Anarchist theory

[LightSpectra]

Do you think the Paris Commune in 1871 and the Spanish Revolution in 1936 validates social anarchism? There was no central government; it was all collective, and it appeared somewhat effective.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i think that the spanish revolution is an excellent place to start for thinking about anarchism. But both are excellent examples of anarchism's resulting massacres. Especially in the Spanish revolution where there was a generally unknown alliance of Fascism, Communism, Nationalism, and Capitalism in the annihilation of those collectives.

Something to think about

 

[cubsfan6506]

I just read up on the commune. That's really to bad the way that they got crushed.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

I just read up on the commune. That's really to bad the way that they got crushed.

They were truly slaughtered. we can only be happy that they Guillotined a crap-load of the rich elite before they themselves got the pike and blade

 

[cubsfan6506]

That doesn't make me happy.

 

[Cutlass]

The fact that there will be government is as inevitable as death and taxes. If there is no organized force in charge, then it is inevitable that someone will create one. Even if they don't choose to call it a "government", there will be a group imposing it's will on others. And using force or threats to do so.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

@cubsfan6506
take my comment as tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps they reaped what they had sown during the revolt, when the rebels were slaughtered.

@Cutlass
I've more or less accepted this fact. The main issue would be who does the ruling, how the decisions are made, and how to keep the corporations Neutered!

 

[Sofista]

LS: to truly validate the system they would have needed to last, which wasn't the case. Not through shortcomings of social anarchism, but still, they stood too briefly to demonstrate anything but the establishment's allergy to such phenomena.

 

[Rambuchan]

Do you think the Paris Commune in 1871 and the Spanish Revolution in 1936 validates social anarchism? There was no central government; it was all collective, and it appeared somewhat effective.

Bakunin's "Revolutionary Catechism" does seem to have been practiced quite faithfully in Spain during the 1930s, especially in Catalonia. It seems it was practiced there quite accurately and in accordance with his 'manifesto', following both the spirit and the letter of his guiding document: [Link to the text]

It also seems it was successful. And by successful I mean that these communes were often more productive than before, as well as them achieving the equality and freedom that Anarchism, according to Bakunin, was designed to. That these projects were eventually destroyed and were relatively short lived as a result of the opposition and oppression they faced, doesn't take away from the fact that they demonstrated Bakunin's vision in practice, providing workable and repeatable examples for us today.

The question though, as always with such enterprises, is how the rest of the world responds.

 

[Arwon]

Assuming a vacuum where either the dispossessed melt away, are defeated or choose not to stage a counter-revolution, the biggest dangers are things like peer pressure, the mob mentality, and other forms of informal domination of man against man.

I don't think an anarchist society could ever be a materially rich one (I mean it'd never work in a materially rich society), but then that's not really the point is it?

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Bakunin's "Revolutionary Catechism" does seem to have been practiced quite faithfully in Spain during the 1930s, especially in Catalonia. It seems it was practiced there quite accurately and in accordance with his 'manifesto', following both the spirit and the letter of his guiding document: [Link to the text]

It also seems it was successful. And by successful I mean that these communes were often more productive than before, as well as them achieving the equality and freedom that Anarchism, according to Bakunin, was designed to. That these projects were eventually destroyed and were relatively short lived as a result of the opposition and oppression they faced, doesn't take away from the fact that they demonstrated Bakunin's vision in practice, providing workable and repeatable examples for us today.

The question though, as always with such enterprises, is how the rest of the world responds.

Nukes

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Pretty much agree with Cutlass on the inevitability of government. And with others who've stated that we can't tell much of anything from these examples since none of them lasted long at all. Success (if you can even call it that) for a few months or even a year or two is largely meaningless. Whatever they built may not have been sustaining, even without serious outside pressures. Even if it was sustaining, the long term result may be utter stagnation. Who knows. I certainly know that a worker run industry is going to resist nearly any and all labor saving machines and innovations. That the likelihood of big new businesses is limited without capital concentration and investment. That MAJOR national endeavors (like going to the moon, huge public works projects, dams, highways and the like) are generally not possible without a central government with significant resources.

