Atheists on Socialism

[davo]

Yea, I will have to get back to the discussion a bit later too .. but quickly .. the IWA for instance organise on the basis of Libertarian Federalism, from the bottom up without hierarchy and with full freedom of initiative by both local and regional groups. All co-ordinating bodies of the Federation consist of recallable delegates with specific tasks determined by local assemblies. There are already many workplaces where this is already occuring or has existed for decades, albeit mostly in Europe, however there are groups even over here (like the 'Dishpigs' an australian anarchist union of dishwashers) plus another group in melbourne, that is in the process of joining the federation (I can't say openly who this is here until it occurs, but will in PM, needless to say it's over 700 workers). The bureaucracy of the current union system needs to change.

Anarchists see the revolution as also a social one. By struggling to create equitable workplaces ( regardless the fact you say workplaces have changed, I dissagree, they are inherently the same, the divisions within them are just greater, both from lack of local community and also from governement influence such as effectively making workers contractors, and the direction and powers the hierarchical unions have established or been given/promoted) via frameworks that already exist withing the networks of goods production.

The process of change happens through workers awareness and recognition of joining together with other workers, as we have numbers. It's not something that happens over night, necessarily. However it is born out of strife. The global economic collapse isn't the last we will see, the further we progress, the shakier the capitalist system becomes, as you quite rightly point out. If we look at how people have effectively turned these things around, we can see that the theories of socialism thru collectivisation are not only a goal, but an effective way of dealing with economic collapse.

For instance when Argentina decided to take on all the recommendations of the WTO all at once, and all the major companies and manufacturing in Argentina left the country, we saw it move from a society like ours, or Canada, in quality of life, to one where most were unemployed. The excuse of the capitalists was that they could not make money. Workers decided to appropriate factories for the money that was owed them in wages .. they literally started taking them over, and running them. They then started a federation, that looked out for other collectives of workers, and started the trading of goods and services in that framework. In fact, this was so effective, these factories have started to employ more workers!

The awareness that we can have a more equitable distribution of goods and services in our societies cannot be lost, there has to be a move toward actually working on creating the structures. The fight to take back unions powers for instance. (and I will PM you a little about this when I get time, you will be interested ..).

I think the widespread political change in the community you refer too, has to happen in the workplace, with empowerment and mutual aid of the workers. This is where anarcho-syndicalists focus. It may be a chicken and the egg, but many of the facets of a social system based on liberty and self management are already happening around the world, the process to continue it must go on

[SinisterDexter]

Originally Posted by davo

Yea, I will have to get back to the discussion a bit later too .. but quickly .. the IWA for instance organise on the basis of Libertarian Federalism, from the bottom up without hierarchy and with full freedom of initiative by both local and regional groups. All co-ordinating bodies of the Federation consist of recallable delegates with specific tasks determined by local assemblies. There are already many workplaces where this is already occuring or has existed for decades, albeit mostly in Europe, however there are groups even over here (like the 'Dishpigs' an australian anarchist union of dishwashers) plus another group in melbourne, that is in the process of joining the federation (I can't say openly who this is here until it occurs, but will in PM, needless to say it's over 700 workers). The bureaucracy of the current union system needs to change.

How do you deal with the notion of apathy? I find it is the killer in democracy and can see it being even more destructive in an anarchist sense.

Anarchists see the revolution as also a social one. By struggling to create equitable workplaces ( regardless the fact you say workplaces have changed, I dissagree, they are inherently the same, the divisions within them are just greater, both from lack of local community and also from governement influence such as effectively making workers contractors, and the direction and powers the hierarchical unions have established or been given/promoted) via frameworks that already exist withing the networks of goods production.

See, I would say the opposite. I think workplaces have become more blended, with divisions within them closing. Generally a workplace (and I'm talking office workers here more than others) is a mixture of staff on different types of employment (part, full time, casual, contract, etc) and, despite being organised heirarachically, there is a real blurred line between managers and staff (as there are usually many staff who aspire, realistically, to become managers). The area where I see divisions being larger, however, is in the lack of solidarity in workplaces. My work colleagues are acquaintances. That's it. I would see my family and friends as a much more important source of collectivism than any workplace.

