Anarchism. 'Organisation'? 'Leadership'?

[Spanky Longhorn]

So anarchists believe that it's not necessarily in human nature to have leaders and followers and hierarchies. Or am I misunderstanding. Do them things exist but you just don't get paid any more or have a higher status?

As I said above, I expect leaders and leadership would continue to exist, even if in a radically different form.

How would it work, would there still be a group of elected people that made decisions, or would everyone vote on everything, or would it just be kinda such a local level thing it would almost be like going back to farming and bartering?

I would imagine there would be many different ways of organising various communities, federations, and enterprises, I would prefer to see most day to day decision making made by democratically elected and recallable, or randomly selected (jurys style) committees based at the most local level possible for that decision, with referenda for more contentious issues. I would hope that mass meetings would be kept to a minimum - to avoid governance by meeting and procedure junkies.

Even if as many decisions as possible are taken at as local level as possible, communities and enterprises will still need to form federations and networks right up to the global level to assist in the distribution of commodities and resources, and deal with disasters, migrations, and ecological issues.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But, I accept that, at least to begin with, our aims are the same i.e. the rejection of capitalism; and that, more importantly, even though our methods may differ, our motives are essentially the same.

< you would think that that would be the commonsense position of most people on here, unfortunately not. So well done you for being one of the few to acknowledge the truth.
[/QUOTE]
That was why I started this thread. To see what the "most people" would say about your statement.
So butchers, louis, panda, if we accept there is no distinction between communism and anarchism, do you also accept "that, at least to begin with, our aims are the same i.e. the rejection of capitalism; and that, more importantly, even though our methods may differ, our motives are essentially the same."?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Don't want this to derail the thread but;

Obviously, the above is open to the criticism of over-simplification, but I wanted to get down to where one fundamental difference can be found.

you see, in my humble opinion, that is in a nutshell the fucking problem with the rev left. If we spent one percent of the time we spend dwelling upon what divides us, dwelling upon what unites us, we might not be in such a pitiful state.
I'm just trying to have a sensible discussion about where we agree first, in the hope it might promote a more sensible discussion about where we disagree later.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

I would imagine there would be many different ways of organising various communities, federations, and enterprises, I would prefer to see most day to day decision making made by democratically elected and recallable, or randomly selected (jurys style) committees based at the most local level possible for that decision, with referenda for more contentious issues. I would hope that mass meetings would be kept to a minimum - to avoid governance by meeting and procedure junkies.

Even if as many decisions as possible are taken at as local level as possible, communities and enterprises will still need to form federations and networks right up to the global level to assist in the distribution of commodities and resources, and deal with disasters, migrations, and ecological issues.

Could such a thing work only a small level though? Or could such, I assume, decentralised organisation run vast and complex industrialised societies? I would view the could bes of anarchism more seriously than smelly people living in tree houses.

 

[DotCommunist]

wieghted voting and a bureaucrats collective to streamline the collective goals of the various grouplets?

 

[Captain Hurrah]

You're a Jacobin though Dotty. You would have a self-electing Committee for that sort of thing.

 

[Athos]

I know you did, see OP and>
That was why I started this thread. To see what the "most people" would say about your statement.
So butchers, louis, panda, if we accept there is no distinction between communism and anarchism, do you also accept "that, at least to begin with, our aims are the same i.e. the rejection of capitalism; and that, more importantly, even though our methods may differ, our motives are essentially the same."?

First, you're misrepresenting my position by implying that I believe that there is no difference between what you call anarchism and communism. And, I hope that you understand that what I meant by the phrase you quoted is that we both agree that there should be a classless stateless society, and that the first step is the rejection of capitalism, by the workers. But you shouldn't use that to paper over the gulf that exists concerning the desirability of a workers' state. It also overlooks the very real differences in the way anarchists and some others on the left conduct themselves.

Secondly, I am not purporting to speak on behalf of Butchers or Violent Panda etc.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Or could such, I assume, decentralised organisation run vast and complex industrialised societies?

Yes!
Sorry, I don't know you from Adam. I don't know where you are at politically. So it's a bit difficult to give a proper SHORT answer to your very good question.

