Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?

[audiotech]

Roundhay? Must have mega-bucks to live there.

 

[Edie]

You don't know Meanwood very well do you?

Well I fuckin live here, so I'd hope so Meanwood is fine, you cheeky fuck. Roundhay is better. Other half wants to move in a few years when I've finished Uni and the kids are secondary age. I don't cos I LOVE my house!

Which area do you live in?

 

[audiotech]

Well I fuckin live here, so I'd hope so Meanwood is fine, you cheeky fuck. Roundhay is better. Other half wants to move in a few years when I've finished Uni and the kids are secondary age. I don't cos I LOVE my house!

Which area do you live in?

Meanwood beats Roundhay hands down. To generalise for a moment, Roundhay is full of rich, up their own arsehole types.

I trust you and your house have a long-lasting loving relationship.

I live in "shithole" street.

 

[TremulousTetra]

russia was slightly better at being capitalist, well for a while?

You trot loon.

why?

 

[audiotech]

An anarchist I know described Russia as 'capitalist without the good bits'.

 

[DotCommunist]

an anarchist would see a fairly rigid planned economy as an iteration of capitalism, albeit a heavily state fettered capitalism. And discussing wether that interpretation is correct leads us down the path of what labour means etc.

 

[TremulousTetra]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=11346505#post11346505

Yes, I know the state capitalism argument. But to argue that these states were not established in a genuine attempt to etablish socialism, however misguided, and that the absence of private capitalists didn't make for a different (not necessarily better) society, is absurd.

Sorry LL, I don't know you from Adam so didn't know you knew about the state capitalism theory. No offence.

"But to argue that these states were not established in a genuine attempt to etablish socialism, however misguided," I didn't say that.

British Coal had an absence of capitalists, it was still running a capitalist basis.

When you say it is absurd, you need to explain by what measure. In Marxist terms?

 

[LLETSA]

Not long after I moved out, there was a riot. Wasn't really motivated by race, although it played a part, but it got reported as a race riot. Anyway, nowadays it's vastly improved, but it wasn't improved particularly by all the money that started rolling in from the state after the riot (easiest way to get funding seems to be to kick off

Some people on here have been known to come close to advancing this as a political strategy.

 

[The39thStep]

an anarchist would see a fairly rigid planned economy as an iteration of capitalism, albeit a heavily state fettered capitalism. And discussing wether that interpretation is correct leads us down the path of what labour means etc.

Would all anarchists really see a fairly rigid planned economy as an interation of capitalism?

Is it not possible to have models of economic democracy within a planned economy, lets face it a return to top down large nationalisation doesn't seem likely and there is a question mark about whether it would be desirable.

 

[TremulousTetra]

it was slightly better at being capitalist, well for a while?

This is an interesting thread. Thank you, folks. I confess I never read threads with the word 'anarchism' in their title. That's mainly due to the fact that I don't fully understand the rationale behind anarchism and have never heard of a community/society/country functioning as an anarchy. Of course, I could be wrong about the latter purely due to my ignorance. It has been mentioned earlier on the thread that anarchism and communism are similar. Is this because neither is achieveable? I ask because in my limited understanding both are utopias. What I mean is that a community/society is bound to have disagreements and then what? what are they to do with those who don't go along with the majority? Reform them? or punish them? or kick them out? and who decides which way is fair?

I have to say that I largely agree with what LLETSA and Captain Hurrah have said. Incidentally, I think (I could be wrong) LLETSA is referring to BBC's reports by Paul Moss, I found the Belarus interviews also a bit pathetic. Captain Hurrah, have you ever considered FCO or British Council? Or they don't interest you?

*must read all threads*

If you're genuinely interested this is a good place to start.
An Anarchist FAQ[/QUOTE]

And for communism www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk

 

[The39thStep]

Some people on here have been known to come close to advancing this as a political strategy.

And as he says the funding props up established 'community leaders' . Historically there are a hard core of wards within Britain that have been in the worst quartile of deprivation for over two and even three decades despite such funding.

 

[TremulousTetra]

it was slightly better at being capitalist, well for a while?

I think it probably was one of the same reports-I just turned the news on one evening and there it was. After all the experience of the 'colour' revolutions in the Soviet bloc being nothing other than swapping one bunch of gangsters for another, and still they're playing the game, expecting it to come right and the 'free-market' to suddenly flourish.

this adds to the point I was making above.

