Conversion from centralized power to communities

[A_Ciarra]

[font=Arial]<span style='font-family:Arial'><span style='font-family:Courier'> As an anarcho-communist I really should know much more about DIRECT DEMOCRACY and how this can be achieved. I would love to know what books and web pages I can study that detail the fundamentals of direct democracy – what sites and books have helped other anarchists the most??? So far I have just read a bit about federalism etc on Wikipedia, but I need better direction. I can always do a web search (and will of course) but much prefer to know where to concentrate me energies.

I’m more interested in the practical theory - what IT IS, how it’s defined, the principles, etc., since the future, and how to achieve these ends is still up in the air. But I welcome passionate ideals on HOW to create an anarchist community, “nation” or planet as well - what it is we would have to DO as a people to create a world of self-governing individuals rather than oppression of others.

Thank you much, and my apologies for what must be an often asked question&#33;-_-[/font]</span></span>

[blackstone]

Participatory Economics and the Self-Emancipation of the Working Class
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings...ancipation.htm

This essay by Tom Wetzel discusses participatory economics, as well as what will the necessary conditions needed to achieve to have a sustainable economic system in which workers are no longer an exploited, subjugated class. It goes into details of participatory planning which allows ordinary citizens to control their own lives and decisions that affect them. This as well as a strategy to implement such a system which is guided by the famous quote of Flora Tristan, “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.”



Worker&#39;s Councils and the Economics of Self-Managed Society
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life...ndEconomics.htm

This pamphlet talks about what might the structure, social relations and decision-making institutions of such a post revolution society look like, in an advanced industrial country. Extremely detailed orientated which show how worker self-management and organization, as well as, neighborhood organization can take place in a postrevolutionary society.


Looking Forward
http://www.parecon.org/lookingforward/toc.htm

Looking forward is a book that also describes how the workplace could be organized efficiently and productively without hierarchy and coercion. How society can be participatory and egalitarian. The book guides you through their perspective of how the social plan for society will be reached upon by a series of proposals from workers&#39; and consumers&#39;(neighborhood)councils and meetings of regional delegates.

I hope i was of some help&#33;

[Rawthentic]

blackstone, how do such articles explain the contradictions in socialism and what it will take to get to communism?

In other words, those articles do bring forward nice visions of a post-revolutionary society, but how do the structures they propose lead to a stateless, classless, society?

[blackstone]

blackstone, how do such articles explain the contradictions in socialism and what it will take to get to communism?

What contradictions are you specifically suggesting?Racism, sexism, homophobia?The better i understand the question the better i can answer. From my knowledge, these articles don&#39;t focus too much on said issues. However, Looking Forward does give examples of how sexism in the workers&#39; controlled workplace can be avoided. The same examples can be changed to also handle racism and homophobia in the workplace. I&#39;m personally working on an essay describing how to avoid racism, sexism and such in the workplace and communities in a socialist society.

But by class I&#39;m assuming it to be understood as the differentiation that is caused by the existence of power relations over the system of social production. If that is the case, these articles provide structures to lead to a classless society. It also provides simultaneously a non-hierarchal structure that leads to a stateless society. Again, to better answer your question i need to know your definition of class and state, because i think these articles handle this question well.

[Rawthentic]

Do you honestly think that non-hierarchical structures can defend a socialist state (and by &#39;state&#39; I use the materialist definition: a political organ of class rule) from imperialist encirclement and civil war?

All the contradictions that have been faced in socialism and will of course come up again, such as emergence (and re-emergence) of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology, and the need for the constant revolutionizing of society that can sweep away all the garbage still left over from capitalism.

I was just asking, but the reality is that they do not deal with this question, and frankly, their viewpoint and methodology is far too narrow to do so.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the People@October 26, 2007 03:27 pm
Do you honestly think that non-hierarchical structures can defend a socialist state (and by &#39;state&#39; I use the materialist definition: a political organ of class rule) from imperialist encirclement and civil war?

All the contradictions that have been faced in socialism and will of course come up again, such as emergence (and re-emergence) of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology, and the need for the constant revolutionizing of society that can sweep away all the garbage still left over from capitalism.

