Anarchism: the "Transition Phase of a Workers Autonomous Zones "??

[TremulousTetra]

I am just interested in discussing anarchism. I'm particularly interested in the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectivess, as to how anarchists believe we get from people's power to a stateless classless society, and what distinguishes workers autonomous zones from other models. But obviously, I am not trying to limit the conversation to anarchists, any opinion on the topic is welcome.

I have several questions which have been sparked by a discussion with Athos, but this comment by Athos seems as good a starting point as any;

When speaking to myself, an ex-member of SWP, but I guess Athos would extend this comment to most groups on the revolutionary left, he said;

The big difference is the way that a stateless classless society might be bought about. Essentially, this boils down to whether or not there should be this transition phase of a workers' state. I would say that there should not. This is because I am philosophically opposed to the oppression inherent in ANY state, and because I believe that, in practice, it would be more difficult to move from the workers' state to statelessness as it would to move there in one step.

so to start with, first question.

It might seem a bit silly and obvious to some, but anarchists don't believe we can go straight from capitalism to a stateless classless society overnight do they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am just interested in discussing anarchism. I'm particularly interested in how anarchists believe we get from people's power to a stateless classless society, and what distinguishes workers autonomous zones from other models. But obviously, I am not trying to limit the conversation to anarchists, any opinion on the topic is welcome.

I have several questions which have been sparked by a discussion with Athos, but this comment by Athos seems as good a starting point as any;

When speaking to myself, an ex-member of SWP, but I guess Athos would extend this comment to most groups on the revolutionary left, he said;
so to start with, first question.

It might seem a bit silly and obvious to some, but anarchists don't believe we can go straight from capitalism to a stateless classless society overnight do they?

I've said it to you before, but it bears re-stating:

Anarchists are not a homogeneous mass. What one anarchist individual or anarchist collective believes can differ vastly from what another individual/collective believes, so you may well find anarchists who believe that a transition-phase worker's state is necessary, and others that see it as an irrelevance.
Myself, I believe that we're best off taking whichever path opportunity presents.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've said it to you before, but it bears re-stating:

Anarchists are not a homogeneous mass. What one anarchist individual or anarchist collective believes can differ vastly from what another individual/collective believes, so you may well find anarchists who believe that a transition-phase worker's state is necessary, and others that see it as an irrelevance.
Myself, I believe that we're best off taking whichever path opportunity presents.

But you're not really saying anything about anarchist's, that could not equally be said about Marxists. Are you? "Will the real Slim Shady please stand up".

 

[Pickman's model]

I am just interested in discussing anarchism.

no you're not, you're a wanker's wanker.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But you're not really saying anything about anarchist's, that could not equally be said about Marxists. Are you? "Will the real Slim Shady please stand up".

I disagree. A Marxist is likely to be ideologically attached to Marxian doctrine, i.e. a specific viewpoint informed by a specific set of predicates. Anarchism's "basic principles" don't tend to be quite that constrained by conformity to such specific predicates.

LOL at the slim shady "trying to be hip" ref, grandad!

 

[Athos]

But you're not really saying anything about anarchist's, that could not equally be said about Marxists. Are you? "Will the real Slim Shady please stand up".

No. Surely all Marxists believe that immediately following revolution there will be a state (albeit they claim it will be used as an instrument of the working class)? It strikes me that that's the major point with which, by definition, all Marxists agree, and all anarchists disagree.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I disagree. A Marxist is likely to be ideologically attached to Marxian doctrine, i.e. a specific viewpoint informed by a specific set of predicates. Anarchism's "basic principles" don't tend to be quite that constrained by conformity to such specific predicates.

Fuck off. This is bollocks about Marxism, imo, but I have no interest in discussing Marxism. So while I accept that anarchism is a 'broad church', I don't accept that this negates the possibility for answering the original questions, from your own anarchist viewpoint. If other anarchist want to come in and say you're wrong, no problem.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've said it to you before, but it bears re-stating:

Anarchists are not a homogeneous mass. What one anarchist individual or anarchist collective believes can differ vastly from what another individual/collective believes, so you may well find anarchists who believe that a transition-phase worker's state is necessary, and others that see it as an irrelevance.
Myself, I believe that we're best off taking whichever path opportunity presents.

thanks for teaching me master.
I didn't know there were anarchist that believe a transition-phase worker's state may be necessary. Who are they?

And what about my original question, "It might seem a bit silly and obvious to some, but anarchists don't believe we can go straight from capitalism to a stateless classless society overnight do they?!"

 

[Athos]

Fuck off. This is bollocks about Marxism, imo, but I have no interest in discussing Marxism. So while I accept that anarchism is a 'broad church', I don't accept that this negates the possibility for answering the original questions, from your own anarchist viewpoint. If other anarchist want to come in and say you're wrong, no problem.

Actually, it was you who raised Marxism on this thread!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fuck off. This is bollocks about Marxism, imo, but I have no interest in discussing Marxism.

So, while you're happy to tell me to fuck off, and that I'm wrong, you're not happy to actually tell me how I'm wrong.
How very convenient for you.

