Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Better than none at all, mind.
But historically Saffa anarchos did lead some big unions (100,000-plus members) and had militants involved in the struggle against apartheid. Zabalaza's the reconstitution of the earlier Worker's Solidarity Federation IIRC and not just some recent blow-in. Not on a par with the CP obviously, but then the path of the righteous has always been beset by thorns.
 
So are there any features of this part of the process that anarchist can agree upon? I would think this would be the first one.
ViolentPanda said:
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. :p
Click to expand...



To defend the anarchist, seeing as though the anarchists aren't doing it.

The thing is today, compared to historic examples, the world is not the same as it was in 1917. Population 80 million, working-class 2 million, peasantry massive. Today almost everywhere it is completely the opposite. In Britain we are talking about 60 million people, with a working class of at least 25 million people. In same circumstances

oops got to go.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
The thing is today, compared to historic examples, the world is not the same as it was in 1917. Population 80 million, working-class 2 million, peasantry massive. Today almost everywhere it is completely the opposite. In Britain we are talking about 60 million people, with a working class of at least 25 million people. In same circumstances

oops got to go.
Click to expand...

There's only 25 million working class in Britain?!?
 
Random said:
Not really sure what you're asking here. Yes, I agree with VP that the ability to get rid of any 'workers' state' functionaries is important.
Click to expand...

Before we start to implement that some of us would need to be convinced that the alternative is better.There are quite few on here never mind out there who simply don't trust the anarchist track record.
 
Random said:
I agree with VP that the ability to get rid of any 'workers' state' functionaries is important.
Click to expand...
vp http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=11347061#post11347061


Well not just a in a workers state. Any period of transition from capitalism to anarchism, which saw areas that were anarchist, and areas that were capitalist coexisting, and where even within anarchist areas there was a level of civil war with the forces of reaction [this is what I mean by workers autonomous zones. It is a phrase I borrowed from an anarchist on here.], if there were any people with power, say workers committees, architects, manages necessary for the production process, the ability to get rid of them, would absolutely be a key feature of such an workers autonomous zone, wouldn't it?
 
The39thStep said:
Before we start to implement that some of us would need to be convinced that the alternative is better.There are quite few on here never mind out there who simply don't trust the anarchist track record.
Click to expand...

What are the examples from that track record worth which you are not impressed?

Are you impressed by the track record of so-called workers' states?
 
Athos said:
What are the examples from that track record worth which you are not impressed?

Are you impressed by the track record of so-called workers' states?
Click to expand...

Hard to find any successes for a start .
Not sure why you think that anarchism or indeed anarchists would see the so called workers states as a benchmark or rival. Different class base.
 
The39thStep said:
Hard to find any successes for a start .
Not sure why you think that anarchism or indeed anarchists would see the so called workers states as a benchmark or rival. Different class base.
Click to expand...

What do you consider to be the reasons for the failures of anarchist organisation?

Do you consider the examples we've seen of so-called workers' states to have been successes?

I see the workers' state as "a rival" because it is the only other form of post-revolution organisation that is ever seriously proposed.

I don't understand the point you make about the class base of anarchism. Can you expand, please?
 
Athos said:
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.
Click to expand...
< is an utter lie.

Over and over and over, in the other thread, and then this one, I have said I only want people to give generalisations, broad brush stroke modles, to see if there is any "commonality" in what anarchists say, and give U75 anarchists a chance to speak about what they stand for, and how they intend to achieve it.

ALL besides random, have given prevaricating bullshit imo.

This is not true of all anarchist, I have ones on my website who don't have a problem discussing such things.


ResistanceMP3 said:
I'm offsky, but
Government of the Future Noam Chomsky 1970 - Length: 54 minutes
http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/cgi-bin/standardsearch.pl
Click to expand...
 
Random said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Random, do a search of U75 and see how many times you have discussed anarchism with me. Zip, nada, none. In fact do a search, and see how many times anybody has discussed it.

Now, originally I came on the site, because I was interested in those ideas, and others from the left. Not because I'm open-minded and I want to join, but in pretty much the same way I watch natural history documentaries about monkeys, doesn't mean I want to join them. What I'm trying to say is, I'm fascinated as to why you would hold such views. How you maintain your belief system.

I've never seen any such discussion on here. It is always about Leninism, Trotskyism, Cliffism, and in the past I've always ended up defending them, BECAUSE from my life experience, which is all I have to go by, the Leninism, Trotskyism, Cliffism, I've seen presented on here bare's LITTLE resemblance to the one I've come accross. So I've given up trying to convince people, as they have a tendency to simply not tak in stuff they disagree with.

So what I have done in the last couple of days, is go back to my original intention. "Fuck it, you are never going to agree about the SWP, so let's see what you have as an alternative."

PS. Haven't been a member of the SWP, and barely read their publications for about 10 years.

pps. I say LITTLE resemblance, Because there is some truth in what is being said, but the vast majority is distorted by the political classes such as VP wares.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
< is an utter lie.

Over and over and over, in the other thread, and then this one, I have said I only want people to give generalisations, broad brush stroke modles, to see if there is any "commonality" in what anarchists say, and give U75 anarchists a chance to speak about what they stand for, and how they intend to achieve it.

ALL besides random, have given prevaricating bullshit imo.

This is not true of all anarchist, I have ones on my website who don't have a problem discussing such things.
Click to expand...

Piss off back there and ask them, then.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
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?
Random said:
No, I'm not saying that? Yes?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You need to clarify why, no.

So you say no to, would you call for “the workers collectively to claim "The Sole Right to the Legitimate Use of Force"? Why? That doesn't make sense. Why would you allow reactionaries to freely create armed forces of resistance? From what is said on here, I would have thought anarchists would be the first ones to say a line them up against the wall.


You say no to the working-class ruling over the capitalists/fascists etc during the period of transition, why? You seem to say the exact opposite here;
Random said:
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.
Click to expand...
by definition, if you have workers control you do not have capitalist control. You have the workers imposing their will upon the capitalists.

[Quite rightly in my opinion. I totally support workers taking control of the means of production, above and beyond any state, be that capitalist OR workers.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Sunak wants to phase out legal smoking
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
544
Views
15K
kabbes
K
Kid_Eternity
“Left-wing anarchist guilty of terror offences”
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
brogdale
brogdale
hitmouse
Therese Coffey, health workers, and the Oxford comma
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
Jeremiah18.17
Truss & Rees-Mogg prepare for massive attack on workers rights?
Replies
3
Views
514
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
wemakeyousoundb
P&O Ferries sacks workers and docks ships
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
530
Views
21K
two sheds
two sheds
Back
Top Bottom