The process of change happens through workers awareness and recognition of joining together with other workers, as we have numbers. It's not something that happens over night, necessarily. However it is born out of strife. The global economic collapse isn't the last we will see, the further we progress, the shakier the capitalist system becomes, as you quite rightly point out. If we look at how people have effectively turned these things around, we can see that the theories of socialism thru collectivisation are not only a goal, but an effective way of dealing with economic collapse.

For instance when Argentina decided to take on all the recommendations of the WTO all at once, and all the major companies and manufacturing in Argentina left the country, we saw it move from a society like ours, or Canada, in quality of life, to one where most were unemployed. The excuse of the capitalists was that they could not make money. Workers decided to appropriate factories for the money that was owed them in wages .. they literally started taking them over, and running them. They then started a federation, that looked out for other collectives of workers, and started the trading of goods and services in that framework. In fact, this was so effective, these factories have started to employ more workers!

I won't argue on Argentina, or the global economic morass (out of interest, what do you think of George Monbiot's work in Age of Consent?). And this sounds vaguely familiar to the basic ideal that lies beneath the mutual movement (credit unions, etc - although unfortunately, the credit union movement in Australia has abandoned the fundamentals and is now firmly on the capitalist track).

In short, I agree with a lot of what you are saying on principle, but I am still sceptical in practice. I can see no evidence for success in any nation with an entrenched capitalist system. And while I do think capitalism will have to adapt or die, I actually see it adapting rather than dieing.

The awareness that we can have a more equitable distribution of goods and services in our societies cannot be lost, there has to be a move toward actually working on creating the structures. The fight to take back unions powers for instance. (and I will PM you a little about this when I get time, you will be interested ..).

Yup, you're right, I am.

I think the widespread political change in the community you refer too, has to happen in the workplace, with empowerment and mutual aid of the workers. This is where anarcho-syndicalists focus. It may be a chicken and the egg, but many of the facets of a social system based on liberty and self management are already happening around the world, the process to continue it must go on

I am still plagued by doubt in regard to how to safeguard against undue accumulation of power in the hands of one or a few people. Where are the safeguards?

[SinisterDexter]

Actually, let me re-phrase that last sentence.

As I said previously, all theorists of these ideologies are trying to do what you state anarchism is trying to do (create a more fair society). However, all that have been implemented seem to have been corrupted by the implementers. Capitalism is corrupted by incorrect assumptions that allow the rich to grow fat on the money they fleece from the poor. Communism sets up a dictatorship and power corrupts. Etc. How does anarchism avoid being corrupted in the same way by the imperfect understanding, or outright subversion, of participants?

[GodwinGrey]

Davo - the miracle of Anarchism IMO is the complete understanding that exists between all true Anarchists. I don't feel a need to find issue with any of that. One point I was going to address was your understanding of Left and Right but you, quite properly IMO backed off from making an issue of that.

Sinister - I don't think there's a better place to start understanding the fundamental difference between Anarchists and Communists than right at the begining.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...hontomarx.html

How does anarchism avoid being corrupted in the same way by the imperfect understanding, or outright subversion, of participants?

Anrchists are uncorruptable that's a joke right? And yet amongst true Anarchists there's an absolute cultural understanding that personality cults are out. If you want to get embalmed and put on display as a semi deity Anarchism is not the path to choose. Look at the WOMBLES site. You won't see any personality cults forming there.

http://www.wombles.org.uk/

It's an absolute that because a person is enlightened and correct on one issue there's no reson to suppose that their opinion is any better on the next issue. Proudhon was a great theoretician but he was also a virulent antisemite and misogynist. that doesn't pose any difficulties for us. Kroptkin gave away everything to be an ordinary Anarchist, he was respected but had no chance of convincing the movement that war with Germany should be supported.