 

[TremulousTetra]

First, you're misrepresenting my position by implying that I believe that there is no difference between what you call anarchism and communism.

Have I

OK. So, notwithstanding the difference in focus between ends and means, I suppose that the professed ultimate aims of what you label anarchism and communism are the same; that's something I acknowledged early on.

how?

And, I hope that you understand that what I meant by the phrase you quoted is that we both agree that there should be a classless stateless society, and that the first step is the rejection of capitalism, by the workers. But you shouldn't use that to paper over the gulf that exists concerning the desirability of a workers' state. It also overlooks the very real differences in the way anarchists and some others on the left conduct themselves.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11345698&viewfull=1#post11345698

Secondly, I am not purporting to speak on behalf of Butchers or Violent Panda etc.

where have I said you did?

 

[Athos]

Have Ihow?



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11345698&viewfull=1#post11345698

where have I said you did?

Because there's a massive difference between how we want to get there. And, what's more, I believe that the way you'd try to get there is doomed not only to failure, but also to creating a system as bad as capitalism (see Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc.).

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Could such a thing work only a small level though? Or could such, I assume, decentralised organisation run vast and complex industrialised societies? I would view the could bes of anarchism more seriously than smelly people living in tree houses.

Industrial society is already decentralised federated, and networked, it simply lacks democratic control and equitable distribution.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Not all industrialised or currently industrialising societies are the same. Look at Asia for example.

I get the feeling that on such a large-scale, if such a vision was to be realised on a global level, then this process of 'democratic control' covering such a vast area to keep society functioning, would be akin to one of those nestling matryoshka dolls; decision making within decision making within decision making ... Nothing would get done. To relieve this hypothetical popular, mass-based democratic process of minutiae, how could you prevent some form of bureaucracy creeping in? I don't necessarily mean following a Stalinist pattern, which grew out of conditions the anarchists would seek to avoid anyway.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Because there's a massive difference between how we want to get there. And, what's more, I believe that the way you'd try to get there is doomed not only to failure, but also to creating a system as bad as capitalism (see Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc.).

You've misread me, I haven't spoke about what divides us yet. In fact, I've just started a new thread on that 'topic'.

I started a new thread, because this one can still run quite interestingly upon our shared goal classless stateless society, whilst I satisfy your chomping at the bit to argue about our 'divisions' in the new thread.

Perhaps you could answer this one now. Why is it anarchist can only define themselves by what they are against?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...tion-Phase-of-a-Workers-Autonomous-Zones-quot

 

[DotCommunist]

we have the tech for mass voting and subsequent weighting. A demarchy as envisioned in the belle epoque era of the revelation space books. Although I should think most anarchists would find the weighted voting idea pretty disgusting.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not all industrialised or currently industrialising societies are the same. Look at Asia for example.

I get the feeling that on such a large-scale, if such a vision was to be realised on a global level, then this process of 'democratic control' covering such a vast area to keep society functioning, would be akin to one of those nestling matryoshka dolls; decision making within decision making within decision making ... Nothing would get done. To relieve this hypothetical popular, mass-based democratic process of minutiae, how could you prevent some form of bureaucracy creeping in? I don't necessarily mean following a Stalinist pattern, which grew out of conditions the anarchists would seek to avoid anyway.

What would happen if you turn that model the other way up?

The factory workers decide what and how to produce, to the extent, if there was any kind of glut of produce registered by monitoring workers, one of the producer factories would take upon themselves to make themselves redundant in that production process, and simply use their skills in another one.

Once you remove the class interests, the contradiction in capitalist society, and create a classless society, then doing what is necessary becomes much easier, because what is in the interest of one, is in the interests of all.

ETA: Awaits somebody making the human nature arguement.

 

[Athos]

You've misread me, I haven't spoke about what divides us yet. In fact, I've just started a new thread on that 'topic'.

I started a new thread, because this one can still run quite interestingly upon our shared goal classless stateless society, whilst I satisfy your chomping at the bit to argue about our 'divisions' in the new thread.

Perhaps you could answer this one now. Why is it anarchist can only define themselves by what they are against?

