During the revolution

38 posts / 0 new

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 9 2010 04:10

Splitting this from the Johann Most thread:

oisleep wrote:

Vlad336 wrote:

oisleep wrote:

seems like the usual utopian 'everyone will have anything they want yet they'll only have to work a few hours a day to provide it' stuff

Tbf he says that everyone. regardless of sex, will work

yes but The time of labor for the individual is limited to a few hours - we've had this discussion a million times before, where on one side the utopians believe that the living standards of 9 billion people will be brought to an adequate and equal standard (in the face of a plethora of impending resource & environmental disasters) yet at the same time this will involve only a couple of hours work a day

Quote:

.... and that only "the necessities" will be guaranteed.

maybe but the sum total of necessities and comforts demanded, regulates the quantity of production and therefore the quantity of work required at the total level (also what mechanism would be used to garner information about the sum quantities of necessities and comforts demanded, things like this never get addressed by utopians beyond dreamy like statements that the workers in each industry will just know, or that this information will be magically transmitted by osmosis or something - the fact is in a modern society something like the mechanism & mechanics of the market would be required - albeit stripped of its ideological defaults, it's exclusionary features, and put to use in the interests of not against society)

Quote:

Saying that ALL crime will disappear is kind of starry-eyed utopian, yes. Had he qualified this point by saying that "all crime that springs from social and economic inequality [which is most crime after all] will disappear" instead, that would have been fair enough.

yep, although the prospect of socio-economic inequality motivated crime (would you include mutli billion dollar organised crime as something motivated by inequality by the way) being replaced by being massacred or annihilated and having your food stolen by armed columns of foragers doesn't sound ideal either

...

888 wrote:

Er... isn't it pretty obvious that a lot of people do a lot of completely unnecessary work in today's capitalist society, oisleep? The exact amount that work might be reduced could be in question, but not the prediction of a substantial reduction of work, surely?
Quote:

(would you include mutli billion dollar organised crime as something motivated by inequality by the way)

Not motivated but enabled by...

...

oisleep wrote:

Quote:

Er... isn't it pretty obvious that a lot of people do a lot of completely unnecessary work in today's capitalist society, oisleep? The exact amount that work might be reduced could be in question, but not the prediction of a substantial reduction of work, surely?

acknowledging the enormity of the task (i.e. 9 billion people being provided with an adequate and equal standard of life in the face of a set of impending disasters the likes of which humanity has never experienced) does not imply a denial that unnecessary work is performed under capitalism - the default utopian line that this unnecessary work if stopped would free up enough resources to slash everyone's working time by three quarters AND solve the resource & environmental disasters that are waiting in the wings (not to mention the permanent war that would be required to be waged against those who would seek to overthrow the system, plus the couple of hundred of years hard slog to actually implement and bed down a completely new socio-economic system) is, in my opinion, ostrich like idealism

Quote:

Not motivated but enabled by...

yes, but my question was about the underlying motivation - so motivations for such things would not necessarily be removed by the removal of socio-economic inequality - all that is then required is to find a different means of enabling them

...

oisleep wrote:

i'm interested in the relevance (or not) of things like this for the type of world we live in/on today though - apologies though if the thread was meant more for a historical discussion about the relevance of his ideas to another time and place
btw did kroptokin think that a communist society wouldn't have a consistent, ongoing and multiple threats of being overthrown or undermined by those hostile to it (either from within or without) - hence dispensing with the need, in his detailed calculations, for any application of labour required to combat those threats? If so then it does sound to me that he is making shit up

...

888 wrote:

He's not making shit up because it is necessary to demonstrate the feasibility and desirability of a stable anarchist society after the revolutionary period, and it's very difficult to estimate the costs of a hypothetical war. Of course the relevance to today's conditions is far more important. No need to be so defensive, I actually agree with you.

...

Quote:

the fact that his focus is all about 'after the revolutionary period' pretty much allows him to make shit up as there is no such thing as 'after the revolutionary period' - there's no end of history - therefore he can conveniently side step the huge application of permanent labour that would be required over multiple generations first to estbalish a new society and then that which would be required to continually combat attempts to undermine/overthrow a society consituted along those lines
if getting defensive means pointing out the flaws in anarchist thinkers logic then i'm happy to get defensive

...

Vlad wrote:

This is pretty spot on actually. It does seem like most of the anarchist (and Marxist) "visions of the future" that I've encountered simply assume that there will be a moment when everything has been won, and there is no longer any serious threat to communism. Only then will we really get started on building proper socialism.

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 9 2010 04:26

This is worth it's own thread, so i'm starting it.

First, off, oisleep - have you read either the Conquest of Bread or Fields Factories and Workshops? Kropotkin was very concerned with the immediate tasks facing a revolution, and most of the research into Fields Factories and Workshops was trying to understand how trends in agricultural and industrial production and the world economy would impact revolutionary events. This passage from the Conquest of Bread discusses the question a bit:

Quote:

That we are Utopians is well known. So Utopian are we that we go the length of believing that the Revolution can and ought to assure shelter, food, and clothes to all--an idea extremely displeasing to middle-class citizens, whatever their party colour, for they are quite alive to the fact that it is not easy to keep the upper hand of a people whose hunger is satisfied.
All the same, we maintain our contention: bread must be found for the people of the Revolution, and the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions. If it is settled in the interests of the people, the Revolution will be on the right road; for in solving the question of Bread we must accept the principle of equality, which will force itself upon us to the exclusion of every other solution.

It is certain that the coming Revolution--like in that respect to the Revolution of 1848--will burst upon us in the middle of a great industrial crisis. Things have been seething for half a century now, and can only go from bad to worse. Everything tends that way--new nations entering the, lists of international trade and fighting for possession of the world's markets, wars, taxes ever increasing. National debts, the insecurity of the morrow, and huge colonial undertakings in every corner of the globe.

There are millions of unemployed workers in Europe at this moment. It will be still worse when Revolution has burst upon us and spread like fire laid to a train of gunpowder. The number of the out-of-works will be doubled as soon as barricades are erected in Europe and the United States. What is to be done to provide these multitudes with bread?

We do not know whether the folk who call them selves "practical people" have ever asked themselves this question in all its nakedness. But we do know that they wish to maintain the wage system, and we must therefore expect to have "national workshops" and "public works" vaunted as a means of giving food to the unemployed.

Because national workshops were opened in 1789 and in 1793; because the same means were resorted to in 1848; because Napoleon III succeeded in contenting the Parisian proletariat for eighteen years by giving them public works--which cost Paris to-day its debt of £80,000,000--and its municipal tax of three or four pounds a-head;1 because this excellent method of "taming the beast" was customary in Rome, and even in Egypt four thousand years ago; and lastly, because despots, kings, and emperors have always employed the ruse of throwing a scrap of food to the people to gain time to snatch up the whip--it is natural that "practical" men should extol this method of perpetuating the wage system. What need to rack our brains when we have the time-honoured method of the Pharaohs at our disposal?