I was just asking, but the reality is that they do not deal with this question, and frankly, their viewpoint and methodology is far too narrow to do so.

Do you honestly think that non-hierarchical structures can defend a socialist state (and by &#39;state&#39; I use the materialist definition: a political organ of class rule) from imperialist encirclement and civil war?

Yes, i do. I think you have a misunderstanding of non-hierarchal structures and decentralization.

Anarchist Tension in another thread said this,

Anarchists don&#39;t have a problem with "centralised" economic planning but in a decentralised way; meaning industries centralise within their industry federations and plan their production and distribution, perhaps in co-ordination with other federated industries. This is free from a centralised government or institution of political authority.

Here&#39;s what Bakunin had to say,

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge.

-God and the State (1876)

Just because there is no vanguard part , does not mean that society is disorganized. Nor does it make society any more vulnerable to attack or to mount an offense.

This thread talks about Anarchism and Post Modern Warfare
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72013

Can you please give me some examples of fears you have or possible scenarios and i, and others, can propose possible solutions.

Anyway, your attacking essays for addressing something not in their essays aims. That&#39;s like attacking Marx&#39;s Das Kapital for not explaining the contradictions in socialism and what it will take to get to communism. So the fault lies not in their structure for society, but the topic that they chose to right about it&#33;

The person asked

But I welcome passionate ideals on HOW to create an anarchist community, “nation” or planet as well - what it is we would have to DO as a people to create a world of self-governing individuals rather than oppression of others.

and i gave him links on ideas on how to create society of self-governing individuals.


Peace

[Rawthentic]

Just because there is no vanguard part , does not mean that society is disorganized. Nor does it make society any more vulnerable to attack or to mount an offense.

It makes society and the gains of the revolution far more solid and able to repel both interior and exterior attacks.

Anyway, your attacking essays for addressing something not in their essays aims. That&#39;s like attacking Marx&#39;s Das Kapital for not explaining the contradictions in socialism and what it will take to get to communism. So the fault lies not in their structure for society, but the topic that they chose to right about it

&#33;
Well duh, Marx never lived through the socialist experiences. My point was the how such decentralized structures can deal with the acute class struggle and garbage from capitalism on the road to communism.

In order for there to be actual defense, the entire superstructure of socialism is aimed at meeting human need while protecting and advancing the revolution and all that that means. The superstructure is all made up of the police, courts, worker&#39;s councils, people&#39;s assemblies, vanguard party, people&#39;s army, militias, neighborhood committees (like Cuba, CDRs).

[A_Ciarra]

This is EXCELLENT guy&#39;s, thank you very very much. Great mutual aid here&#33;

[Chicano Shamrock]

At the website www.audioanarchy.org. You can download several audio books and recordings. Days of War, Nights of Love is a great book for someone who doesn&#39;t want to sit through the heavy philosophy.

I suggest listening to their Critique on Direct Democracy.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock@October 28, 2007 11:22 am
At the website www.audioanarchy.org. You can download several audio books and recordings. Days of War, Nights of Love is a great book for someone who doesn&#39;t want to sit through the heavy philosophy.

I suggest listening to their Critique on Direct Democracy.

If I remember correctly, don&#39;t they just advocate consensus on everything?
Either that, or the polar opposite.

Anyway, I think one of the easiet, and best texts to read on anarchism and direct democracy would be Malatesta. Definatley.
Perhaps Anarchy or A talk about Anarchist Communism between two workers..
Or, perhaps this.

[A_Ciarra]

I&#39;m having trouble with the Day&#39;s of War, Night&#39;s of Love php format (through Lime Wire I can never get enough resources/users to file share with), if anyone knows where there might be an e-book version of it will you let me know. I&#39;ve tried CrimethInk but no luck unless I&#39;m missing that version.

Bookchin&#39;s essay, What is Communalism is what I&#39;m reading now and it has been very helpful. Thanks again.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Proper Tea I think they advocated compromise as a better route. It might or might not be a better plan but it&#39;s nice to listen to the alternatives.