If the world left these guys to their own devices, its very possible that the factories they're collectively owning in 1850 will be the same exact factors in 1950. Such systems are not a recipe for progress. They need something to drive them forward. Whether private industry or a centralized state, there needs to be something.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Pretty much agree with Cutlass on the inevitability of government. And with others who've stated that we can't tell much of anything from these examples since none of them lasted long at all. Success (if you can even call it that) for a few months or even a year or two is largely meaningless. Whatever they built may not have been sustaining, even without serious outside pressures. Even if it was sustaining, the long term result may be utter stagnation. Who knows. I certainly know that a worker run industry is going to resist nearly any and all labor saving machines and innovations. That the likelihood of big new businesses is limited without capital concentration and investment. That MAJOR national endeavors (like going to the moon, huge public works projects, dams, highways and the like) are generally not possible without a central government with significant resources.

If the world left these guys to their own devices, its very possible that the factories they're collectively owning in 1850 will be the same exact factors in 1950. Such systems are not a recipe for progress. They need something to drive them forward. Whether private industry or a centralized state, there needs to be something.

Depends on what you consider progress or how you measure it. I see how you mention "labor saving machines and innovations", this is interesting. Why wouldn't a union accept machines to make work easier and more productive if the UNION OWNED THE 'COMPANY'?
But i will focus the on "innovations" side of you first argument. I'm going to assume that innovations like low wages, no health care, and longer work week are the innovations you are talking about, because that's the flavour of capitalism at least in my f***ing country.

And I love how you automatically assume these systems would have failed, when all of them showed actual progress over their neighbors, and where all abortively slaughtered by rational, concerned people with your mindset.

 

[Princeps]

If the world left these guys to their own devices, its very possible that the factories they're collectively owning in 1850 will be the same exact factors in 1950. Such systems are not a recipe for progress. They need something to drive them forward. Whether private industry or a centralized state, there needs to be something.

So, you think that people are so stupid that they can only think forward if they're guided by cool and rational mentors and masters. Is there any deeper totalitarian dogmatism that you don't embrace?

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Depends on what you consider progress or how you measure it. I see how you mention "labor saving machines and innovations", this is interesting. Why wouldn't a union accept machines to make work easier and more productive if the UNION OWNED THE 'COMPANY'?

Because a labor saving device results in less need for labor for the same or even increased output. As the factory is owned by the workers, the workers are unlikely to want to fire themselves, so they'll probably resist some of these innovations. They've often resisted such innovations in the past even when they didn't own the place. Even if they decide to expand to keep everyone employed, there may not be a sufficient market for that expansion and they may not have the capital assets to invest in an expansion.

A fully mechanized (robots and such) factory can produce a BOATLOAD more product cheaper and usually more skillfully and precisely with a fraction of the labor force than a more 'hands on' factory could. But what interest would a union run factory have in this sort of 'progress' when it makes most of them irrelevant?

But i will focus the on "innovations" side of you first argument. I'm going to assume that innovations like low wages, no health care, and longer work week are the innovations you are talking about, because that's the flavour of capitalism at least in my f***ing country.

And you assume wrong. Innovation happens a couple of different ways. Someone with an idea meets someone with money who likes the idea who funds it. (the model that allowed for the dot.com boom where college geniuses mingled with millionaire venture capitalists to take risks on projects that could result in billions...or failure). Or someone or some group with tons of money funds engineers and scientists to research ideas.

One of the necessities for both of those paths to innovation is the concentration of capital into a single person's or small group's hands. Such concentration is unlikely to occur in a more egalitarian society. And even if such accumulation could occur collectively, it probably won't result substantial investment because people in a group are much less averse to risk than the lone individual or small group. You'll always be able to find the group or individual crazy enough to invest their hard earned (or inherited) money into a hair-brained scheme. But the more you expand that decision-making group, the more hand-wringing nay-sayers you'll find who don't want the risk. Try convincing hundreds or even thousands of laborers on what the best use for their money is. At a certain point under that model, innovation inevitably stagnates.