Yet should the Revolution be so misguided as to start on this path, it would be lost.

In 1848, when the national workshops were opened on February 27, the unemployed of Paris numbered only 800; a fortnight later they had already increased to 49,000. They would soon have been 100,000, without counting those who crowded in from the provinces.

Yet at that time trade and manufacturers in France only employed half as many hands as to-day. And we know that in time of Revolution exchange and industry suffer most from the general upheaval.

To realize this we have only to think for a moment of the number of workmen whose labour depends directly or indirectly upon export trade, or of the number of hands employed in producing luxuries, whose consumers are the middle-class minority.

A revolution in Europe means the unavoidable stoppage of at least half the factories and workshops. It means millions of workers and their families thrown on the streets.

And our "practical men" would seek to avert this truly terrible situation by means of national relief works; that is to say, by means of new industries created on the spot to give work to the unemployed!

It is evident, as Proudhon has already pointed out, that the smallest attack upon property will bring in its train the complete disorganization of the system based upon private enterprise and wage labour. Society itself will be forced to take production in hand, in its entirety, and to reorganize it to meet the needs of the whole people. But this cannot be accomplished in a day or a month; it must take a certain time thus to reorganize the system of production, and during this time millions of men will be deprived of the means of subsistence. What then is to be done ?

There is only one really practical solution of the problem--boldly to face the great task which awaits us, and instead of trying to patch up a situation which we ourselves have made untenable, to proceed to reorganize production on a new basis.

Thus the really practical course of action, in our view, would be that the people should take immediate possession of all the food of the insurgent districts, keeping strict account of it all, that none might be wasted, and that by the aid of these accumulated resources every one might be able to tide over the crisis. During that time an agreement would have to be made with the factory workers, the necessary raw material given them and the means of subsistence assured to them while they worked to supply the needs of the agriculture population. For we must not forget that while France weaves silks and satins to deck the wives of German financiers, the Empress of Russia, and the Queen of the Sandwich Islands, and while Paris fashions wonderful trinkets and playthings for rich folk all the world over, two-thirds of the French peasantry have not proper lamps to give them light, or the implements necessary for modern agriculture. Lastly, unproductive land, of which there is plenty, would have to be turned to the best advantage, poor soils enriched, and rich soils, which yet, under the present system, do not yield a quarter, no, nor a tenth of what they might produce, submitted to intensive culture and tilled with as much care as a market garden or a flower plot. It is impossible to imagine any other practical solution of the problem; and, whether we like it or not, sheer force of circumstances will bring it to pass.

III

http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin5

I'd say there's a pretty direct connection between passages like this and the 'communisation' which Dauve, Theorie Commuiste and others talk about - which although Kroppers laid out much more detailed plans, they cover similar ground conceptually.

Have my own thoughts on this but will have to post them later.

slothjabber

Offline

Joined: 1-08-06

Jun 9 2010 13:10

Some of us did some calculations a little while ago and came to the conclusion that every person on earth could have $9,000US and adults could work for (if my memory serves) 24 hours a week and we could replicate capitalism as it stands; so with the progressive elimination of wasteful endevour (from banks to commuting) and the freeing up of the resources currently invested in arms and whatnot and the freeing of people's energies and creative talents, then things could be better than that.

$9,000 might not sound like a lot (and for some people it isn't) but for the majority of the planet it's a huge increase in income, and for let's say 'a typical family of 4' it represents approximately £25,000. Communal living is likely to increase after the revolution I'd argue, so lonely singletons facing financial ruin can take heart from that I suppose.

Just thought I'd throw that in to the mix.

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 9 2010 13:16

Alright let's start with this:

oisleep wrote:

acknowledging the enormity of the task (i.e. 9 billion people being provided with an adequate and equal standard of life in the face of a set of impending disasters the likes of which humanity has never experienced) does not imply a denial that unnecessary work is performed under capitalism - the default utopian line that this unnecessary work if stopped would free up enough resources to slash everyone's working time by three quarters AND solve the resource & environmental disasters that are waiting in the wings (not to mention the permanent war that would be required to be waged against those who would seek to overthrow the system, plus the couple of hundred of years hard slog to actually implement and bed down a completely new socio-economic system) is, in my opinion, ostrich like idealism

oisleep wrote:

btw did kroptokin think that a communist society wouldn't have a consistent, ongoing and multiple threats of being overthrown or undermined by those hostile to it (either from within or without) - hence dispensing with the need, in his detailed calculations, for any application of labour required to combat those threats?

So there are several interrelated questions here, one is "how does a revolutionary (or just insurrectionary even) society defend itself internally and externally" - I don't think it's going to be fruitful to go into that here if we actually want to address the resources / work issue. But presumably we both agree on no chance of revolution in one country, and that limited uprisings like Hungary '56, Portugal '74-'76, Paris '68 (and more recent struggles in France), Greece etc. are as close as we have to examples - except this would be on a much wider scale, so less isolated (if it's even remotely successful) but at a higher intensity and more prolonged - possibly for years on and off. I'm hoping that's adequate enough an assumption that we can discuss the work / resource issue.

So onto that..

Both within countries and between countries a vast amount of work goes into defending against 'internal and external attacks' already - standing armies, multiple ongoing wars internationally, border controls, police forces.

Let's look at the numbers of people employed in a few different industries (in the US 'cos the statistics are easy to find and because it's a huge and likely key country if something kicked off, it'd be interesting to do the UK, India and China for comparison, and probably some others if we can find equivalents).

So to look at the number of people who are employed in repressive tasks:

Number of people employed as police and detectives: 900k

Armed forces: 2.4 million

I didn't check prison guards (or teachers ), but the prison population is around 2.2 million.

Then let's compare that with - food production.

850k are employed in agriculture - http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos349.htm

1.5 million people are employed in 'food manufacturing' (slaughter houses, packing etc) http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs011.htm

700k in food processing.

Note that the US is a net exporter of food, or at least was until 2004 according to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200411/ai_n8602911/

Now let's look at some jobs which would disappear pretty much on day 1 of a revolutionary situation:

Estate agents: 517,800 http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos120.htm

Securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents held about 317,200 jobs "http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos122.htm".

Customer service representatives - 2.3 million - http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos280.htm

So, these are random examples (there's a lot of categories on that site), but to put those numbers into context for the US:

* The number of people employed as estate agents and sales agents for financial services is the same as the number of people employed in direct agriculture.