A Ciarra, you can download all of the files off of itunes for free under the podcast section. Also you can buy the book for something like &#036;8 from Crimethinc. The book has more little side stories and pictures and stuff.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the People@October 26, 2007 06:42 pm

Just because there is no vanguard part , does not mean that society is disorganized. Nor does it make society any more vulnerable to attack or to mount an offense.

It makes society and the gains of the revolution far more solid and able to repel both interior and exterior attacks.

Anyway, your attacking essays for addressing something not in their essays aims. That&#39;s like attacking Marx&#39;s Das Kapital for not explaining the contradictions in socialism and what it will take to get to communism. So the fault lies not in their structure for society, but the topic that they chose to right about it

&#33;
Well duh, Marx never lived through the socialist experiences. My point was the how such decentralized structures can deal with the acute class struggle and garbage from capitalism on the road to communism.

In order for there to be actual defense, the entire superstructure of socialism is aimed at meeting human need while protecting and advancing the revolution and all that that means. The superstructure is all made up of the police, courts, worker&#39;s councils, people&#39;s assemblies, vanguard party, people&#39;s army, militias, neighborhood committees (like Cuba, CDRs).

It makes society and the gains of the revolution far more solid and able to repel both interior and exterior attacks.

Saying that this is so, doesn&#39;t make it true. You have yet to support any of these claims with any evidence at all. How does society structured along these lines make it more vulnerable to interior and exterior attacks, than if structured along the lines you suggest? Which, I assume to be centrally organized, with the vanguard party at the head.

There were many successful anarchist columns during the Spanish Civil War, such as the Durruti Column and Iron Column.


One of the prisoners liberated by the anarchists from the Valencian prison of San Miguel de Los Reyes has left us a personal account of the formation of what was quickly to become the most uncompromisingly revolutionary but also the most vilified of all the militia columns:

"I am one of the ones who were freed from San Miguel de Los Reyes, a sinister prison built by the monarchy as a burial place for men like us who, being no cowards, have never submitted to the infamous laws devised by the powerful against the oppressed. Like so many others, I was taken there for having committed an offence in that I had revolted against the degradation visited upon an entire country . . . I had taken the life of a bully. Out along with me came many men who had also suffered and also been scarred by the ill-treatment they had experienced since birth. Some, as soon as they hit the streets, dispersed throughout the world; others of us rallied to our liberators who treated us as friends and loved us as brothers. Together with these we have gradually formed the Iron Column, together with them we have wasted no time in storming the barracks and disarming fearful guards; together we have, in hard-fought attacks, driven the fascists back as far as the Sierra peaks where they remain today. Accustomed to taking what we need, we seized rifles and provisions in repulsing the fascists. And for a time we dined off what was offered to us by the peasantry. And without anyone making us a gift of a single weapon, we have armed ourselves with what we have wrested from the insurgent troops by the strength of our arms. The rifle that I clutch, the rifle that has been at my side ever since I turned my back on that fateful prison is mine, my very own, I took it from the man who bore it and nearly all the rifles that my comrades carry are, by the same token, our very own."1

The Iron Column, like other militias, set up a war committee with the following structure:

"The establishment of the War Committee is acceptable to all the confederal militias. Taking the individual as the starting point, we form groups of ten, which manage minor operations for themselves. Ten groups make up one centuria, which nominates a delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which is led by the War Committee composed of the centuria delegates."2


Members of the Durruti Column in Aragón (August, 1936)


I really don&#39;t understand your perception of national defense in a society that is non-hierarchal. Do you think that attacks cannot be launched until every citizen votes on it? If so, that is certainly not the case.

As I stated, in another thread, a society that is hierarchal is much more susceptible to counter-revolution and restoration of capitalism than a non-hierarchal one. From the very start it encroaches on the self-management of workers and consumers. Socialist society implies the organization by people themselves of every aspect of their social life. The establishment of socialism therefore entails the immediate abolition of the fundamental division of society into a stratum of order-givers and a mass of order-takers and a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation from class oppression.

