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

[Sgt Howie]

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".

No shit Sherlock.

 

[Athos]

No shit Sherlock.

It may seem obvious to you and me, but the OP has tried to elicit concrete examples of what anarchist organization will look like immediately after a revolution, often by looking to examples from the past. This despite me and others repeatedly telling him that we can't provide a blueprint, but would have to act according to the situation we found ourselves in.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

look mate, again again again, there are fundamental differences between anarchism and MARXISM, never mind Leninism, imo. OK.
I DO understand the distinction you are making. I do understand the philosophical distinction anarchism makes, about means and end. I do understand your argument that in order to achieve anarchism/communism, you have to be anarchism. OK.

However, what does this mean in practice, is question of the OP?

Look, this hasn’t answered your point. I’ve got guest’s, I’d like to get back to you about point, and more of your misassumptions, about ‘my’ ‘misassumptions’.

Get back to you as well, Athos.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It may seem obvious to you and me, but the OP has tried to elicit concrete examples of what anarchist organization will look like immediately after a revolution, often by looking to examples from the past. This despite me and others repeatedly telling him that we can't provide a blueprint, but would have to act according to the situation we found ourselves in.

I'm offsky, but
Government of the Future Noam Chomsky 1970 - Length: 54 minutes
http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/standardsearch.pl

 

[Random]

look mate, again again again, there are fundamental differences between anarchism and MARXISM, never mind Leninism, imo.

Well I keep on referencing Leninism because that's the main form of organised Marxism these days. Plenty of other groups are influenced by Marxism, including many anarchists, but only Leninists are present as a large force on the UK left and claim to embody the very essence of Marxism. On the far left these days it seems to be all about anarcxhists versus Leninists, with a sprinkling of liberals and labourites.

However, what does this mean in practice, is question of the OP?

I've given a few practical examples, including one that relates to the present day situation. Let me know what you think of them when you have time. Although from years of arguing you, I do think you've got a tendency to simply not take in stuff that you disagree with.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

I appreciate your fears, and share them to some extent, but rather than oppress and subjugate them if it becomes necessary, why not just make it clear that if they stray from the path of virtue, that their erstwhile comrades will liquidate them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

....and I am the heretic?

Who has accused you of being a heretic?
A narrow-minded self-righteous git, yes. A heretic though? No.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

To me, a "worker's autonomous zone" is a geographic environment in which "workers" exercise local self-governance, according to principles negotiated by and agreed on by the community as a whole, and are free of any "top-down" government from external forces, except insofar as any mutual agreements are made with other individual communities, or as part of a federation of "autonomous zones".

 

[Captain Hurrah]

I get images of brown people with AK-47s.

 

[The39thStep]

To me, a "worker's autonomous zone" is a geographic environment in which "workers" exercise local self-governance, according to principles negotiated by and agreed on by the community as a whole, and are free of any "top-down" government from external forces, except insofar as any mutual agreements are made with other individual communities, or as part of a federation of "autonomous zones".

sounds like a recipe for professional meeting goe-ers

 

[ViolentPanda]

I get images of brown people with AK-47s.

Stop thumbing through copies of "Wars of sub-Saharan Africa monthly", then.

 

[ViolentPanda]

sounds like a recipe for professional meeting goe-ers

That would kind of depend on whether you let it become like that, but I can't see why a standard "town meeting" system wouldn't work effectively.

 

[ernestolynch]

The sort of people who like meetings would end up as the new rulers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The sort of people who like meetings would end up as the new rulers.

Somebody else made that point earlier, and it'd mean that you'd be in your element.

 

[ernestolynch]

Somebody else made that point earlier, and it'd mean that you'd be in your element.

You silly sod.

 

[The39thStep]

That would kind of depend on whether you let it become like that, but I can't see why a standard "town meeting" system wouldn't work effectively.

What is a standard town meeting system?

 

[rover07]

sounds like a recipe for professional meeting goe-ers

Society is run on meetings. From the local council sub-committee to Alan Sugar holding meetings with his employees to the Bank of England monetary meetings.