* The number of people employed in food production as a whole is within a few hundred thousand of the number employed as customer service representatives (there are over 1 million receptionists on top of that 2.3 million but I might have missed a food category too).

* The number of people in prison is about the same as the number in the armed forces. Both of those groups combined are double the number involved in food production.

This is out of a total population of 310m.

I'd say those numbers put the amount of pointless work going on pretty starkly in contrast to work in 'essential industries'.

After finding those individual pages, I also found this table of the top occupations in terms of employment - http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/largest_occs.htm

Again, taking jobs which are likely to disappear vs. productive / socially useful ones and the numbers stack towards those which are likely to disappear.

Looking at those numbers doesn't even begin to deal with the following:

* Distribution of pointless vs. essential vs. somewhere in the middle jobs internationally as opposed to just the US.
* How you deal with a situation where millions of people don't have a job and can't realistically do it even if they wanted to, while if an equivalent number stop work then food, water, electric will be exhausted within a matter of days. And the fact that many of the former will be in the cities while many of the latter won't.
* Varying distribution of natural resources between countries and the fact that even with relatively heavy industries and agriculture they have international dependencies and complex chains of production which could break down very quickly.

I'm running out of time again, but I'd say that things like food, water, electric, fuel etc. are a much more important discussion than "how will you ensure everyone has a TV". Even crappy electrical goods can last for years, it's the labour-intensive consumables and services which present the worst challenges regardless of how developed a country is.

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 9 2010 13:36

i dont' have much time/energy to get that involved in this discussion at the moment either catch but thanks for attempting to engage constructively on it and apologise in advance for not responding to your individual points

however i have to admit that I was a bit gloomy on reading through your post initially as it seemed to be heading towards a rather simplistic notion that all that's required is a re-allocation of individuals from estate agents to agriculture and that's fine (bit of a characterture but you know what i mean) - you could have billions 'working' in agriculture or energy production but faced with the kind of resource & environmental problems stacking up in front of us, they won't be able to magic food or energy out the air just because there is more of them - and in fact it could be argued that the huge amount of people that could potentially be 'put' to work presents more of a problem than an opoprtunity if they can't all be assured a decent standard of living (whatever that is, but i'd say certainly more than bare survivial) on an equal basis globally -

your last paragraph brought it back on track however which I agree with (and is more what i was getting at in the paragraph above) - however at the same time being a 'communist is pointless if it's just about global altruism and doesn't involve wanting a better life (measured both 'materially' and qualataively or whatever it's called) for ourselves as individuals - if i'm going to be left with the equivalent of $9k and no telly, then as someone who is already on side I would have to question whether my heart was in it to go through generations of war & upheaval to protect such a fledgling society - so not sure how those who are far from being convinced at the moment are going to be won over

apologies for crap reply, can't really muster up the energy at the moment

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 10 2010 07:27

oisleep wrote:

you could have billions 'working' in agriculture or energy production but faced with the kind of resource & environmental problems stacking up in front of us, they won't be able to magic food or energy out the air just because there is more of them - and in fact it could be argued that the huge amount of people that could potentially be 'put' to work presents more of a problem than an opoprtunity if they can't all be assured a decent standard of living (whatever that is, but i'd say certainly more than bare survivial) on an equal basis globally -

And that's a problem which equally faces current capitalist society? If you think there's a high risk of resource exhaustion and widespread ecological crisis, which many would agree there is, then that is going to be faced by whatever kind of society there is when the worst hits (and will likely have a major impact on the class struggle too). The question then becomes not what to do about it during a period of revolutionary upheaval, but what to do about it in general (and that may well provide an imperative towards revolutionary politics - which IMO ecology does if taken to its logical conclusions).

The issues you're talking about then are really things like how to provide a reasonable standard of living while slowing the rate of resource depletion, repairing soil fertility, reducing emissions etc.

The very obvious answers to things like this are improved/more efficient housing, more durable and repairable (as opposed to replaceable with built in obsolescence) goods, district heating, reduced packaging etc.

Then stuff like a greater proportion of food coming from local, intensified food production, avoiding completely unnecessary commutes (anything over 30 minutes for example, I knew someone who commuted 2 hours each way in London to a crappy job in a workplace of which there were dozens of similar ones along the way).

Then there's the stories about salad grown and bought in the UK, but chopped in Nigeria, trousers manufactured in 7 different countries, and 'local' produce in supermarkets which traverses hundreds of miles of distribution networks to arrive ten miles away from origin. Then there's just all the bizarre shit like http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Corruption-of-Dennis.aspx - working itself consumes resources as much as being a consumer.

In Japan 10% of the population is employed in the construction industry, a very high number of those jobs are on regional government 'pork' projects - like making concrete tacks to chuck in the sea to prevent coastal erosion, despite it being known for many years that they make it worse, because the concrete producers rely on those contracts to stay afloat. Or building bridges which go nowhere, or river flood prevention where no-one lives, or rock-slide prevention where no-one drives or walks under. All completely fucking pointless.

I don't think any of these are solvable within a capitalist framework. Some of the worst excesses perhaps, sometimes new technologies arise which are much more efficient than the old ones (mobile phones vs. wired telephony - it's much less resource intensive to set up mobile coverage than it is to lay phone lines in countries which don't have either). But if this is what you're getting at, then I don't see how saying "it'll be really hard for a communist/revolutionary society to deal with those issues" is saying anything at all. Of course it'll be fucking hard, however I don't think it's remotely fucking possible to do it without one.

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 10 2010 13:48

Mike Harman wrote:

oisleep wrote:

you could have billions 'working' in agriculture or energy production but faced with the kind of resource & environmental problems stacking up in front of us, they won't be able to magic food or energy out the air just because there is more of them - and in fact it could be argued that the huge amount of people that could potentially be 'put' to work presents more of a problem than an opoprtunity if they can't all be assured a decent standard of living (whatever that is, but i'd say certainly more than bare survivial) on an equal basis globally -

And that's a problem which equally faces current capitalist society? If you think there's a high risk of resource exhaustion and widespread ecological crisis, which many would agree there is, then that is going to be faced by whatever kind of society there is when the worst hits (and will likely have a major impact on the class struggle too). The question then becomes not what to do about it during a period of revolutionary upheaval, but what to do about it in general (and that may well provide an imperative towards revolutionary politics - which IMO ecology does if taken to its logical conclusions).