Cheers

[Rawthentic]

Saying that this is so, doesn&#39;t make it true. You have yet to support any of these claims with any evidence at all.

Russia and China.

. Socialist society implies the organization by people themselves of every aspect of their social life. The establishment of socialism therefore entails the immediate abolition of the fundamental division of society into a stratum of order-givers and a mass of order-takers and a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation from class oppression

.
And you honestly think that the abolition of mental and manual labor will spread out into thin air and we will all dance? No. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, and we must deal with those contradictions and work through them. You can&#39;t honestly say that just because the proletariat is in power that all of a sudden there is no state or forms of oppression. Guess what? They still exist. And will keep doing so until material conditions dictate it. Thats my Marxists are materialists and understand the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.

There were many successful anarchist columns during the Spanish Civil War, such as the Durruti Column and Iron Column.

[QUOTE]
I fail to remember where the proletariat seized power in Spain.

As I stated, in another thread, a society that is hierarchal is much more susceptible to counter-revolution and restoration of capitalism than a non-hierarchal one.

And as I&#39;ve shown repeatedly, this is a load of bullshit. Socialism is not communism, if that were the case, then I would ignore materialism and become a anarchist. Socialism still has commodity production, and, as Marx showed, regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class. In all socialist societies there will communist leadership (with the support of the masses of course or else they wouldnt be leaders) and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.

There will be hierarchy under socialism, and racism, and the division of labor, but in a whole different context because society, and the proletariat in particular, struggles to put an end to it in the only way they can (when they have state power) on the road to communism.

[blackstone]

[quote]Originally posted by Live for the People@October 29, 2007 10:18 pm

Saying that this is so, doesn&#39;t make it true. You have yet to support any of these claims with any evidence at all.

Russia and China.

. Socialist society implies the organization by people themselves of every aspect of their social life. The establishment of socialism therefore entails the immediate abolition of the fundamental division of society into a stratum of order-givers and a mass of order-takers and a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation from class oppression

.
And you honestly think that the abolition of mental and manual labor will spread out into thin air and we will all dance? No. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, and we must deal with those contradictions and work through them. You can&#39;t honestly say that just because the proletariat is in power that all of a sudden there is no state or forms of oppression. Guess what? They still exist. And will keep doing so until material conditions dictate it. Thats my Marxists are materialists and understand the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.

There were many successful anarchist columns during the Spanish Civil War, such as the Durruti Column and Iron Column.

I fail to remember where the proletariat seized power in Spain.

As I stated, in another thread, a society that is hierarchal is much more susceptible to counter-revolution and restoration of capitalism than a non-hierarchal one.

And as I&#39;ve shown repeatedly, this is a load of bullshit. Socialism is not communism, if that were the case, then I would ignore materialism and become a anarchist. Socialism still has commodity production, and, as Marx showed, regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class. In all socialist societies there will communist leadership (with the support of the masses of course or else they wouldnt be leaders) and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.

There will be hierarchy under socialism, and racism, and the division of labor, but in a whole different context because society, and the proletariat in particular, struggles to put an end to it in the only way they can (when they have state power) on the road to communism.

Russia and China.

Russia and China are textbook cases of restoration due to interior "attacks". So try again.

And you honestly think that the abolition of mental and manual labor will spread out into thin air and we will all dance? No. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, and we must deal with those contradictions and work through them. You can&#39;t honestly say that just because the proletariat is in power that all of a sudden there is no state or forms of oppression. Guess what? They still exist. And will keep doing so until material conditions dictate it. Thats my Marxists are materialists and understand the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.

I never claimed such a thing. In fact, if you had read the links I posted earlier in this thread, you would see they never claim such a thing neither. So where did you get this idea from? Since you have a preoccupation with things spreading into "thin air", maybe that&#39;s where you pulled it out from.

The society we are talking about is not communism, which supposes total freedom, the complete control by people over all their own activities, the absence of any constraint, total abundance -- and human beings of a totally different kind.