I don't define myself by what I'm against; I've made it pretty clear what I aspire to. The fact that we disagree on the best way to achieve that hardly amounts to defining myself by opposition.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

What would happen if you turn that model the other way up?

The factory workers decide what and how to produce, to the extent, if there was any kind of glut of produce registered by monitoring workers, one of the producer of factories would take upon themselves to make themselves redundant in that production process, and simply use their skills and another one.

I'm talking about the hypothetical society based on those principles to start with, and my not being very convinced that then a huge industrialised society can operate by what people have already said here, which is hazy, and it can only be so when talking about what could be rather than what is. It's possible, yes, but probable? They know what they like to avoid, i.e. a Soviet model, which has been discredited anyway.

And Dotty, this is all pie in the sky stuff, but what the fuck is a "revelation space book"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't define myself by what I'm against; I've made it pretty clear what I aspire to. The fact that we disagree on the best way to achieve that hardly amounts to defining myself by opposition.

Credit to you Athos, you are streets ahead of the other anarchists on here in this respect. However, my point is, instead of insisting we discuss workers states, what you are against, why don't we discurss workers autonomous zones, what you are for.


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...tion-Phase-of-a-Workers-Autonomous-Zones-quot
You see, I have been on here for several years, trying to get anarchists to discuss something else besides the SWP. This thread is my first successful attempt. Perhaps that's my fault.

AND:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11345698&viewfull=1#post11345698


ETA. Actually, I must keep reminding myself, the 'anarchists' on here/uk are NOT representative of anarchists. There are plenty of decent anarchists. Got some on my website. www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk

 

[Edie]

to be honest with you Panda, it wasn't funny. It screwed my head up, and was one of the last nails, and I emphasise only one of, in my political activist coffin. Pretty much gave up hope, in a similar fashion to edie and LLETSA, after that.

I ain't given up hope, not sure I ever had any. Just always thought we're all pretty fucked and just got to look after you and yours best you can. Life is unfair and there will always be people who try and manipulate shit to get more than there share, more power or money. Look what happened to communism, turned out exactly like that.

As I said above, I expect leaders and leadership would continue to exist, even if in a radically different form.



I would imagine there would be many different ways of organising various communities, federations, and enterprises, I would prefer to see most day to day decision making made by democratically elected and recallable, or randomly selected (jurys style) committees based at the most local level possible for that decision, with referenda for more contentious issues. I would hope that mass meetings would be kept to a minimum - to avoid governance by meeting and procedure junkies.

Even if as many decisions as possible are taken at as local level as possible, communities and enterprises will still need to form federations and networks right up to the global level to assist in the distribution of commodities and resources, and deal with disasters, migrations, and ecological issues.

Dont sound that much different to what we have now just without the richest 1% at the top. Is it 1%? Get rid of them and the corrupt politicians. You'd still be left with a spectrum of wealth though. If you work hard and take risks you should do well for yourself anyway. No reward otherwise.

 

[DotCommunist]

would that be the communism that sees Cuba with 0% malnutrition and the highest rate of literacy in the world? Or the Venezuelan model which has seen vast improvements in health, literacy? or the communism that saw life expectancy rise significantly in china and russia?

 

[ernestolynch]

Because there's a massive difference between how we want to get there. And, what's more, I believe that the way you'd try to get there is doomed not only to failure, but also to creating a system as bad as capitalism (see Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc.).

Liberal muppet.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Not all industrialised or currently industrialising societies are the same. Look at Asia for example.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

I get the feeling that on such a large-scale, if such a vision was to be realised on a global level, then this process of 'democratic control' covering such a vast area to keep society functioning, would be akin to one of those nestling matryoshka dolls; decision making within decision making within decision making ... Nothing would get done. To relieve this hypothetical popular, mass-based democratic process of minutiae, how could you prevent some form of bureaucracy creeping in? I don't necessarily mean following a Stalinist pattern, which grew out of conditions the anarchists would seek to avoid anyway.

