pollution? How are we going to come to a agreement on what is acceptable levels of pollution with decentralized governance?

[apathy maybe]

I was going to write at some length on railways. Except that it's already been done for me!
The Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html) by Peter Kropotkin.

We know that Europe has a system of railways, 175,000 miles long, and that on this network you can nowadays travel from north to south, from east to west, from Madrid to Petersburg, and from Calais to Constantinople, without stoppages, without even changing carriages (when you travel by express). More than that: a parcel thrown into a station will find its addressee anywhere, in Turkey or in Central Asia, without more formality needed for sending it than writing its destination on a bit of paper.

This result might have been obtained in two ways. A Napoleon, a Bismarck, or some potentate having conquered Europe, would from Paris, Berlin, or Rome, draw a railway map and regulate the hours of the trains. The Russian Tsar Nicholas I dreamt of taking such action. When he was shown rough drafts of railways between Moscow and Petersburg, he seized a ruler and drew on the map of Russia a straight line between these two capitals, saying, “Here is the plan.” And the road ad was built in a straight line, filling in deep ravines, building bridges of a giddy height, which had to be abandoned a few years later, at a cost of about £120,000 to £150,000 per English mile.

This is one way, but happily things were managed differently. Railways were constructed piece by piece, the pieces were joined together, and the hundred divers companies, to whom these pieces belonged, came to an understanding concerning the arrival and departure of their trains, and the running of carriages on their rails, from all countries, without unloading merchandise as it passes from one network to another.

All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses at which relegates met to discuss certain special subjects, but not to make laws; after the congress, the delegates returned to their companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected.

There were certainly obstinate men who would not he convinced. But a common interest compelled them to agree without invoking the help of armies against the refractory members.

This immense network of railways connected together, and the enormous traffic it has given rise to, no doubt constitutes the most striking trait of our century; and it is the result of free agreement. If a man had foreseen or predicted it fifty years ago, our grandfathers would have thought him idiotic or mad. They would have said: “Never will you be able to make the shareholders of a hundred companies listen to reason ! It is a Utopia, a fairy tale. A central Government, with an ‘iron’ director, can alone enforce it.”

And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by contract.

[Post-Something]

Yeah, some anarchists do support the idea of national liberation. But they don't support it for the sake of it, merely as the lesser of two evils sort of thing. It's still evil.

That's sort of how I see it.


Seriously though, all serious "communists" of any stripe should oppose "national" liberation, and support international liberation. Whether, in the mean time, we support kicking imperialists out of other countries or not is a tactical issue, not a values issue.

I think the reasoning I gave was related more to the tactical side.

Anyway, thanks for the reponses everyone, hopefully people from another ideological trend will respond soon enough.

[Psy]

I was going to write at some length on railways. Except that it's already been done for me!
The Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html) by Peter Kropotkin.

Yes there was joining of railways to connect larger networks yet these railways were build by a central authority for each railway. The problem with decentralized railways is inefficiency, if a train is not where it is suppose to be when it suppose to be then it effects the entire network, for example if a train is only 5 minutes late passing through a heavily used switch it might cause the next train to have to hit his breaks losing his momentum, if there is climb ahead of the other train he could be hours late as his speed in the climb could be halved with the loss in momentum.

[JimmyJazz]

Anarchist communists by definition support decentralised systems of organisation.

It's not definitional. That doesn't even make sense. "By definition" is almost never a useful phrase (or should I say, it is almost never used correctly except by people with a formal logic background), and it certainly isn't here.

Neither "anarchism", "communism" nor "decentralization" is well-defined enough to be building premises by citing the definition. Further, you don't even say exactly what you're citing the definition of. Anarcho-communism? Decentralization? Both?

An example of where this phrase could be used but not abused:

Definition of X is ~B
Definition of B is [whatever]
Is B = X?
No, by definition of X.

Political ideologies are not that neatly defined, ever.

If they were, we wouldn't be able to sustain a discussion board where we all yell at each other endlessly about the relative merits of competing political labels. Much less would ideologies like right-wing libertarianism be able to exist.

You can appeal to "common sense" or general consensus perhaps, but not definition.

[apathy maybe]

Well I'm sorry. But according to the understanding I have of "anarchist communism" (what I called the "definition"), anarchist communists are opposed to too much centralisation, and support decentralised systems of organisation.

Thus, by the definition I use for "anarchist communists", and by the definition that I use for "decentralisation", if you say "anarchist communist", then you are implying "decentralisation".

For example, if you say "steel", you are implying an alloy that consists mainly of iron. The definition of steel is an alloy of, mainly, iron with another material (according to Wikipedia, mainly carbon).

The definition of "anarchist communist" is a person support "anarchist communism". The definition of which, is an "anarchist" system of "communism". I've defined those two words previously. But quickly, the most important word is "anarchist". All anarchists support decentralisation to a large extent, because "centralisation" is (according to most relevant definitions I've just looked up), putting power into one location or group. In other words, creating a hierarchy, with the central group being on top.

OK, so is that clear enough for you? I'm using my definitions, which anyone can go and find in previous posts.