Its strange how soviet meetings are thought to be unworkable.

 

[ernestolynch]

Society is run on meetings. From the local council sub-committee to Alan Sugar holding meetings with his employees to the Bank of England monetary meetings.

Only cocks actually enjoy them or engage in them.

 

[rover07]

Only cocks actually enjoy them or engage in them.

You're thinking of egg production meetings.

 

[The39thStep]

Society is run on meetings. From the local council sub-committee to Alan Sugar holding meetings with his employees to the Bank of England monetary meetings.

Its strange how soviet meetings are thought to be unworkable.

I haven't said soviet meetings are unworkable , and to be fair the Communist Parties generally got things done despite so called opposition. However I am sure there are proffesional meeting go-ers who would test every body's patience, drag these meetings out and then some nutty decsion would be made when just the proffessional meeting go-ers are there. I am sure you have come across them with their rule books and constitutions.

Would there be away where workers/citzens could either give someone their proxy vote or just agree for one person to make the decisions on everyones behalf?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is a standard town meeting system?

The system that unincorporated towns used to use to get stuff done. regular meetings, all those with the voting franchise attend or register a vote for whatever propositions were due to be debated. The town "officers" only had their own votes and were elected to the positions for set periods, so that you lessened the chance of a power-elite evolving. One of the few good ideas the Puritans had, to be fair, and still used in some towns in Commonwealth countries, as well as in our former colony-states in the US.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You silly sod.

Ah, I see the repartee is back to its' old standard!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Only cocks actually enjoy them or engage in them.

Says the teacher-bureaucrat.

Hoist by your own petard. Oh, the ironing!!

 

[LLETSA]

I haven't said soviet meetings are unworkable , and to be fair the Communist Parties generally got things done despite so called opposition. However I am sure there are proffesional meeting go-ers who would test every body's patience, drag these meetings out and then some nutty decsion would be made when just the proffessional meeting go-ers are there. I am sure you have come across them with their rule books and constitutions.

When I was active on the left, it was the twats who didn't have to go to work in the morning who caused the meetings to drag on right through to chucking out time, often making me miss my last bus and go to work early next day with a niggling all day hangover.

I, too, always get the feeling that these types would be prominent in the new society.

 

[rover07]

I haven't said soviet meetings are unworkable , and to be fair the Communist Parties generally got things done despite so called opposition. However I am sure there are proffesional meeting go-ers who would test every body's patience, drag these meetings out and then some nutty decsion would be made when just the proffessional meeting go-ers are there. I am sure you have come across them with their rule books and constitutions.

Would there be away where workers/citzens could either give someone their proxy vote or just agree for one person to make the decisions on everyones behalf?

Yeah, elected organisers would be common i reckon. Timewasters like Ernesto would be a pain but easily sidelined. How do you think it would work?

 

[LLETSA]

Yeah, elected organisers would be common i reckon. Timewasters like Ernesto would be a pain but easily sidelined. How do you think it would work?

It all sounds like something that could only work effectively when all opposition has been totally vanquished, meaning that disagreement could be contained within a general agreement on goals if not means. Yet such a situation is virtually unimaginable.

 

[frogwoman]

lol, so basically, they'd have to kill a lot of people.

 

[ernestolynch]

Says the teacher-bureaucrat.

Hoist by your own petard. Oh, the ironing!!

Listen buster, you're the one who spends the whole daylight hours 'discussing shit on the internets'. You're made for bureaucracy.

 

[LLETSA]

lol, so basically, they'd have to kill a lot of people.

I'm always intrigued by the way this kind of thing is always glossed over by internet anarchists. They don't, apparently, believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat(fraught with massive problems and pitfalls in itself). But then what? The opposition will, as they admit, not play fair or be reasonable. But opposition will be everywhere, including within the working class, probably intensifying as things inevitably start to go wrong.

 

[rover07]

If the overwhelming majority of the population favour a socialist system. Society is already largely organised as a planned economy then a peaceful transition is perfectly possible.

No one needs to be killed. Why base future predictions of change on events from the past when socialism and democracy were not as developed?