The society we are talking about is socialism, and socialism is the only transitional society between a regime of exploitation and communism...The transition to communism is only possible if exploitation is immediately abolished, for otherwise, exploitation continues and feeds on itself. The abolition of exploitation is only possible when every separate stratum of order-givers ceases to exist, for in modern societies it is the division into order-givers and order-takers which is at the root of exploitation. The abolition of a separate managerial apparatus means workers&#39; management in all sectors of social activity. Workers&#39; management is only possible through new institutions embodying the direct democracy of the producers (the Councils). Workers&#39; management can only be consolidated and enlarged insofar as it attacks the deepest roots of alienation in all fields and primarily in the realm of work.

In their essence, these views closely coincide with Marx&#39;s ideas on the subject. Marx only considered one kind of transitional society between capitalism and communism, which he called indifferently &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; or &#39;lower stage of communism&#39;. For him, this society implied an end to exploitation and &#39;to a separate state apparatus.

Worker&#39;s Councils and the Economics of Self-Managed Society
http://anonym.to/?http://www.lust-for-life...ndEconomics.htm

So, as you can see, the pamphlet obviously knows and understands the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.

I fail to remember where the proletariat seized power in Spain.

Well, I&#39;m not to blame for your bad memory.

And as I&#39;ve shown repeatedly, this is a load of bullshit. Socialism is not communism, if that were the case, then I would ignore materialism and become a anarchist. Socialism still has commodity production, and, as Marx showed, regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class. In all socialist societies there will communist leadership (with the support of the masses of course or else they wouldnt be leaders) and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.

There will be hierarchy under socialism, and racism, and the division of labor, but in a whole different context because society, and the proletariat in particular, struggles to put an end to it in the only way they can (when they have state power) on the road to communism.

First, I never said or claimed socialism is communism. Nor, did i dismiss the threat in this transitional society of the restoration of division of labor, coercion, hierarchy and capitalism.

Elimination of the class system is not merely a formal process of expropriation and creation of a new organization. Job definitions need to be re-thought, power equalized through learning new skills and workers taking over tasks formerly done by "professionals." Ingrained habits of giving and obeying orders need to be broken down. Because the new system inherits differences in skills, education and habits from hierarchical systems of power, there is a danger of expertise and decision-making being re-consolidated into some new hierarchy. Perhaps the union organization - separate from the structure of self-management of the industry - was needed to look out for the interests of the workers in the course of this process of transition.

- Workers Power and the Spanish Revolution - Tom Wetzel


In all socialist societies where there is communist leadership and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.

I like that rendition better. If by communist leadership you mean vanguard party whom has authority on all spheres, i reject your thesis. Now, if you mean there will be communist leaders and there will be communist followers, but both have the ability to influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by it, then cool.

Otherwise, As i said, I don&#39;t disagree that there will be racism, homophobia, sexism, division of labor under socialism, it&#39;s a transitional period for a reason.

Cheers

[Rawthentic]

I never claimed such a thing. In fact, if you had read the links I posted earlier in this thread, you would see they never claim such a thing neither. So where did you get this idea from? Since you have a preoccupation with things spreading into "thin air", maybe that&#39;s where you pulled it out from.

Oh really? Let&#39;s see:

Socialist society implies the organization by people themselves of every aspect of their social life. The establishment of socialism therefore entails the immediate abolition of the fundamental division of society into a stratum of order-givers and a mass of order-takers and a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation

Socialism is not emancipation, communism is.

Russia and China are textbook cases of restoration due to interior "attacks". So try again.

The Russian and Chinese Revolutions were defeated by imperialism and the capitalist class that developed and gained power. Nice try.

Its no wonder that these revolutions lasted and defended proletarian state power for decades.

I like that rendition better. If by communist leadership you mean vanguard party whom has authority on all spheres, i reject your thesis. Now, if you mean there will be communist leaders and there will be communist followers, but both have the ability to influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by it, then cool.

You can&#39;t use materialism and then idealism at your convenience. You just admitted the correctness of my line that socialism is the transitional period still marked with the capitalist garbage. Because of all these things, a vanguard party is essential to work them through.

[abbielives!]

this is why we anarchists belive in building the new world in the shell of the old.