[apathy maybe]

Yes there was joining of railways to connect larger networks yet these railways were build by a central authority for each railway. The problem with decentralized railways is inefficiency, if a train is not where it is suppose to be when it suppose to be then it effects the entire network, for example if a train is only 5 minutes late passing through a heavily used switch it might cause the next train to have to hit his breaks losing his momentum, if there is climb ahead of the other train he could be hours late as his speed in the climb could be halved with the loss in momentum.
Even if you are building a stretch of railway one hundred metres, you still require a "central authority". Yes, in the case of Europe, each country (I guess) built the railways, and then joined them up.

How about roads? In some places, most roads are the responsibility of the local government. Yet still, the roads still manage to connect up... (If you have four areas in a row, A B C D, area A only has to worry about connecting up with area B. Area B has to worry about connecting with area A and C. But neither has to worry about D at all! Decentralisation will still put out perfectly good roads or railways, which will still all hook up together.)

You argument on time tables also apples to centralised time tables. A time table has been agreed upon (or dictated from above), but if a train is five minutes late, that might fuck up everything! Yes, the same thing happens with planes.

[Psy]

Even if you are building a stretch of railway one hundred metres, you still require a "central authority". Yes, in the case of Europe, each country (I guess) built the railways, and then joined them up.

How about roads? In some places, most roads are the responsibility of the local government. Yet still, the roads still manage to connect up... (If you have four areas in a row, A B C D, area A only has to worry about connecting up with area B. Area B has to worry about connecting with area A and C. But neither has to worry about D at all! Decentralisation will still put out perfectly good roads or railways, which will still all hook up together.)

You argument on time tables also apples to centralised time tables. A time table has been agreed upon (or dictated from above), but if a train is five minutes late, that might fuck up everything! Yes, the same thing happens with planes.
The larger the project the more centralization is needed, do you want regional space agencies each with insufficient resources to do much or do you want one internal space agency with consolidated resources?

Construction of new high speed rail networks require far more planning as trains traveling at speeds around 300 KM/H require tracks that are mostly strait, speed tests of bullet trains have reached 443 KM/H, the problem is straiting out tracks even more so bullet trains can cruise closer to their top speed and speed tests of maglev trains have reached speeds 581 KM/H yet they require the track to be even straiter. Those speeds would allow us to replace a large chunk of air travel (though still would be slower then air travel) with more efficent rail travel yet if we want to built high speed rails across the world they are going to be mostly huge strait lines were we use our mechanized labor to move terrain out of the way of the railway and that would require a centralized bodies of engineers and armies of construction workers to clear obstacles out the railway's way (rather then the railway going around obstacles).

[JimmyJazz]

OK, so is that clear enough for you?

It was always clear. I agree that anarcho-communism, by anyone's definition, is pretty damn decentralized (by almost anyone's definition of decentralized, or at least any leftist's). I was just being a logic nazi.

For instance, I think you could make a pretty good argument that a system which is officially decentralized is still vulnerable, actually more vulnerable, to the sheer force of personality of a few charismatic people. Emma Goldman was not particularly brilliant in my opinion (she was a decent thinker), and what I've read by Alexander Berkman was absolutely terrible. Yet they both commanded a lot of unofficial power to steer the American anarchist movement. Mostly just by being very assertive, opinionated and active imo. Out of those three, "active" is the only one I'd consider a really legitimate way of making a name for yourself.

And consider Berkman's attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick, Mario Buda's bombing of Wall Street, or someone's fateful decision to chuck a bomb at the cops during the Haymarket riots. The people who committed those actions were taking into their hands incredible power over other anarchists, and indeed the whole American working class. They basically determined the future of the American anarchist movement with their actions. Did anyone elect them to do these things?

I just think the whole idea of "decentralization" is much too vague and murky for any ideology to be able to claim a monopoly on it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Some great responses so far. I'll chime in.



1. I'd like to know if there are any "communist" currents which support a fully decentralised system of organisation. I'm especially interested in what the left communists have to say here.

I would say that anarcho-communism (Communism-Anarchism) would be the closest.

Leo and/or Devrim would be the first Left-Communists that come to mind in regards to your query - perhaps you wish to PM them? They are extremely knowledgeable and kind and will surely answer your question as best they can.


2. I'd like to know if there are any Anarchists which support national liberation movements.

Most anarchists would oppose national liberation movements (as Apathy mentioned) on the grounds that 'liberation' would be better. BUT, with that said, if one is to adopt a materialist perspective and look at the gains to be made by the working class in any given nation, there might be practical reasons for supporting national liberation.

After all, it is possible to support a movement and all-the-while be critical.


5. And I'd like to know how Anarchists see a revolution being defended without a state? Specifically Without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

Anarchists employ a different definition of the state than Marxists. As far as I understand, and this will be broad:
Marxist state: the organ of class oppression.
Anarchist state: an institution possessing a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force.

See the difference? For a Marxist, say during/after the revolution, the state may be possessed by the working class and hence justified. For the anarchist, on the other hand, this state may still contain characteristics which are unacceptable.

Hope this helps.

- August

[Devrim]

4. I'd like to know what the Left communist conception of the state in relation to Lenin's is.

Different left communists have different conceptions. The conception of our current is outlined in this pamphlet:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition
This page summaries the ideas:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition/resolution_1979.html

Devrim