'Power is discourse.' (Foucault) control the conversation and you have the power. In Anarchism nobody controls the conversation. that's what is good about consensus decision making. If the body makes a decision, and it turns out to be a bad decision, then the body has no problem changing its mind. Leaders will plow on regardless making excuses, piling on bad decision after decision, fearful of appearing fallible. group decisions don't carry that burden.

It could be that in times of high stress and with large numbers of impressionable people without enough theory, things could go wrong. Durruti was wrong. you can understand why, but there's no doubt that his was a cult of personality that got far too many killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buenaventura_Durruti

[SinisterDexter]

But, GodwinGrey, if anarchists want to change the world to anarchism, then they must, by necessaity, involve everyone, including the same sorts that have perverted all the other ideological systems. Egos exist, and are the bane of any attempt to create true egalitarianism. This is the utopianism I was talking about. You simply cannot assume everyone will toe the line. So my question remains, where are the safeguards?

[SinisterDexter]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

@SinDexter: I hear what you're saying. I live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune of two (seriously, although some would say it's a poodleocracy), and still occasionally the last choc mint slice goes missing if I save it.

Mostly, it's wonderful. but I wouldn't increase the population size without risking the structure's integrity.

SinisterDexter's better half upon reading the above:

That sounds like here.

[davo]

Originally Posted by SinisterDexter

But, GodwinGrey, if anarchists want to change the world to anarchism, then they must, by necessaity, involve everyone, including the same sorts that have perverted all the other ideological systems. Egos exist, and are the bane of any attempt to create true egalitarianism. This is the utopianism I was talking about. You simply cannot assume everyone will toe the line. So my question remains, where are the safeguards?

The safeguards are the very structure of organising. These problems you mention remain in any system of organising, however anarchists argue that the decisions to deal with it, are more equitably decided by a group decision, than handed down by decree.

The struggle for freedom is not band-aided by anarchism it will always continue, it does however provide a much more equal and fair methodology for decision making than what we have at the moment.

[SinisterDexter]

That's a very vague answer davo. It appeals to the contextual moralist in me (very clever), but it still leaves me anxious about the prospects for an anarchist future.

[davo]

Originally Posted by SinisterDexter

That's a very vague answer davo. It appeals to the contextual moralist in me (very clever), but it still leaves me anxious about the prospects for an anarchist future.

anarchism is a methodology toward socialism, as is marxist-leninist communism.
It is not an answer, but a process by which we create self liberation, self managment and self-activity.

That's probably where some of the concepts are hard to grip, especially with the media view and general view of 'utopia' or 'chaos'.

These issues have been dealt with in reality before, Paris Commune, the Italian factory occupations or the Spanish collectives, the spanish revolution, the may-june revolt in France in 1968 the list goes on

I am not sure what you are directly concerned about to be able to reply as there are so many concepts and opinions on them, anarchists seek towards working on that in the here and now .. is it those that do not wish to work? things like that? Most anarchists agree with the concepts of Camillo Berneri when he said "no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work."

[SinisterDexter]

Originally Posted by davo

anarchism is a methodology toward socialism, as is marxist-leninist communism.
It is not an answer, but a process by which we create self liberation, self managment and self-activity.

So is democracy, and it still has safeguards on power.

These issues have been dealt with in reality before, Paris Commune, the Italian factory occupations or the Spanish collectives, the spanish revolution, the may-june revolt in France in 1968 the list goes on

Can you supply some links to explanations of these events? You have piqued my interest sufficiently to make me want to read more.

I am not sure what you are directly concerned about to be able to reply as there are so many concepts and opinions on them, anarchists seek towards working on that in the here and now .. is it those that do not wish to work? things like that? Most anarchists agree with the concepts of Camillo Berneri when he said "no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work."

Not those that do not wish to work, those that wish to accumulate and wield power.