I don't think any of these are solvable within a capitalist framework

Of course capitalism faces the same backdrop of problems that any other (more progressive or less progressive) mode of organising society would face, no one is saying otherwise. The point is however that capitalism doesn't even pretend to have as its aim the elimination of socio-economic inequality, the transformation of the nature of work, and the provision of a decent, comfortable, sustainable and equal life for the 9 billion people on the planet (which for around 8bn people that would involve a massive increase in existing living standards) - not in these circumstances or even in circumstances more favourable to delivering said things. So saying (or implying) that capitalism won't be able to solve things that you think a 'communist' world could frankly isn't good enough, as capitalism's goal isn't to do these things, it can't, it won't. Capitalism doesn't have to. the hallmark of an irrational system is that it will happily cut of its life support as part of it's normaly activity.

However I don't agree with you about saying it's not about what to do about these things during a period of revolutionary upheaval (i.e. a period lasting multiple generations), but what to do about it in general. As you correctly say these issues provide a revolutionary imperative and if even an attempt, however feeble, is to be made to address these things in a progressive manner would have to be done by a society organised along completely different lines to the current mode. which brings us back to the thing which you discount, i.e. the only time that these problems could ever be attempted to be dealt with progressively would be during a period of revolutionary upheaval (lasting generations) , i.e. whilst also ensuring the elimination of socio-economic inequality, the transformation of the nature of work, and the provision of a decent, comfortable, sustainable and equal life for the 9 billion people - so we can't flip this problem away by saying it would be faced by capitalism anyway so it's not specfiic to revolutionary times - it is specific to them. the nature of the problem is called into existence by revolution - now marx may have said

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.

but i think he's wrong on this one

Quote:

But if this is what you're getting at, then I don't see how saying "it'll be really hard for a communist/revolutionary society to deal with those issues" is saying anything at all. Of course it'll be fucking hard, however I don't think it's remotely fucking possible to do it without one.

Look, I share your desire and the necessity for communism, I just don't share the full on optimism that everything offered by communism could be delivered against the backdrop that will be faced by any communism - but resorting to something resembling a mid-rent hybrid of revol/the outlaw in your replies isn't going to do you much good in convincing anyone about things, it just shows a certain defensive streak when challenged on your utopianism. And by the way, re a communist society and solving problems I agree with you that I don't think it's remotely 'fucking' possible to do it without one - which is why your incorrect above to say that "the question then becomes not what to do about it during a period of revolutionary upheaval, but what to do about it in general" - i.e. the problem doesn't really exist outwith of revolution, it is called into existence by revolution

gypsy

Offline

Joined: 20-09-09

Jun 10 2010 13:41

Is there an anarchist movement in Japan now Catch? I remember reading about one that existed decades ago in an afed leaflet.

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 10 2010 14:17

@allybaba, not really to speak of. A poster on here, sphinx, was involved with homeless struggles in Osaka, along with another poster Rebel_Jill. However sphinx isn't an anarchist, not entirely sure what Rebel_Jill's politics are like. There's probably some small groups, but I can't read Japanese beyond about 5 year old level so I'm not the best person to ask sadly.

#10

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 10 2010 14:20

what's it like living out there?

#11

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 10 2010 14:30

oisleep wrote:

However I don't agree with you about saying it's not about what to do about these things during a period of revolutionary upheaval (i.e. a period lasting multiple generations), but what to do about it in general. As you correctly say these issues provide a revolutionary imperative and if even an attempt, however feeble, is to be made to address these things in a progressive manner would have to be done by a society organised along completely different lines to the current mode. which brings us back to the thing which you discount, i.e. the only time that these problems could ever be attempted to be dealt with progressively would be during a period of revolutionary upheaval (lasting generations) ,

No I don't discount that this may end up happening during a revolutionary upheaval, that's a misreading of my post. However I discount that it's possible to have a discussion about how to handle it during a revolutionary upheaval, without discussing how to handle it in general. Once we agree on some fundamental changes which would need to be made, which I outlined in my post above, but which you didn't respond to, then the question of how society might be reorganised in a way which makes those things possible can be tackled.

Quote:

i.e. whilst also ensuring the elimination of socio-economic inequality, the transformation of the nature of work, and the provision of a decent, comfortable, sustainable and equal life for the 9 billion people

I'd say these things (although elimination of socio-economic inequality sounds dangerously close to equal wages which isn't really how I see things working, 'according to need' etc.), are pretty much essential to meet ecological challenges. It's only a decent level of technological sophistication which can prevent the need to burn wood in winter, only a complete transformation of work can enable the re-purposing of many industries to provide useful stuff ecologically, prevent the massive wastage which happens now etc.

Quote:

I just don't share the full on optimism that everything offered by communism

This is what I don't get, and why my post got ranty - where have I made any offers?

(Reply to #7)

#12

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 10 2010 16:05

Quote:

No I don't discount that this may end up happening during a revolutionary upheaval, that's a misreading of my post. However I discount that it's possible to have a discussion about how to handle it during a revolutionary upheaval, without discussing how to handle it in general.

well given we both agree that the only chance we'll have to implement such an attempt will be during a revolutionary upheaval (an upheaval which would last near on 100 years at least i'd say) - having a discussion about them in abstract of the conditions they will have to be attempted within is all well and good, but pretty academic given that these things will have to be attempted under very specific conditions, and that is the probem that has to be solved, abstracting away from it isn't doing much good in convincing anyone that a revolution is the only way to deal with these problems and deliver everything that communism says on the tin etc...

Quote:

Once we agree on some fundamental changes which would need to be made, which I outlined in my post above, but which you didn't respond to, then the question of how society might be reorganised in a way which makes those things possible can be tackled.

apologies i didn't realise the things on your post was an offering of fundamental things, so more efficient housing, more durable goods, reduced packaging, everyone growing food locally, and stopping daft initiatives (because of course they'll be no daft initiatives under communism) will solve all the problems and issues i've outlined in my posts? - I agree things like this are required, but they certainly don't convince me that they will be enough to solve the problems i've raised, in the face of the conditions given, and during what would undoubedtly be a period of intense chronic instabililty lasting generations and plagued by violent attempts to undermine/overthrow said society.

Quote:

I'd say these things (although elimination of socio-economic inequality sounds dangerously close to equal wages which isn't really how I see things working, 'according to need' etc.)

socio-economic inequality exists - part of communism is to elimate that, and the (long term entrenched) effects of it. how you get by that that i mean something 'dangerously' (lol) close to 'equal wages' while I'm talking about all this in the context of a revolutionary transformation of society i've no idea.