When the Russian USSR Empire collapsed, the bunch of gangsters left running the factory, were exactly the same gangsters as before. There was virtually no change in who controlled the means of production, it was the same 'managers'.

 

[LLETSA]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=11346505#post11346505

Sorry LL, I don't know you from Adam so didn't know you knew about the state capitalism theory. No offence.

"But to argue that these states were not established in a genuine attempt to etablish socialism, however misguided," I didn't say that.

British Coal had an absence of capitalists, it was still running a capitalist basis.

When you say it is absurd, you need to explain by what measure. In Marxist terms?

In any terms. There was no profit motive for a start. Managers at all levels of the state and industry were on a wage-which wasn't vastly more than that of the average member of the population. They did get plenty of perks, but the difference between the vast majority of them and the rest of society wasn't anything like as wide as that existing between big time capitalists and workers. Rent on living accommodation was low, as was the cost of public transport and basic foodstuffs. Hot water, heating and local telephone calls were virtually free, because all were subsidised. Etc etc. Wealth generated in the economy was ploughed directly back into the economy and state. That made for a different kind of society than this one, no matter if it wasn't to everybody's taste. Did you ever go?

 

[LLETSA]

this adds to the point I was making above.

When the Russian USSR Empire collapsed, the bunch of gangsters left running the factory, were exactly the same gangsters as before. There was virtually no change in who controlled the means of production, it was the same 'managers'.

There were a lot of overlaps but they were joined by a new bunch who had never been party of the party-state apparatus. The likes of Boris Berosovsky and Ambramovich for instance, who'd positioned themselves well in the perestroika years. It wasn't simply a case of CP bureaucrats reinventing themselves as capitalists; it was a lot more complicated than that.

Stop repeating Socialist Worker socialism-by-numbers stuff.

 

[LLETSA]

And as he says the funding props up established 'community leaders' . Historically there are a hard core of wards within Britain that have been in the worst quartile of deprivation for over two and even three decades despite such funding.

This illuststrates the dead-end of riot fetishisation-an absurd phenomenon which leaves those who are politically opposed to the state totally reliant on appealing to it to do the right thing. That they are intent on doing it with the brick instead of the ballot paper* makes no difference at all.


* I make an exception of those anarchists who in the final analysis usually advocate a vote for Labour.

 

[TremulousTetra]

In any terms. [edit] Managers at all levels of the state and industry were on a wage-which wasn't vastly more than that of the average member of the population. They did get plenty of perks, but the difference between the vast majority of them and the rest of society wasn't anything like as wide as that existing between big time capitalists and workers. Rent on living accommodation was low, as was the cost of public transport and basic foodstuffs. Hot water, heating and local telephone calls were virtually free, because all were subsidised. Etc etc. [edit] That made for a different kind of society than this one, no matter if it wasn't to everybody's taste. Did you ever go?

cant really disagree with any of that, besides the bits I've edited out. Would even go so far as to say, yes it was different. But there is also a lot of variance between capitalist countries. None of that means there was a social revolution. In Marxist terms, as a mode of production, how is it different?



1. " Wealth generated in the economy was ploughed directly back into the economy and state."
Invested in what?! The reason it collapsed, was because the surplus value extracted, went more and more to satisfying the 'aspirations' of the ruling class, the bureaucracy, more than satisfying its need to be economically competitive with the US.

2. "There was no profit motive for a start."
No I've never been to Russia. Have you read capital? You need to define what you mean by profit motive. The extraction of surplus value was at the heart of the Russian system, like every other capitalist system.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There were a lot of overlaps but they were joined by a new bunch who had never been party of the party-state apparatus. The likes of Boris Berosovsky and Ambramovich for instance, who'd positioned themselves well in the perestroika years. It wasn't simply a case of CP bureaucrats reinventing themselves as capitalists; it was a lot more complicated than that.

I agree. They were joined by people who saw which way the wind was blowing. Pretty much like Stalin himself.

Stop repeating Socialist Worker socialism-by-numbers stuff.

I have read barely any of their stuff for a decade.