And I love how you automatically assume these systems would have failed, when all of them showed actual progress over their neighbors, and where all abortively slaughtered by rational, concerned people with your mindset.

They have shown nothing. I'm talking in terms of progress vs. stagnation. It takes a hell of alot more than a few years run time to show how effective they'd be in that area. They didn't run long enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about their long term viability. And to be fair, the ability to resist outside forces is something every form of government and economy inevitably must face at some point or another. Their inability to resist being crushed is in fact a failure. Perhaps the deck was stacked against them. I'm sure it was stacked against the capitalists when merchantilist monpolies were running this with state sanction. I'm sure it was against the Democratic governments when monarchies and aristocracies were the name of the game. They prevailed. Anarchism didn't.

And, as I said, we know nothing about their long term viability even without outside pressures. I'm simply imputing my knowledge of the real world into that general system and drawing conclusions. You will find more individual risk takers and more proper investment with the accumulation of capital than you will in a collective decision-making system. And investors willing to take risks is one of the major engines of progress and innovation.

So, you think that people are so stupid that they can only think forward if they're guided by cool and rational mentors and masters. Is there any deeper totalitarian dogmatism that you don't embrace?

Seriously, leave your silly, agenda driven strawmen at the door.

 

[Princeps]

Seriously, leave your silly, agenda driven strawmen at the door.

No, it's a fair question. Do you actually think the common people are so stupid that they cannot govern themselves?

Take for example, employement and progress. One of the reasons why people cling on to their jobs is because they need it for survival and thus are obviously uneager to give up their jobs when capitalists talk about "progress" and "downsizing". In anarchism, people would not be forced or coerced to work with threats of starvation or suffering, they would not be slaves to their wage, and thus people would not try to desperately cling on to their jobs in a situation were they're forced to switch employment due to economic changes or go unemployed, because they would know that it wouldn't cause severe economic problems to them personally. This could create even greater flexibility in labor, yet keep the workers safe from impoverishment and suffering, which would foster tolerance for economic changes and resulting changes in labour needs. The incentive to do more work could still be provided with extra reward, of course, in the extent determined by the democratic institutions.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Ranting about totalitarian regimes is not a fair question. Its loaded BS. Ask a real question, I'll give a real answer. I have no time for hacks.

I stated my position clearly. If you have several individuals with significant wealth, you will find one ambitious enough (or stupid enough) to invest in an unproven technology or idea that may or may not bare fruit in the future. In a more egalitarian society, you will not find the necessary accumulation of wealth. And even if people pool their wealth collectively, the decision-making also becomes a more collective process. A process in which you will inevitably have several people too averse to such risks to take them. And so those investments don't occur. And those innovations don't happen.

If they decide on a de facto leadership to do such exploration and investment for them, than they might get that investment. But you're hardly running an anarchic system anymore. You have the inevitability of government that Cutlass alluded to earlier.

And groups of people will always resist change when it impacts them. There are no guarantees of other opportunities out there. And I'm wondering where that social welfare net for the unemployed will come from in the absence of government. No, if you have collective ownership of the factory, than changes that make the factory more efficient, but less labor intensive will be resisted. And modernization avoided.

I'm not advocating totalitarianism. I'm not advocating unrestricted, unregulated capitalism. I am saying that the collective ownership model proposed here and the pseudo-anarchism discussed will not work long term. It will ****** progress.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

No, it's a fair question. Do you actually think the common people are so stupid that they cannot govern themselves?

