The present economy might well be largely planned, but I don't see how it can be assumed that a majority of the population will some day favour a socialist system. In my experience, the views of most people are a mish-mash and they are, in the end, easily swayed by the dominant ideas currently disseminated by the mass media. These ideas will never favour socialism.
Anarchism: the "Transition Phase of a Workers Autonomous Zones "??
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
The present economy might well be largely planned, but I don't see how it can be assumed that a majority of the population will some day favour a socialist system. In my experience, the views of most people are a mish-mash and they are, in the end, easily swayed by the dominant ideas currently disseminated by the mass media. These ideas will never favour socialism.
I know. But piecemeal reforms and total revolution are a world apart.
In this media age, how do you think the standard views of most people are going to be altered?
By the steady drip of piecemeal reforms and the increasing demands of the population to have control over their lives. All leading to a gradual revolution in the way society is structured.
I reckon 200 years should do it!
Why would it matter if people organise to put forward different politics? That's how society has pretty much always functioned in some way or another, also there is no finished perfect anarchist or communist society, change will continue to happen for better or worse depending on how people identify their needs and interests at the time.
Personally I think meetings, especially mass ones should be kept to a minimum where possible, I would prefer a system of elected and recallable delegates with maybe a strictly time limited AGM open to all citizens in a given locality or enterprise.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yeah, exactly, and nobody has ever really explained to me how it would work.
How what would work?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
How would such a system work though? What if one day one of the delegates refused to leave his/her position (or there was vote rigging etc?) and he had quite a sizeable amount of support for it? How would you avoid some of the same stuff that goes on whenever that sort of thing happens now?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
How you would implement all this without it being backed up by an organised force such as a state. How anarchists would deal with people opposed to the system (or wanting a better version of it), especially if this was on a mass scale. How you would make sure "professional meeting-goers" as the39thstep calls them had proper checks and balances on their power, and how you would deal with people who didn't want to go to endless meetings but wanted to carry on as normal. How you would make sure that people who couldnt attend the town meetings or couldn't participate otherwise, because, for example, they were caring for sick relatives or were bedridden etc, would have a proper say in decisions that affected them.
. I'm not asking these questions to have a go btw I'm genuinely curious.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Also how would we be able to check that only those who should have a vote and live in the area are the ones that are voting?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Not necessarily if it looks like those "different politics" are getting too much power and influence though. It's all right just to talk about them.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
I have to say, as bloodcurdling threats go, the spectre of professional meetings-goers isn't particularly shitty-trousers-making to to me. Political meetings nowadays are dominated by annoying nerds largely because extreme politics today is dominated by political hobbyists, mostly men.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
A state is nort the only form that organised force can take. And why would anarchists worry about peope demanding a better system? You're seeing this through Leninst eyes, as though anarchists basically want to form a political party and dominate a new state. We don't
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
You can't speak for other anarchists
He can't help himself. He'd be chairing meetings every day of the week. Bred to do so at his school he was.
I imagine it would be left up to individual polities to decide, I'm sure we can all think of methods of verifying someone is who they say they are.
I don't think there's any other way to function other than people organising to put forward their own politics. But as I said, this will only work when there is a general consensus about the overall goals-the ends if not the means. People seem to have little or nothing to say about the period where there will be mass conflict over the general direction in which society is going, a period when the rich and powerful, who will not play fair, still exist en masse and will still exert an influence over the working class, especially when things inevitably start to go wrong.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
You said you'd never tell, as long as I kept quiet about you being my fag
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
They are all individuals, those people
As has been said several times - delegate meetings not meetings of everyone. As long as the delegates are recallable and regularly switched around, I don't see the problem.
What is wrong with people putting forward alternative ideas and arguing for their politics? That's why we form political groupings and participate in political processes?
Some people enjoy meetings. How do you stop them from attending them all?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
The days when this is all the human race has to worry about as far as political conflict goes sounds like some kind of Iain M Banks scifi utopia.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Some form of 'workers/citzens' ID card would be best
Yes, yes-but what about the initial period of chaos; the period where it can all go wrong and usually does?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
There's nothing wrong with it.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Where assemblies and the like are vulnerable to being sabotaged and so on? Yes, I agree that's a big question. In Argentina in 2001 the assemblies were very powerful for a while, but apparently left political parties played some role in sapping the lief from them. All you can say is that people have to organise against this kind of political attack - which is where overt anarchist and libertarian socialist politics comes in.
What you're saying to us is 'don't worry', we'll be safe in your hands.
Born to rule, eh.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Yes, I'm saying don't worry; because it's a ludicrous thing to be frightened of.
LOL
Similar threads
