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

[LLETSA]

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.

For all their faults, the left parties won't be the enemy in such a period though. Argentina in 2001 isn't really a valid example, as revolution was never on the cards.

Anarchism and libertarianism don't exactly have a good record when it comes to withstanding attacks from either capitalists, the left or the right. Do they?

 

[Random]

Anarchism and libertarianism don't exactly have a good record when it comes to withstanding attacks from either capitalists, the left or the right. Do they?

Anarchism and libertarianism have a good track record of sticking true to the ideas of defending working class liberty - and often getting crushed in the process. But what historical theories would you rather learn from? As you keep on saying, Leninist politics proved incapable of rising above the dominant political tradition of the areas where it was sucessful.

 

[Random]

For all their faults, the left parties won't be the enemy in such a period though. Argentina in 2001 isn't really a valid example, as revolution was never on the cards.

Myself I like to talk about recent real-life examples, since I think they give us lessons that can be immediately applied.

 

[The39thStep]

When in the past has massive damage been done by someone 'going to lots of meetings'?

David Copeland

 

[LLETSA]

Anarchism and libertarianism have a good track record of sticking true to the ideas of defending working class liberty - and often getting crushed in the process. But what historical theories would you rather learn from? As you keep on saying, Leninist politics proved incapable of rising above the dominant political tradition of the areas where it was sucessful.

Exactly-crushed.

I can indeed see the problems with Leninism, but if you go back to the questions I and others have asked above, no 'libertarian' has come near to answering anything.

 

[Random]

David Copeland

He smelt of pubs, and wormwood scrubs

 

[Random]

I can indeed see the problems with Leninism, but if you go back to the questions I and others have asked above, no 'libertarian' has come near to answering anything.

Given that I've been arguing with you, and several of the others on this thread, for about five years now, I'm not exactly surprised that I'm not satisfying you with my answers, heh.

 

[frogwoman]

There's nothing wrong with it.

And also, what if , as I said, there is electoral fraud? What if one of the delegates doesn't want to give up their elected position?

What if the delegates at these meetings decide to keep things secret from others? And "regularly switched around" - how are you going to do that, without ending up with something that looks a lot like a state?


And I think random was saying about extreme politics being confined to "political hobbyists" - "not-so-extreme" politics has a lot of those as well.

 

[Random]

And also, what if , as I said, there is electoral fraud? What if one of the delegates doesn't want to give up their elected position?

Their elected position will have no power connected to it that isn't based on the consent of the people. And the whole point of a libertarian community is that everyone is 'politically active', to the extent that they won't just sit back and let someone fraud their way to power. Look at the way that nowadays areas of the world that have a tradition of collective struggle are different to those that have a history of tyranny. 'Anarchist' people of the future will be even more ready to kick off at authority than french farmers

 

[frogwoman]

Their elected position will have no power connected to it that isn't based on the consent of the people. And the whole point of a libertarian community is that everyone is 'politically active', to the extent that they won't just sit back and let someone fraud their way to power. Look at the way that nowadays areas of the world that have a tradition of collective struggle are different to those that have a history of tyranny. 'Anarchist' people of the future will be even more ready to kick off at authority than french farmers

Yeah, like France etc never have any corruption in their electoral systems.

 

[Random]

I'm not saying that France is perfect, just that even now - under a relatively homogenous western liberal-democratic, neo-liberal system - it is still possible to see serious differences in the popular power in different areas of the world, based on history of struggle.

 

[frogwoman]

Sure. I just think this is a bit of a wrong path to go down if you're trying to say that countries with a history of struggle are the ones where the people have the most power. Surely the ones with the biggest history of struggle are that way actually (at least partially) BECAUSE of the (openly anyway) behaviour of those governments and other entities they're struggling against? It's not as though the French cops and the like have given up trying to be cunts is it?

 

[Random]

Surely the ones with the biggest history of struggle are that way actually BECAUSE of the (openly anyway) behaviour of those governments and other entities they're struggling against?

No, not at all. You're putting the state there are the only active force, something that people just react to. A population that is active, that pushes back, is what I'm hoping to see in the future, and it is something that you can even see in some areas today.

 

[frogwoman]

oh yeah, totally, but i was thinking of places like france etc and some of the things that have happened there over the last 100 or so years, not necessarily about other places (which i dont know enough about to comment on). im not saying that the state is or can be the only active force, not at all. i can see how it came across that way but it isnt actually what i think

 

[Random]

Well surely one of the ways that a population becomes more confident of it's own power is by winning, and effecting actual change, though being organised? look at other countries where the state has been a bastard - like so many former colonial countries - and you can see that often teh population becomes cowed through constant defeat and mass slaughter of the working class.