Take for example, employement and progress. One of the reasons why people cling on to their jobs is because they need it for survival and thus are obviously uneager to give up their jobs when capitalists talk about "progress" and "downsizing". In anarchism, people would not be forced or coerced to work with threats of starvation or suffering, they would not be slaves to their wage, and thus people would not try to desperately cling on to their jobs in a situation were they're forced to switch employment due to economic changes or go unemployed, because they would know that it wouldn't cause severe economic problems to them personally. This could create even greater flexibility in labor, yet keep the workers safe from impoverishment and suffering, which would foster tolerance for economic changes and resulting changes in labour needs. The incentive to do more work could still be provided with extra reward, of course, in the extent determined by the democratic institutions.

Yes

 

[Princeps]

I stated my position clearly. If you have several individuals with significant wealth, you will find one ambitious enough (or stupid enough) to invest in an unproven technology or idea that may or may not bare fruit in the future.

I'm not advocating totalitarianism.

No, you advocated it very explicitly above. You advocate private totalitarian institutions because you believe they are superior and capable of taking bigger risks than democratic institutions. This is plain false, and it is also the reason why the companies often don't take the risks: the risks are often socialized, and most of the development costs are absorbed by the state (which is an institution obviously more responsive to democracy). Indeed, many politicians often advocate new technology and eager participation and investment in its making.

Indeed, my concern is the precise opposite. My concern is that people are perhaps too easily seduced by industrial gigantism and overt scientific optimism. Edit: and people are too easily seduced by corporate and stalinist propaganda that depict such industrial and technological utopianism and thus they're too eager to embrace such elite solutions, which leave us with shrinking lakes, like in the USSR, where totalitarian institutions with massive funds were totally unregulated in their crazed quest to match with the West in military and economic growth.

And groups of people will always resist change when it impacts them. There are no guarantees of other opportunities out there.

Of course there will always be conflict. Unlike some people assume, anarchism is not about utopianism. Utopianism is the root of all totalitarian impulse. But anarchist theory, imo, provides a good solution for this problem as well: don't make people dependant on their wage, don't threathen them and so forth, and you'll get rid of a lot of modern worlds problems.

And I'm wondering where that social welfare net for the unemployed will come from in the absence of government.

Government's wealth comes from the nation and the property regime. The violently imposed property regime would be abolished and property would be controlled by means of direct democracy, especially the means of production, major capital and resources: Perhaps personal property like your toothbrush or car would remain outside this system praticularly in the wealthier socities.

No, if you have collective ownership of the factory, than changes that make the factory more efficient, but less labor intensive will be resisted. And modernization avoided.

No, I explained this already. If people will not be forced work in order to live, they wont have the bitter incentive to resist that improvement, because they'll be more open to change, because they'll know they will only benefit from the improvement: they wont be left to suffer or starve just because there's no immediate work for the worker(s) that are left unemployed.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Ranting about totalitarian regimes is not a fair question. Its loaded BS. Ask a real question, I'll give a real answer. I have no time for hacks.

I stated my position clearly. If you have several individuals with significant wealth, you will find one ambitious enough (or stupid enough) to invest in an unproven technology or idea that may or may not bare fruit in the future. In a more egalitarian society, you will not find the necessary accumulation of wealth. And even if people pool their wealth collectively, the decision-making also becomes a more collective process. A process in which you will inevitably have several people too averse to such risks to take them. And so those investments don't occur. And those innovations don't happen.

If they decide on a de facto leadership to do such exploration and investment for them, than they might get that investment. But you're hardly running an anarchic system anymore. You have the inevitability of government that Cutlass alluded to earlier.

And groups of people will always resist change when it impacts them. There are no guarantees of other opportunities out there. And I'm wondering where that social welfare net for the unemployed will come from in the absence of government. No, if you have collective ownership of the factory, than changes that make the factory more efficient, but less labor intensive will be resisted. And modernization avoided.

I'm not advocating totalitarianism. I'm not advocating unrestricted, unregulated capitalism. I am saying that the collective ownership model proposed here and the pseudo-anarchism discussed will not work long term. It will ****** progress.

No

We live in a Neo-Liberal world pseudo-government. A system that is based on incorrect economic theory.