So while I accept that anarchism is a 'broad church', I don't accept that this negates the possibility for answering the original questions, from your own anarchist viewpoint. If other anarchist want to come in and say you're wrong, no problem.

You didn't ask for the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives, you stated that "I'm particularly interested in how anarchists believe...", as though anarchists are a homogeneous mass even to the degree your Marxists are.

Oh, and I didn't say that the possibility of answering the original question is negated, I clearly stated that I'm happy taking whichever opportunity to achieve a classless, stateless society that presents itself.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No. Surely all Marxists believe that immediately following revolution there will be a state (albeit they claim it will be used as an instrument of the working class)? It strikes me that that's the major point with which, by definition, all Marxists agree, and all anarchists disagree.

Athos, slow down a bit mate, and read what's being said. [No offence intended ]

your question isn't related to what we were talking about, but once again, I'm not really interested in discussing what I already know about. Stop defining yourself by what you are against, and explain to me what your for. When we are in the transition phase, when there is people's power [I keep missing out workers power on purpose], how do you think they will deal with the invasions of capitalist countries etc. Will we jump straight from capitalism, to a full-blown stateless classless society? Will they be no subjugation of the capitalist class, to a dictatorship of the people?

There are all types of questions I would like to ask anarchist, but why don't you just start from answering the ones I've asked in the OP.

 

[Athos]

It's impossible to set a blueprint for how we'll behave; we'll have to consider the situation we find ourselves in, before we decide what tactics are appropriate. However, one thing I can assure you is that the imposition of a state (workers' or otherwise) won't be a tactic I'd consider, for philosophical and practical reasons. Other anarchists may have other ideas.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Actually, it was you who raised Marxism on this thread!

I'm sorry, try and understand the conversation. Violent Panda was suggesting he couldn't discuss anarchism because it is too broad a church, as you call it. I was merely suggesting, as I think it was butchers once suggested to me, that Marxism was probably a broader church than anarchism, and we have no problems discussing that do we?

That anarchism is a broad church, did not stop us in the last thread coming to some agreement, on a broad brush stroke model of what an anarchist society would look like. If anarchists want to disagree, I don't have a problem with that, it's not like Marxist never disagree.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...Leadership?p=11343959&viewfull=1#post11343959


If there is any confusion, I will state once again. It's just out of interest, I would really like to know how anarchist define theirselves, individually if necessary, and let's see if we can ascertain if there is any commonality. I would like to see anarchist define themselves by what they stand for, instead of by what a stand against.

 

[Random]

"It might seem a bit silly and obvious to some, but anarchists don't believe we can go straight from capitalism to a stateless classless society overnight do they?!"

Leninists think we will need an oppressive state to process society until it is ready to support communism. Anarchists (those who've thought about it) usually think that there may indeed be a series of processes that lead towards communism, and may indeed be a time of transition, but that what socialists and anarchists should be doing during this time is using democracy, direct action, mutual aid, etc, rather than setting up an oppressive state.

With anarchism, the means are the end. There's no point waiting for Christmas to open the gift wrapped promise of communism as-yet-to-be. You have to start using communist methods, and indeed living in communist ways, as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Hence the collectivised farms and workplaces in anarchist areas of Spain, rather than putting this off until the war was won, as the left parties wanted.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So, while you're happy to tell me to fuck off, and that I'm wrong, you're not happy to actually tell me how I'm wrong.
How very convenient for you.

stop being a fuckwit. You know full well the invitation to discuss that topic remains open. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/338688-Dialectical-Materialism

You didn't ask for the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives, you stated that "I'm particularly interested in how anarchists believe...", as though anarchists are a homogeneous mass even to the degree your Marxists are.

if that is what you read, fine. Nobody else had a problem in the last thread, with nearly the same wording.

However, frame the question however you like, that will bring forth the "perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives".

Oh, and I didn't say that the possibility of answering the original question is negated, I clearly stated that I'm happy taking whichever opportunity to achieve a classless, stateless society that presents itself.

right, so you quite clearly think it is possible we could all go to bed one night, I get up in the morning and be in a anarchist stateless classless society! Yes?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Anarchists (those who've thought about it) usually think that there may indeed be a series of processes that lead towards communism, and may indeed be a time of transition, but that what socialists and anarchists should be doing during this time is using democracy, direct action, mutual aid, etc, rather than setting up an oppressive state.

With anarchism, the means are the end. There's no point waiting for Christmas to open the gift wrapped promise of communism as-yet-to-be. You have to start using communist methods, and indeed living in communist ways, as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Hence the collectivised farms and workplaces in anarchist areas of Spain, rather than putting this off until the war was won, as the left parties wanted.

so you are suggesting Violent Panda hasn’t “thought about it”. Lol . Only joking VP.

So there would be no 'oppression'/subjugation of capitalists, fascists, those who would destroy the workers autonomous zone?

 

[frogwoman]

oh my god lol.

 

[Random]

So there would be no 'oppression'/subjugation of capitalists, fascists, those who would destroy the workers autonomous zone?