 

[frogwoman]

But it can also make them more determined to fight and win though - see south africa with the massive miners' strikes and the like. I do agree with you - it's different everywhere, but the same (or similar) conditions in two different palces won't necessarily lead to the same outcome.

 

[LLETSA]

Their elected position will have no power connected to it that isn't based on the consent of the people. And the whole point of a libertarian community is that everyone is 'politically active', to the extent that they won't just sit back and let someone fraud their way to power. Look at the way that nowadays areas of the world that have a tradition of collective struggle are different to those that have a history of tyranny. 'Anarchist' people of the future will be even more ready to kick off at authority than french farmers

As people keep saying though, it would have to be pretty smale scale stuff to imagine a situation where everybody is politically active (how do you get a majority of people being politically active in an age of mass distraction provided by the various strands of the entertainment industry-which would presumanly still exist in some form after the revolution-anyway?)

And nobody ever seems to have any idea of what these communities would look like, nor how they'd deal with the many, many problems that just can't be tackled on the small scale. It would be hard to imagine the whole world (or even one country) scaling down over a relatively short period to smale scale autonomous units, and that's even before you begin to wonder if they'd be willing to co-operate on every issue. It is difficult to envisage enough people in the world suddenly adopting some variant of libertarian socialist or anarchist politics, especially when large parts of it seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Listen buster...

"Listen buster"? Grow up, do!

...you're the one who spends the whole daylight hours 'discussing shit on the internets'.

Yes, of course I am, ern. of course I am.

You're made for bureaucracy.

I may have the time, but unlike you, I don't have the inclination.

 

[Random]

But it can also make them more determined to fight and win though - see south africa with the massive miners' strikes and the like. I do agree with you - it's different everywhere, but the same (or similar) conditions in two different palces won't necessarily lead to the same outcome.

The startling fact about South Africa is that it has a massive industrial class, relative to the other ex-colonial countries of Africa, and that's reflected in the history of struggle there, which has managed to create mass left political parties and powerful trade unions.

 

[Random]

As people keep saying though, it would have to be pretty smale scale stuff to imagine a situation where everybody is politically active (how do you get a majority of people being politically active in an age of mass distraction provided by the various strands of the entertainment industry-which would presumanly still exist in some form after the revolution-anyway?)

I think you're over-estimating the ability of the entertainment industry to make people passive. Look at the student protestors.

 

[Random]

And nobody ever seems to have any idea of what these communities would look like, nor how they'd deal with the many, many problems that just can't be tackled on the small scale. It would be hard to imagine the whole world (or even one country) scaling down over a relatively short period to smale scale autonomous units, and that's even before you begin to wonder if they'd be willing to co-operate on every issue. It is difficult to envisage enough people in the world suddenly adopting some variant of libertarian socialist or anarchist politics, especially when large parts of it seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

It's not difficult to imagine people becoming more politically powerful, it happens all the time. The localisation thing may be a tricky one, I admit, but I think we can win all the way, all the way.

 

[LLETSA]

I think you're over-estimating the ability of the entertainment industry to make people passive. Look at the student protestors.

Big difference between going on a series of demos and actively running society on a year-round basis.

 

[LLETSA]

It's not difficult to imagine people becoming more politically powerful, it happens all the time. The localisation thing may be a tricky one, I admit, but I think we can win all the way, all the way.

This answer is tongue in cheek, I presume?

 

[Random]

Big difference between going on a series of demos and actively running society on a year-round basis.

only a quantitative difference.

 

[Random]

This answer is tongue in cheek, I presume?

It's a quote from a novel about Spain and Russia in 1917

 

[The39thStep]

The startling fact about South Africa is that it has a massive industrial class, relative to the other ex-colonial countries of Africa, and that's reflected in the history of struggle there, which has managed to create mass left political parties and powerful trade unions.

how big is the South African anarchist scene?

 

[JimW]

Fuckin' massive: http://www.zabalaza.net/

 

[The39thStep]

Fuckin' massive: http://www.zabalaza.net/

Yes but how big compared to the CP and ANC?

 

[The39thStep]

Also what role did they have in overthrowing apartheid? They seem a bit Johnny come lately to me

 

[Random]

Yes but how big compared to the CP and ANC?

Jim is being sarcastic, the naughty scamp