ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Quite.
Yep. personally I'd only consider it if I could be sure of being able to liquidate the functionaries of the workers' state if necessary.
Anarchism: the "Transition Phase of a Workers Autonomous Zones "??
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
Quite.
Yep. personally I'd only consider it if I could be sure of being able to liquidate the functionaries of the workers' state if necessary.
Apparently, stabbing is the usual way.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
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?
Why would you need to oppress or subjugate them? A fan of pour encourager les autres, are you?
There's no need to use their own methods on them, just to defend against them.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Looks like it, doesn't it? Another round of rmp3's "my mojo is significantly netter than your mojo" dressed up as enquiry.
Because strangely enough most of his "enquiries" end with him sneering at others, usually because he can't understand, can't get his head around, what others say. Why not? Because he's trapped by his cleaving to a particular ideology.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To be honest I'm quite happy to oppress and subjugate them if we need to, what concerns me about a workers state is the danger of providing a structure which they (or people like them) could take control of and use against us, there is some historical precedence.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
No, I'm not saying that? Yes?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
That's my position as well. Defence against threats shouldn't mean that we set up Communist Homeland Security. It should be based on an appropriate reaction to the threats. If you look at the development of the bolshevik state, it was at first based on various autonomous bodies, but eventually the bolsheviks managed to coordinate everying into one state - for the reason that they wanted central political control themselves. Not because it was a better way to defend the revolution. Unless you take seriously their idea that only the bolsheviks knew how to defend the revolution.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
So let me get this straight, I ask about workers autonomous zones;
I want people, not even just anarchist, anybody from their own perspective to explain what distinguishes workers autonomous zones from other models? I suppose I am asking for the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives, and anybody else within insight, to define anarchism by what it stands for, instead of what it stands against.
and I am the heretic?Yep. personally I'd only consider it [a workers state/rmp3 insertion] if I could be sure of being able to liquidate the functionaries of the workers' state if necessary.
I want people, not even just anarchist, anybody from their own perspective to explain what distinguishes workers autonomous zones from other models? I suppose I am asking for the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives, and anybody else within insight, to define anarchism by what it stands for, instead of what it stands against.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Give examples, say from the Spanish Civil War, or other examples of workers autonomous zones? I am particularly interested at this point in what you mean by "appropriate reaction to threats"?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Indeed, the experience of the Krondstat sailors would tell you that the revolution needed defending from the Bolsheviks!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Try wikipedia:
Along with the fight against fascism was a profound anarchist revolution throughout Spain.
Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:
I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.
The anarchist held areas were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers. Under this system, goods were often up to a quarter of their previous cost.
Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. (The CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.)
In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.
Or this, (re Ukraine):
At this point, the emphasis on military campaigns that Makhno had adopted in the previous year shifted to political concerns. The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of Nabat ("the Bell"), issued five main principles: rejection of all political parties, rejection of all forms of dictatorships (including the dictatorship of the proletariat, viewed by Makhnovists and many anarchists of the day as a term synonymous with the dictatorship of the Bolshevik communist party), negation of any concept of a central state, rejection of a so-called "transitional period" necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, and self-management of all workers through free local workers' councils (soviets). While the Bolsheviks argued that their concept of dictatorship of the proletariat meant precisely "rule by workers' councils," the Makhnovist platform opposed the "temporary" Bolshevik measure of "party dictatorship." The Nabat was by no means a puppet of Mahkno and his supporters, from time to time criticizing the Black Army and its conduct in the war.
In 1918, after recruiting large numbers of Ukrainian peasants, as well as numbers of Jews, anarchists, naletchki, and recruits arriving from other countries, Makhno formed the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, otherwise known as the Anarchist Black Army. At its formation, the Black Army consisted of about 15,000 armed troops, including infantry and cavalry (both regular and irregular) brigades; artillery detachments were incorporated into each regiment. From November 1918 to June 1919, using the Black Army to secure its hold on power, the Makhnovists attempted to create an anarchist society in Ukraine, administered at the local level by autonomous peasants' and workers' councils.
The agricultural part of these villages was composed of peasants, someone understood at the same time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of his members. All, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... Working program was established in meetings where all participated. They knew then exactly what they had to make.
—Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine
New relationships and values were generated by this new social paradigm, which led Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education was organized on Francisco Ferrer's principles, and the economy was based upon free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crop and cattle to manufactured products, according to the science proposed by Peter Kropotkin.[citation needed]
Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions" and called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[13] The Bolsheviks accused the Makhnovists of imposing a formal government over the area they controlled, and also said that Makhnovists used forced conscription, committed summary executions, and had two military and counter-intelligence forces: the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del (patterned after the Cheka and the GRU).[14] However, later historians have dismissed these claims as fraudulent propaganda.[15]
The Bolsheviks claimed that it would be impossible for a small, agricultural society to organize into an anarchist society so quickly. However, Eastern Ukraine had a large amount of coal mines, and was one of the most industrialised parts of the Russian Empire.