Quote:

are pretty much essential to meet ecological challenges. It's only a decent level of technological sophistication which can prevent the need to burn wood in winter, only a complete transformation of work can enable the re-purposing of many industries to provide useful stuff ecologically, prevent the massive wastage which happens now etc.

yes to meet certain challenges some of these things are prerequisites i agree - other things however, huge tasks like the establishment of an equal and acceptable standard of living for 9 billion people is a different story - one way I could see that being attempted to be done, would be huge intensification of productivity and division of labour, centralisation, being realistic about the amount of (what in effect would entail a large element of altruistic) work required of people to achieve them etc.. and all the related social problems/ills/environmental impact that they bring, so solve one problem create another - not all of it collapses into a nice neat package where problems/aspirations become solutions etc...

Quote:

This is what I don't get, and why my post got ranty - where have I made any offers?

communism makes plenty of offers, that's what all my posts on this thread (and the most thread) have been about. If you accept those offers then you too are making those offers on its behalf

Anyway post 5 on this thread is where you had your mid-rent revol outburst, so presumably in response to something I posted in post 4 before it. I've re-read that post now and I see within it I was incredibly polite to you and apologetic in it for not giving you a proper answer, however I can't see anywhere on it where I claimed you were actually making any 'offers', nor even communism for that matter - so not quite sure what was the trigger for your wee outburst. I made the comments about what communism offers after your outburst, so not sure you can attribute something that happened after an event as a cause of said event

#13

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 10 2010 18:21

oisleep wrote:

well given we both agree that the only chance we'll have to implement such an attempt will be during a revolutionary upheaval (an upheaval which would last near on 100 years at least i'd say) - having a discussion about them in abstract of the conditions they will have to be attempted within is all well and good [snip],

I think it's important to discuss both the what as well as the how. I've not seen you actually discuss ecological issues in any depth before (or not recently), so I don't know what your views are exactly, should I just assume you agree with my more-or-less adapted bookchinism in that area? (edit, reading below it looks like generally we do agree, so maybe I should worry less about trying to lay that out).

Quote:

apologies i didn't realise the things on your post was an offering of fundamental things, so more efficient housing, more durable goods, reduced packaging, everyone growing food locally, and stopping daft initiatives (because of course they'll be no daft initiatives under communism) will solve all the problems and issues i've outlined in my posts? - I agree things like this are required, but they certainly don't convince me that they will be enough to solve the problems i've raised, in the face of the conditions given, and during what would undoubedtly be a period of intense chronic instabililty lasting generations and plagued by violent attempts to undermine/overthrow said society.

I didn't claim it was a complete list, I'm still very pushed for time (and it's almost 3am now), so I think what we need is a specific example - IMO food is the best one since it's both central and very problematic, more below.

Quote:

socio-economic inequality exists - part of communism is to elimate that, and the (long term entrenched) effects of it. how you get by that that i mean something 'dangerously' (lol) close to 'equal wages' while I'm talking about all this in the context of a revolutionary transformation of society i've no idea.

Well you regularly pull out a list of things which communism offers - and it's usually "great and equal living standards for 9 billion people". Now, I think within regions you'd see a very quick levelling of standard of living through direct expropriation, the basis of large incomes being completely undermined, the end of rent, mortgages, tube fares etc. but internationally it gets a lot more complicated - which is part of why I wanted to try to find employment data (and probably other demographics) for China and India but haven't had a chance to look yet.

However it's clear that a raise in living standards in those countries and others, if that's viable via a worldwide revolution, doesn't mean universalising current western work and consumption habits (as some development people would have it) - because we want to destroy western work and consumption habits as part of the same process. I can look at the worst excesses of capitalism in those countries, but day to day reproduction I don't have much insight into. I'd stick by my earlier posts and say that food and utilities (utilities including internet access and all that accompanies it) are both the toughest issues and more central to quality of life than consumer goods as such (although of course they come into it eventually, but I think there's more room for manoeuvre there than water, electric, food, phone network etc.).

Quote:

yes to meet certain challenges some of these things are prerequisites i agree - other things however, huge tasks like the establishment of an equal and acceptable standard of living for 9 billion people is a different story - one way I could see that being attempted to be done, would be huge intensification of productivity and division of labour, centralisation, being realistic about the amount of (what in effect would entail a large element of altruistic) work required of people to achieve them etc.. and all the related social problems/ills/environmental impact that they bring, so solve one problem create another - not all of it collapses into a nice neat package where problems/aspirations become solutions etc...

Well for an example, while I haven't googled for a study (but I bet there is one), restaurants are a far more efficient way to feed people than home cooking - both in terms of using food more effectively (thinking about all the rotten veg I've had to chuck out over the years because I never got 'round to cooking it in time), and in terms of cooking gas, heat, light, refrigeration, distribution of food to one location instead of 100 etc. However at the moment, while plenty of eating places are empty, no-one in their right mind can afford to eat out every day of the week, because from a consumer point of view it's really expensive. While 'communal kitchens' doesn't sound very sexy, organising the preparation and eating of food like that would save vast amounts of food, energy, and overall labour too. And it's not like mining - there's plenty of people capable, and likely willing, to take their turn in the kitchen.

So by centralising that (in the sense of centralising on a neighbourhood basis, and likely regional and outwards for food distribution and production, although that's a different point I won't get to in this post), you can both increase quality of life (eat out every day assuming there's a reasonable variety of food available and it tastes good) and reduce work and resources.

Same goes for district heating, car pools - other things which are very simple to implement in organisational and technical terms - just using existing resources more efficiently without serious capital investment (possibly excepting the heating), and pretty much necessary if things are hitting the fan at least in the case of eating.

More later..

(Reply to #12)

#14

no1

Offline

Joined: 3-12-07

Jun 11 2010 00:21

sometimes I have nightmares that the revolution might look a lot like this, except you can't run away from it because it's gone global : [youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBi_SvDX3XM [/youtube]

#15

no1

Offline

Joined: 3-12-07

Jun 11 2010 00:23

sometimes I have nightmares that the revolution might look a lot like this, except you can't run away from it because it's gone global : - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBi_SvDX3XM

#16

Tarwater

Offline

Joined: 29-12-08

Jun 11 2010 02:36

Why is that guy wearing a helmet, is there tinfoil in it?

Why did i watch that...?

#17

Boris Badenov

Offline

Joined: 25-08-08

Jun 11 2010 02:47

Stop trolling this srs discussion guys or catch will have to split the thread again.