This is a popular argument from those who are ignorant of how society currently functions - there are already endless meetings and discussions about meetings and discussions and projects, in business and government which ensure all sorts of things take an age to get completed - there is no mythical super effecient way of getting things done, there is no one man management or one party state and never has been. We have no other way of getting things done, it is essential to negotiate between various competing interests. - that's just the way it is. Suckers.

 

[DotCommunist]

the problem with refugees from communist countries is that they are all cunts who bemoaned the lack of opportunity to mug people off. Vast swathes stayed still and happy.

 

[Edie]

Dot I was talking bout Russia. They ended up with a totalitarian state, secret police, people disappearing and starvation didn't they? Had no idea anywhere else was actually communist nowadays except China. And that's a secret terror state with huge oppression and censorship innit.

I dunno. I want the priviledged fuckers gone, and the bankers. But I don't wanna live in some communist state which goes wrong.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm talking about the hypothetical society based on those principles to start with, and my not being very convinced that then a huge industrialised society can operate by what people have already said here, which is hazy, and it can only be so when talking about what could be rather than what is. It's possible, yes, but probable? They know what they like to avoid, i.e. a Soviet model, which has been discredited anyway.

To be fair, if I were an alien who knew nothing of human society, and you had to describe to me how capitalism works, a bulletin board would be a pretty difficult medium through which to do that, wouldn't it?

In the English Revolution, the revolution totally transformed the way people thought about the world, to the point they did what they would never have dreamed, chopped the head off one of the descendants of God, the King. It then went on to completely transform the social relations, the mode of production to capitalism . Such revolutions, transformations, have took place many times in history, and so what we are proposing is not without historical precedent.

However, much of modern thinking in business, is recognising the efficiency of, the owners of the means of production setting goals, and incentivising the workers at production to achieve these goals. This does away with middle management, and deals with what I think economists call X efficiency, meaning to incentivises the workers to work as efficiently as possible.

So all we're really talking about here, is mimicking this, but instead of having a tiny ruling class who own the means of production setting the goals, we make sure everybody onto the means of production, and so sets the goals.

Hope that makes a little sense.

 

[frogwoman]

Dot I was talking bout Russia. They ended up with a totalitarian state, secret police, people disappearing and starvation didn't they? Had no idea anywhere else was actually communist nowadays except China. And that's a secret terror state with huge oppression and censorship innit.

I dunno. I want the priviledged fuckers gone, and the bankers. But I don't wanna live in some communist state which goes wrong.

China isn't communist.

 

[frogwoman]

Dot I was talking bout Russia. They ended up with a totalitarian state, secret police, people disappearing and starvation didn't they?

It changed a lot after Stalin died. Still not perfect obviously though.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I ain't given up hope, not sure I ever had any. Just always thought we're all pretty fucked and just got to look after you and yours best you can. Life is unfair and there will always be people who try and manipulate shit to get more than there share, more power or money. Look what happened to communism, turned out exactly like that.

Dont sound that much different to what we have now just without the richest 1% at the top. Is it 1%? Get rid of them and the corrupt politicians. You'd still be left with a spectrum of wealth though. If you work hard and take risks you should do well for yourself anyway. No reward otherwise.

The voice of the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus? The voice of the streets speaking an eternal truth?

No, in many ways it wouldn't be hugely different on paper from what we have now, except with more democracy within the political and crucially the economic sphere which would actually make it hugely different in practice.

 

[Athos]

would that be the communism that sees Cuba with 0% malnutrition and the highest rate of literacy in the world? Or the Venezuelan model which has seen vast improvements in health, literacy? or the communism that saw life expectancy rise significantly in china and russia?

What literature does a Cuban political prisoner read with his much-vaunted literacy?

Does the increased life expectancy apply to the tens of millions killed as a result of the policies of Stalin and Mao?

Get a grip mate. Are you seriously suggesting that they are the sort of societies you'd like to see?

 

[ernestolynch]

What literature does a Cuban political prisoner read with his much-vaunted literacy?

Does the increased life expectancy apply to the tens of millions killed as a result of the policies of Stalin and Mao?

Get a grip mate. Are you seriously suggesting that they are the sort of societies you'd like to see?

You'd value the right of a greedy twat to read Ayn Rand over the rights of Cuban kids to healthcare and education.