 

[LLETSA]

cant really disagree with any of that, besides the bits I've edited out. Would even go so far as to say, yes it was different. But there is also a lot of variance between capitalist countries. None of that means there was a social revolution. In Marxist terms, as a mode of production, how is it different?



1. " Wealth generated in the economy was ploughed directly back into the economy and state."
Invested in what?! The reason it collapsed, was because the surplus value extracted, went more and more to satisfying the 'aspirations' of the ruling class, the bureaucracy, more than satisfying its need to be economically competitive with the US.

2. "There was no profit motive for a start."
No I've never been to Russia. Have you read capital? You need to define what you mean by profit motive. The extraction of surplus value was at the heart of the Russian system, like every other capitalist system.

There was no social revolution? What do you call it when they have a civil war and then abolish not only all private business but liquidate whole classes?

1 What you say may be true-but how do you imagine they kept society functioning for seventy years if wealth wasn't ploughed back into the economy and state.Do you think they ran it all on vodka?

2 I will likely never read capital, as I don't have a spare decade and never have, and what you say may be true. But what I meant was that the driving forceof the economy wasn't personal profit for private individuals or collections of individuals. If something functioned badly it was subsidised by wealth extracted from elsewhere.

If you had been to Soviet Russia you would have seen for yourself that, whatever it was, it was considerably different to the West in many ways. There is, I know, an argument for saying that Russia will always be unique and I agree. But what I've said applies too to the Soviet satellite states, including the hitherto more 'westernised' ones.

Why do you want everything 'in Marxist terms?' It's no more than a recipe for garbled, half-arsed theroising on message boards like this. I have no intention of getting into it. See neprimenye, or whatever he called himself, and other anoraks. (Where's he gone anyway?)

 

[LLETSA]

I agree. They were joined by people who saw which way the wind was blowing. Pretty much like Stalin himself.

Absolutely unlike the case of Stalin. Stalin was a convinced Marxist-or was at least convinced by Marxism filtered by the Russian experience. Stalin carried out what he regarded as a socialist revolution. He was not primarily motivated, or even motivated at all, by personal profit.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why do you want everything 'in Marxist terms?' It's no more than a recipe for garbled, half-arsed theroising on message boards like this. I have no intention of getting into it. See neprimenye, or whatever he called himself, and other anoraks. (Where's he gone anyway?)

if you say statement is absurd, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask by which measure? I'm trying to ascertain why you come to such a conclusion. Now I know , you are not criticising you from a Marxist measure/perspective.

If you had been to Soviet Russia you would have seen for yourself that, whatever it was, it was considerably different to the West in many ways. There is, I know, an argument for saying that Russia will always be unique and I agree. But what I've said applies too to the Soviet satellite states, including the hitherto more 'westernised' ones.

I have already agreed with that, and said as much myself about Cuba. Saying it had statistics that would put US to shame. Though not quite as good as Cuba, Russia to did have some merit in the way it treated some of it’s people sometimes, probably most.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11346118&viewfull=1#post11346118

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11346239&viewfull=1#post11346239

There was no social revolution? What do you call it when they have a civil war and then abolish not only all private business but liquidate whole classes?

a coupe.

You 2 I will likely never read capital, as I don't have a spare decade and never have, and what you say may be true. But what I meant was that the driving forceof the economy wasn't personal profit for private individuals or collections of individuals. If something functioned badly it was subsidised by wealth extracted from elsewhere.

Absolutely unlike the case of Stalin. Stalin was a convinced Marxist-or was at least convinced by Marxism filtered by the Russian experience. Stalin carried out what he regarded as a socialist revolution. He was not primarily motivated, or even motivated at all, by personal profit.

Being a kind capitalist, does not stop you being a capitalist. Who was that soap manufacturer in the UK, who set up model villages for his workers? Who was that capitalist in America, who was manufacturing for the Second World War very much on a bottom up basis, really looking after his workers. I forget.

And there have been many capitalists, who have lived a frugal lifestyle like Stalin. It was one of the central tenets of Quakerism, and early Protestantism.

I do not define capitalism as being a system based upon personal profit. Wasn't Roman society based on personal profit, if you were a member of the Roman ruling class. Was’nt Egyptian society based upon personal profit, if you're a member of the Egyptian ruling class?