I'm sure there would be appropriate defence against those kinds of groups. But a state, that claims to rule over everyone, is a tool for controlling the mass of the population, not for stamping out fascists.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm sure there would be appropriate defence against those kinds of groups. But a state, that claims to rule over everyone, is a tool for controlling the mass of the population, not for stamping out fascists.

what kinds of "appropriate defence"? I will give you a link in a minute, to something which I think you have in mind. But feel free to enlighten me yourself.

So what you are saying is, in a workers autonomous zone, the workers collectively would claim "The Sole Right to the Legitimate Use of Force", like a state? And that use of force would be controlled by a class, the working class, just like the ruling class controls the use of force in capitalism? The only difference being, control is by the many, instead of by the few? It is still class rule, yes? The working class ruling over the capitalist class and other remnants of capitalism?

 

[butchersapron]

Yet another SWP thread.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Leninists think we will need an oppressive state to process society until it is ready to support communism. Anarchists (those who've thought about it) usually think that there may indeed be a series of processes that lead towards communism, and may indeed be a time of transition, but that what socialists and anarchists should be doing during this time is using democracy, direct action, mutual aid, etc, rather than setting up an oppressive state.

With anarchism, the means are the end. There's no point waiting for Christmas to open the gift wrapped promise of communism as-yet-to-be. You have to start using communist methods, and indeed living in communist ways, as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Hence the collectivised farms and workplaces in anarchist areas of Spain, rather than putting this off until the war was won, as the left parties wanted.

sorry to come back to this point, but I'm just interested, did you ever read Karl Marx on the Paris commune?

 

[butchersapron]

sorry to come back to this point, but I'm just interested, did you ever read Karl Marx on the Paris commune?

Well did you?

 

[Athos]

what kinds of "appropriate defence"? I will give you a link in a minute, to something which I think you have in mind. But feel free to enlighten me yourself.

So what you are saying is, in a workers autonomous zone, the workers collectively would claim "The Sole Right to the Legitimate Use of Force", like a state? And that use of force would be controlled by a class, the working class, just like the ruling class controls the use of force in capitalism? The only difference being, control is by the many, instead of by the few? It is still class rule, yes? The working class ruling over the capitalist class and other remnants of capitalism?

Who are you claiming has said that?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It might seem a bit silly and obvious to some, but anarchists don't believe we can go straight from capitalism to a stateless classless society overnight do they?

Yes the only possible way to move from here to there is via a "workers state".

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes the only possible way to move from here to there is via a "workers state".

It is when you define a workers state as loosely as RMP3 does; he really really needs his Marxism to be right.

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

Who are you claiming has said that?

Athos, what does ? signify?

 

[Athos]

Athos, what does ? signify?

But it actually reads like a statement, despite you tacking a question mark on the end. Instead of trying to paraphrase what you think other people think, why not just ask them?

To be honest, I'm beginning to find your method of discussion quite irritating. Despite my reservations about engaging with you (given past experience of the SWP), I've tried to discuss things with you over a number of threads. My instinct was to emphasise what unites us, but, I have had to keep pointing out the difference between anarchists and Marxists, because you keep trying to dishonestly portray them as the same thing. They're not; they have some things in common, buy also some fundamental differences. But you seem unable to accept that.

To me, it seems that you've sought to capitalise on the offer of fraternal debate to attempt to co-opt the anarchist position to that of the SWP. You Trots just can't give up your entryism, can you?!

If you want people to continue to discuss anarchism with you, I suggest that you stop trying to put words into their mouths, and stop trying to suggest that it's no different from the SWP!

 

[butchersapron]

There's a reason no one bothers with him.

 

[ViolentPanda]

stop being a fuckwit. You know full well the invitation to discuss that topic remains open. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/338688-Dialectical-Materialism

You don't get it, do you?
it's not about this thread or that thread, it's about your regal disdain for elucidating on something purely because you can't be arsed, and yet expecting others to make detailed replies to your endless reiterations of the questions you have about anarchism.

if that is what you read, fine. Nobody else had a problem in the last thread, with nearly the same wording.

Bully for "nobody else".
Odd though, that over the years I've had to re-make that point on just about every one of your "I'm a poor little ex-Swappie, please tell me about anarchism" threads.

However, frame the question however you like, that will bring forth the "perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives".


right, so you quite clearly think it is possible we could all go to bed one night, I get up in the morning and be in a anarchist stateless classless society! Yes?

No.
Don't be even more stupid than I give you credit for, please, even if only a moron could take "we could all go to bed one night..." from my saying "I'm happy taking whichever opportunity to achieve a classless, stateless society that presents itself", because any opportunity will quite obviously mean hard work by those committed to change, not awakening to a magical change.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sorry, try and understand the conversation. Violent Panda was suggesting he couldn't discuss anarchism because it is too broad a church...

Ah, the usual misrepresentations begin, I see.
I didn't suggest anything of the sort, I suggested that I cannot speak for "anarchists", only for myself, and that individuals/collectives of anarchists can only speak for their own "take" on anarchism.