Anyway, what is this thread about? The specifics of the WORLD OF TOMORROW? I hope not, because imo that's really an awful discussion topic.
My thread on Most was aimed more at generating a discussion on historical anarchist theory, and whether visions of the future (whatever they may be) have had any effect on the movement's success or failure over the years. I was saying that while Most may have believed some nebulous shit when it came to his vision of socialism, ultimately that did not prevent him from pushing an agenda of in-the-present realistic organization. This is why he was popular with anarchists on both sides of the pond. In London he organized the German diaspora, helped set up the Communist Workers Education Group (which was maintained even after he left Britain), and in New York he was similarly very involved in labour organizing. So for all his somewhat mental vision of everyone singing kumbaya after the revolution (and his support for stuntist terrorism), he was actually pretty down to earth. The conclusion: visions of the future do not matter that much, although they are perhaps quintessential to anarchism in a way, more so than in marxism, because of the former's emphasis on the freedom to experiment, on socialism as a totalizing transformation of human nature (for the better), not just a bread and butter issue. But ultimately it is the bread and butter issues that win the day, like it or not.

#18

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 11 2010 04:46

@Vlad, I think looking at macro working / resource / consumption patterns now and trying to project what could and might happen to them during a period of mass upheaval is interesting (not always useful, but it's interesting for me at least), same with ecology. There's a fine line between doing that and WORLD OF TOMORROW though I agree.

That then leads on to how arguments around self-management, industrial organisation, the mass strike etc. - those discussions tend to be played out in terms of what's happened historically (and the better ones look at historical trends rather than just examples). The distinction between localised 'direct-action-casework' groups vs. possibly international industrial organising (although the latter is generally limited to networks at least in the UK, of people who might be trying to do things in their workplaces individually. And then what happens with occupied factories (Visteon vs. the German bike factory which self-managed for a while a couple of years back). I think these discussions are important, it's not necessarily the discussion that's actually been going on though but it's where I was hoping it'd lead.

#19

RedHughs

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Jun 11 2010 08:15

The whole "could it work?" question is worth talking about...Even if one of the differentiating points of communists is avoiding blue prints and even if the imagining of future world opens one to accusations of utopianism.

Quote:

however at the same time being a 'communist is pointless if it's just about global altruism and doesn't involve wanting a better life (measured both 'materially' and qualitatively or whatever it's called) for ourselves as individuals - if i'm going to be left with the equivalent of $9k and no telly, then as someone who is already on side I would have to question whether my heart was in it to go through generations of war & upheaval to protect such a fledgling society - so not sure how those who are far from being convinced at the moment are going to be won over

It's a fine objection indeed to say that all us folks talking about a "minimal toil society" just fast forward to "after the revolution".

So what happens between now and then? Well, it's hard to be certain but the most likely thing would essentially a massive civil conflict with the challenges of leaderless organizing, the debates which end with battles of various sorts, the deaths, and so-on continual beyond our ability to full imagine such occurrences.

One might be wildly optimistic and imagine that some sort of Paris '68 or Italian Hot Autumn expand beyond all bounds quickly and overwhelm capital's usual defenses. However, I think that it would be more like a combination of mass revolt and massive financial/environmental/etc crisis. and moreover that the process wouldn't happen all at once but would involve a series of "spasms". About the only thing I'd rule out is "slow, patient organizing" - nothing slow is going to matter much in the present world of ultra-quick change.

The thing about the difficult birth pains we can imagine for this new world is that it will have to also involve the creation of the many characteristics of communist society in the process of destroying capitalist society (and all you with a different vision of the end, you'll need also need explain how your middle will get you to the end).In this case, what seems plausible is that tight and flexible affinity groups and friends will form along with a collective spirit of combining affinity groups to take large-scale actions.

If this social relation manages to succeed and end capitalist social relations, the people involved will necessarily be decisively changed in their abilities, experiences and preferences from today.

I mean, the oisleep quote above seems to imagine the choice between communism and capitalism as akin choices in a ballot initiative. There will never be such a thing. There will merely be a process where revolution begins and process where revolution expands.

A change in social relations necessarily implies a change in what people value. The average, passive proletarian today would never chose communism whatever appealing or unappealing gloss one might give it and since he or she won't be given such a choice, who care? The masses are not waiting at the factory gates to hear oisleep tell them what income level the communists are offering. A process of collective mobilization and empowerment would create the social relations that our passive proletarian isn't going to passively chose in one lump. I'm sorry if that sounds horribly authoritarian but it will have to be the "authoritarianness" of history itself since no authoritarian party is going to achieve this.

Yes, our modern citizens under capital would just live in miserable, welfare-state boredom if the state merely issued them each $9k/year. A collectively organized group where mutual enjoyment is the primary outlet could certainly live very well with resources to what $9/year provides. That is what is entailed in fundamentally new social relations - and material betterment depends strongly on the prevailing social relations.

I'm not at all sure that this kind of revolution can succeed. The simple destruction which capital rather clearly promises is quite possible. But I haven't heard any other world transformation scenarios that seem at all plausible.

#20

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 11 2010 15:42

will come back to this next week

(and red hughes, i think you took my 'comedy' post ($9k and no telly) a bit too literal - in fact I went into a lot of detail on the other thread a year or so ago when this $9k thing was raised/posited, pointing out how daft such a thing/comparison was - as for you portraying my position as akin to a ballot initiative, don't let the fact that i've referred almost in every post to a long drawn out process lasting 100's years get in your way)

#21

888

Offline

Joined: 30-09-03

Jun 11 2010 19:49

Just a quick question for now - why do you think the process would take generations? I would have thought 30 or so years would have dealt with most of the major changes. But this figure isn't based on very much except a general knowledge and extrapolation of what happened in Spain, Russia, etc.

#22

RedHughs

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Jun 11 2010 21:40

Quote:

(and red hughes, i think you took my 'comedy' post ($9k and no telly) a bit too literal - in fact I went into a lot of detail on the other thread a year or so ago when this $9k thing was raised/posited, pointing out how daft such a thing/comparison was - as for you portraying my position as akin to a ballot initiative, don't let the fact that i've referred almost in every post to a long drawn out process lasting 100's years get in your way)

Sorry, one's humor often isn't communicated on the Internet. Indeed misunderstood that part. If we agree that comparing income pre and post revolution makes no sense, then we agree on that.