If you want to say that the USSR was not system based upon the personal profit of the individuals in the bureaucracy, then by and large, by capitalist standards you are probably right. I don't really have an argument with that.

What I do, is go back to my earlier analogy, and ask you, would you say also that the mode of production under the church in feudalism, was not feudalism? Because unlike the Kings and lords the church bureaucracy were ‘not’ motivated by personal gain?

For me in the West and in the East, there were those who control the means of production, the ruling class, and those who sold their labour in that system, the working class. Capitalism.

 

[LLETSA]

if you say statement is absurd, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask by which measure? I'm trying to ascertain why you come to such a conclusion. Now I know , you are not criticising you from a Marxist measure/perspective.
I have already agreed with that, and said as much myself about Cuba. Saying it had statistics that would put US to shame. Though not quite as good as Cuba, Russia to did have some merit in the way it treated some of it’s people sometimes, probably most.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11346118&viewfull=1#post11346118

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11346239&viewfull=1#post11346239

a coupe.

Being a kind capitalist, does not stop you being a capitalist. Who was that soap manufacturer in the UK, who set up model villages for his workers? Who was that capitalist in America, who was manufacturing for the Second World War very much on a bottom up basis, really looking after his workers. I forget.

And there have been many capitalists, who have lived a frugal lifestyle like Stalin. It was one of the central tenets of Quakerism, and early Protestantism.

I do not define capitalism as being a system based upon personal profit. Wasn't Roman society based on personal profit, if you were a member of the Roman ruling class. Was’nt Egyptian society based upon personal profit, if you're a member of the Egyptian ruling class?

If you want to say that the USSR was not system based upon the personal profit of the individuals in the bureaucracy, then by and large, by capitalist standards you are probably right. I don't really have an argument with that.

What I do, is go back to my earlier analogy, and ask you, would you say also that the mode of production under the church in feudalism, was not feudalism? Because unlike the Kings and lords the church bureaucracy were ‘not’ motivated by personal gain?

For me in the West and in the East, there were those who control the means of production, the ruling class, and those who sold their labour in that system, the working class. Capitalism.

When I say it was different I wan't necessarily saying better. I went quite a lot and by the end I was glad to leave the place behind. But it was definitely not 'just the same' as Western capitalism.

'If you want to say that the USSR was not system based upon the personal profit of the individuals in the bureaucracy, then by and large, by capitalist standards you are probably right. I don't really have an argument with that.' Okay, I'll say that then. But your comments about Stalin being 'a frugal capitalist' border on madness.

 

[The39thStep]

any more news on which is the worst place in Leeds?

 

[Proper Tidy]

We could just write the whole city off.

 

[audiotech]

Why not, most have written off the football team already.

 

[Edie]

any more news on which is the worst place in Leeds?

Tbh the discussion since the Meanwood update has gone over my head, but you carry on

 

[_angel_]

Meanwood beats Roundhay hands down. To generalise for a moment, Roundhay is full of rich, up their own arsehole types.

I trust you and your house have a long-lasting loving relationship.

I live in "shithole" street.

Roundhay is full of rich but quite elderly people - my parents live near there but technically in Moortown. (They're not rich or up their arses either) but I don't think if they were young now they'd ever be able to afford round there on just one income like back in the early 80's.
I think Edie would prefer Horsforth, more young families there, but again, it would cost an absolute fortune.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have read barely any of their stuff for a decade.

Doesn't matter. They're mostly still repeating the same stuff they churned out in the 1980s, with slight alterations.

 

[Edie]

Roundhay is full of rich but quite elderly people - my parents live near there but technically in Moortown. (They're not rich or up their arses either) but I don't think if they were young now they'd ever be able to afford round there on just one income like back in the early 80's.
I think Edie would prefer Horsforth, more young families there, but again, it would cost an absolute fortune.

Great school too. Bit far out though innit, pretty much countryside. I'm happy in Meanwood. Got everything I ever wanted. What's Bramley like? Only been once and it seemed pretty nice.

 

[The39thStep]

Doesn't matter. They're mostly still repeating the same stuff they churned out in the 1980s, with slight alterations.

did they say anything about Leeds?

 

[ViolentPanda]

did they say anything about Leeds?

Yes. Good beer, gullible students. Swappie paradise really, except for the cold.