And can you guess what they both had in common?
Though, in any event, anarchism isn't bound to repeat the experiences of the past. As people have repeatedly told you, the way anarchists respond to any situation will depend upon the prevailing conditions.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Where have I defined workers state[forget that]?
So how would you define a worker state?
Let me reiterate before you jump to conclusions, I would like your definition.so we can discuss workers states, but so that we can distinguishes workers autonomous zones from other models? I suppose I am asking for the perspectives of anarchist individuals or collectives, and anybody else within insight, to define anarchism by what it stands for, instead of what it stands against.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Cliched, I know. But, no less true for it.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I DID listen to your criticism, and edited the OP for YOU.
So the balls in your court.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
A reaction that is directly proportionate to the threat. Just as in society in general the reaction to antisocial behaviour should be proportional to the danger that this poses, so the response to political or military threats should be proportionate.
If you're being invaded by a foreign military, then some kind of military mobilisation will be needed. But this does not mean that society should be run in a permanently militarised way.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Right from the begining, you tried to interject a discussion about what divides us, and have budgered for several days for a discussion about wokers states. [read your several posts. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...aterialism?p=11285823&viewfull=1#post11285823
where have I denied there are fundamental differences. What the fundamental differences are, is becoming clearer and clearer to me as these discussions go on. What are the fundamental differences between workers autonomous zones, and other modles of the transition from people's power, to a stateless classless society?
I am trying to ignore all the sectarian comments, but just reiterate what I have already said to you, and to put your mind at rest, I have as much interest in "entryism" to anarchism, as I do entering pickmans annus.
ROFL 'continue'? It's like watching question time, where the politicians will do anything but address the topic of the OP.
OK. I'll accept responsibility for that. I will accept, people seem to have a problem with those questions. So, how would you reword them?
In both this thread and the other one, I have reworded things upon people's request, if it did not distort my original intention.
ETA
Sorry random, you have answered some.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
may be a valid point, but you need to be more specific to the OP for clarirty.
Athos
Well-Known Member
If I have been like that from the very start, why have you pointed out on more than one occasion that you were pleased that I was willing to engage with you fraternally and openly, once describing me as "streets ahead" of other anarchists in this regard?! More than once you remarked approvingly on my emphasis on what we have in common i.e. the end of capitalism, and a stateless classless society.
You haven't explicitly stated that there are no differences between the two. However, you have alluded to it throughout a number of threads. And, in my opinion, beneath the guise of wanting to discuss anarchism, you keep trying to imply similarities where none exist. For instance, this whole whole thing about comparing different forms of organization in what you'd call the period between capitalism and a classless stateless society is actually a roundabout way for you to suggest that there is, in practice, no difference between the way anarchists would organize and a workers' state. Well there is, and I'm sure that you understand what they are, really. And, to help, you can compare the examples of anarchist organization in Spain and Ukraine, with the socialist alternative.
After all, if there wasn't any difference, why have Marxists gone to such lengths to stamp out anarchist forms of organization, whenever they have arisen?
It's not for me to write your questions for you.
Let me ask you a question: what do you think the differences between the ways in which anarchists might organize a society and a workers' state are?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
You're assuming that 'workers' automonous zones' (whatever they are) are basically a vehicle for making a transition. So you're setting them up as the anarchist version of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as part of your attempt to show that anarchism and leninism are really the same kind of thing.
Workers' control of their own work isn't a means for a transition, it should be implemented because democracy should be brought into the workplace, in the here and no, and in the foreseeable future.
Leninists, on the other hand, see workplace control by the workers themselves as something that might be nice during a revolution, but as something that should swiftly be taken over by a centralised state, which would manage work on behalf of the workers.
Maybe some real-world references to 2010 would elevate this beyond a fairly musty set of stock phrases we've heard on here umpteen times?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
References to today would more hinge on the way protest movements should be organised. Anarchists want more democracy, more decentralisation, more autonomy and more room for local intitatives. Leninists want more centralisation, more influence by their own political party and their dream scenario is a centralised protest movement led by their own political party. It's not a million miles away from the two different visions of how society should be organised.
Athos
Well-Known Member
But this thread is about forms of organization immediately after a revolution. That set of circumstances does not apply anywhere at present, so it's hard to give contemporary examples.
Should the you or the OP start a thread about examples of anarchism in action, today, then maybe I'd post there.
You're looking at this arse about tit. What's the point of bringing up 1936 if you acknowledge such circumstances have no relevance in the real world of today? Random appears to get this.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
more balls from rmp3
Athos
Well-Known Member
In the post where I c&p'd the Wikipedia article about Spain, I deliberately added, quite explicitly, that "in any event, anarchism isn't bound to repeat the experiences of the past". That was a caveat I added, even though my post was a reply to one asking for examples from the Spanish Civil War!
Similar threads