On the risk of mis-interpreting you again, I'll volunteer that any scenario for the working class slowing work up overthrowing capitalism in a process "lasting 100's of years" scenario is impossible in the face of current trends operating in the capitalist world.

in no particular order!:
1) Capital's progress has involved a massive increase in the means of control and surveillance - while I don't think such advances make revolution impossible in the near future, for our "far future process", they would be an immense problem.
2) Capitalist society has so far not shown the slightest sanity in dealing with it's use of fossil fuels. A capitalism of seventy years from now would be running on deep sea bed arctic oil in on a planet utterly devastated by coal and tar sands production and use (with a few decorative wind-mills thrown in). A transition to a diet of algae and vat-meat could be imagined at that point. A world of two hundred years of capital maintaining its present trends in energy use is almost unthinkable. And that's just one of capital's many ways of destroying the planet (desertification is another important trend and simple chemical pollution shouldn't be forgotten).
3) The progress towards nanotechnology, artificial intelligent and self-reproducing machines also proceeds apace. "The Singularity" might allow capital to unleash a utopia of its own but if the Singularity follows the logic of the rest of capital's advances, the super intelligent machines will be unleashed to the detriment of humanity just previous technologies have been.
4) The economy itself seems to be in, ah, crisis. "Perhaps" we could maintain "for hundreds of years", some level of working class struggle that fended off the misery enough for meaningful survival without overthrowing capital. But to my mind this involves an absurdly unlikely balancing of explosively growing forces as well not corresponding any historical experience.
5) Modern trends in general involve exponential processes - if they're not about exponential growth, they are about exponential decay. Such trends move more quickly than one's common sense idea of where a given trend is. Thus the only trends that all going to matter in creating a future of any time span are those which feature exponential growth.
(I could go on...)

The history of class struggles since the 19th century has involved a transition from a sustained and orderly "worker's movment" in the 19th century to the intermittent, explosive upheaval in the 20th century (ie, Argentina in 2001 or the strikes in Bangladesh). I think it's quite possible that the crises capital itself is looking to unleash will change this pattern. But it's unlikely to change back to the glory of the past. The Keynesianism of the post-war era is just one example of Capital's ability to win any long-term battle with the working class by using it's control of the very conditions of living. In our present era, capital is of course revolutionizing the conditions of life at a steady and often calculated pace (from suburbs to internationally mobile labor onwards...). Battles or even victory certainly seem possible in this environment but what seems fairly impossible is holding ground. And we can quite clearly in practice the proletariat holds no ground.

-----------------------------

But (to hedge my bets on interpreting you this time), if one is arguing for a quick overthrow of capitalism and then a hundred process of "building communism", then, well, what would that hundred years process be called and what would it look like? If it was a process that involved scarcity, how could such a process conceivably abolish itself at the end of its hundred year quota? It sounds like the ravings of Maoism but maybe its something else entirely.

Moreover, it seems to me that any process that did overthrow capitalism would have to involve a proletariat organized on a world scale. Given that ability to organize, I'm sure why this same proletariat couldn't organize a transition to a world of plenty-relative-to-sane-social-relations (where the material conditions would be more akin to Armed Sheep's commune than 's twenty video games). Perhaps we'd labor for 100's to go back from the commune to the video games? I'll leave that question to a future revolutionary society but in this case the "100's of years" transition process might happen but isn't terribly relevant to us.

--------------------

And yes, I expect the usual "that's like a science movie, utterly unlikely" response. But, uh, this whole thread theoretically involves some realism concerning what a revolution in the present day would look like. Are you really going to say the multiple exponential trends operating in the modern world can be dismissed? For example, any argument that compares "the last two hundred years" to the "next two hundred years" is absurd when the last two hundred years of capital involved working to a rate-of-change which makes another two hundred years of the same trends impossible.

Also, I don't think that this view dismisses Marx's analysis - after all the nature of capital is the revolutionizing of the entirety of the means of production. It the bourgeois viewpoint that life itself remains the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow but with a few technological just tossed in. The reality is that the revolutionizing of the means of production proceeds apace on every imaginable level. We revolutionaries must take this into account (A Marxian analysis implies more than this statement of course but, hey, this is just one post).

#23

RedHughs

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Jun 12 2010 23:08

No further replies to my previous post? Well, it's only been day, still I'm antsy and this seems like a fairly critical question - the "during the revolution" question obvious precedes the "after the revolution" question.

But scanning the initial post I just noticed a further claim:

oisleep wrote:

things like this never get addressed by utopians beyond dreamy like statements that the workers in each industry will just know, or that this information will be magically transmitted by osmosis or something - the fact is in a modern society something like the mechanism & mechanics of the market would be required - albeit stripped of its ideological defaults

I've written on this here before in a fashion that I don't believe is at all "dreamy". Indeed I think the linked post completely destroys the "market is the most efficient model for distributing goods" ideology. But even if this post doesn't destroy the position, I don't believe it qualifies as dreamy and it received not reply.

#24

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 17 2010 10:36

Quote:

I think it's important to discuss both the what as well as the how. I've not seen you actually discuss ecological issues in any depth before (or not recently), so I don't know what your views are exactly, should I just assume you agree with my more-or-less adapted bookchinism in that area? (edit, reading below it looks like generally we do agree, so maybe I should worry less about trying to lay that out).

i'm not sure what more-or-less adapted bookchinism is - but happy that we seem to agree on something (not sure what though!)

Quote:

I didn't claim it was a complete list, I'm still very pushed for time (and it's almost 3am now),

yep, didn't really mean to suggest that's what I thought, but just a case that these were things that there is little argument or dispute about requiring. you seemed a bit upset that i hadn't responded to you on them, but what is there to respond to, other than saying yes i agree these things would be necessary as part of a complete package. however it's a bit like saying ok some workable and sustainable communism is required, that is something we'd all agree on but it doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of whether these things are achievable or how they would be achievable under the very specific set of conditions they would be required to be done under (and yes I agree that some of them are effectively a product/solution for those very conditions, but that doesn't mean that those conditions won't get in the way of their realisation). i've kind of lost the thread of this particular exchange anyway so lets agree to agree that stuff is needed.

Quote:

so I think what we need is a specific example - IMO food is the best one since it's both central and very problematic, more below

yes i agree

Quote:

Well you regularly pull out a list of things which communism offers - and it's usually "great and equal living standards for 9 billion people".
Now, I think within regions you'd see a very quick levelling of standard of living through direct expropriation, the basis of large incomes being completely undermined, the end of rent, mortgages, tube fares etc. but internationally it gets a lot more complicated - which is part of why I wanted to try to find employment data (and probably other demographics) for China and India but haven't had a chance to look yet.

Yes, i don't doubt the relative ease of at least starting to get rid of entrenched inequality within a particular region (although the long term entrenched effects of generations of inequality will not disappear as quickly) - although in a way this expectation of a quick levelling of standard of living does seem to rely in part on the assumption that the resources/use values are already in a sufficient abundance within a particular region (i.e. more or less self sufficient), and all that is required is a redsitribution/expropriation within a region. But for this to work this seems to rely on the continued vast inequality between regions, which is the very point I keep on making about how living standards will be delivered at an acceptable level for everyone on the planet. the continued existence of inequality either within or between regions would not be tolerated under such a system (or at least if it would it effectively wouldn't be the system everyone is striving for), but again a significant 'reduction' in standards of living from those already accustomed to 'western' standards of living would, in my opinion, not be tolerated either. I'm not that interested in a discussion about how 'we' want to end consumerism and the pointlessness of lots of things that form part of a 'western' standard of living, but my point is that ultimately the people in any region will decide what they want and if they decide that they don't want to give up on what they see as integral to their lives, then all bets are off and its a failed project. I've no doubt that each region's standard of living could be equalised, but I still think a huge tension would exist between regions which if it wasn't resolved would mean the project isn't doing what it's saying on the tin, yet if it is resolved there is a big chance that a billion odd people will react against it. on the other hand maybe everything will be alright.

Quote:

However it's clear that a raise in living standards in those countries and others, if that's viable via a worldwide revolution, doesn't mean universalising current western work and consumption habits (as some development people would have it) - because we want to destroy western work and consumption habits as part of the same process. I can look at the worst excesses of capitalism in those countries, but day to day reproduction I don't have much insight into. I'd stick by my earlier posts and say that food and utilities (utilities including internet access and all that accompanies it) are both the toughest issues and more central to quality of life than consumer goods as such (although of course they come into it eventually, but I think there's more room for manoeuvre there than water, electric, food, phone network etc.).

I wrote my above point before reading this, but I think I kind of addressed this above anyway. I agree the answer isn't to necessarily univeralise western consumption habbits (although in large part, why not? captialism, like it or loath it, has delivered some pretty good stuff) - but again it's not 'we' who have much say in this, if a billion odd people see those consumption habbits as part of something they have fought for over generations to have and want to uphold them, then as i said, all bets are off and your systems fucked before it's even started

Quote:

Well for an example, while I haven't googled for a study (but I bet there is one), restaurants are a far more efficient way to feed people than home cooking - both in terms of using food more effectively (thinking about all the rotten veg I've had to chuck out over the years because I never got 'round to cooking it in time), and in terms of cooking gas, heat, light, refrigeration, distribution of food to one location instead of 100 etc. However at the moment, while plenty of eating places are empty, no-one in their right mind can afford to eat out every day of the week, because from a consumer point of view it's really expensive. While 'communal kitchens' doesn't sound very sexy, organising the preparation and eating of food like that would save vast amounts of food, energy, and overall labour too. And it's not like mining - there's plenty of people capable, and likely willing, to take their turn in the kitchen
So by centralising that (in the sense of centralising on a neighbourhood basis, and likely regional and outwards for food distribution and production, although that's a different point I won't get to in this post), you can both increase quality of life (eat out every day assuming there's a reasonable variety of food available and it tastes good) and reduce work and resources.

I agree - I would also say however why stop there. If we agree a centralisation of food preparation and consumption on say a street level is more efficient than every home on the street doing it themselves, we can also keep going to say a centralisation at a ward level is more efficient than on a street level, borough is more efficient than ward etc.. etc... And I agree with this. Given the scarcity of resources involved in the process (food and energy) a more efficient usage would have to involve centralisation and economy of scale, to reduce wastage, increase efficiency, make scarce resource go further etc.. I also agree it's not sexy and sitting in giant hanger with say ten thousand people having your tea might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I guess this is an example of a type/standard of living that those in the west will have to adjust to in such a world. One thing I have a problem with however is that where at present under capitalism we seem to have an increasing tendency to centralise production of good and decentralise its consumption, your view seem to be that we need a de-centralisation of production, and a centralisation of consumption. Now i disagree with the decentralisation of production (in general) purely on the grounds that you yourself have posited above, i.e efficiency and making scare resources go further requires centralisation - so in my mind if communism is going to deliver (both in terms of equality and reducing the amount of necessary work) in the face of the problems it would find itself in, then there is not much option but to continue to increase productivity, through continued division of labour, centralisation, economies of scale etc... both in relation to production and consumption - and as i mentioned in a previous post, while all these things solve certain problems, they are not without their own. (I was going to go into a big speel about centralisation, decentralisation and transport, but probably best save that for another time)

Quote:

Same goes for district heating, car pools - other things which are very simple to implement in organisational and technical terms - just using existing resources more efficiently without serious capital investment (possibly excepting the heating), and pretty much necessary if things are hitting the fan at least in the case of eating.

yep agree (my gf's mum lives on a huge estate in vilnius, one of the biggest schemes in europe, and they have centralised district heating - all the water gets heated centrally (up until last year by nucluer power) and then pumped out to the tower blocks, it's a soviet era legacy and although the infrastructure is decripid as fuck and crumbling it's a good concept )

#25

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 17 2010 11:00

RedHughs wrote:

No further replies to my previous post? Well, it's only been day

i'm not a 24/7 support hotline - which part of 'will come back to this next week' did you not understand!

next week still hasn't finished yet so be patient

(Reply to #23)

#26

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 17 2010 11:06

888 wrote:

Just a quick question for now - why do you think the process would take generations? I would have thought 30 or so years would have dealt with most of the major changes. But this figure isn't based on very much except a general knowledge and extrapolation of what happened in Spain, Russia, etc.

I don't feel that the experiences of Spain or Russia are of much use in terms of benchmarks as, a) they were abysmal failures, b) they were isolated incidents not global transformations and c) the conditions faced now globally are much different to what was faced (or known) then

I'd prefer to base my finger in the air estimates on the last time social relations and society actually underwent a global transformation in its mode of organisation, i.e. capitalism, a revolution that avoided (a) and (b) above and took hundreds of years to properly implement itself. Obviously can't really compare like with like but it gives an idea of the scale of the challenge, and therefore the time lines invovled

(Reply to #21)

#27

Mike Harman

Offline

Joined: 7-02-06

Jun 17 2010 13:53

oisleep wrote:

i'm not sure what more-or-less adapted bookchinism is - but happy that we seem to agree on something (not sure what though!)

He was very into district heating, localised production etc. back in the '60s, anti-primmo ecology.

Quote:

it doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of whether these things are achievable or how they would be achievable under the very specific set of conditions they would be required to be done under (and yes I agree that some of them are effectively a product/solution for those very conditions, but that doesn't mean that those conditions won't get in the way of their realisation).

Well there's obviously a chance that some terrible disaster happens. If it does then we're likely fucked, but my point was indeed that in the case of many things, the means and the end are the same thing in terms of improved quality of life (as distinct from standard of living), including ecological impact, overall work required to produce it etc. etc

Quote:

Yes, i don't doubt the relative ease of at least starting to get rid of entrenched inequality within a particular region (although the long term entrenched effects of generations of inequality will not disappear as quickly) - although in a way this expectation of a quick levelling of standard of living does seem to rely in part on the assumption that the resources/use values are already in a sufficient abundance within a particular region (i.e. more or less self sufficient), and all that is required is a redsitribution/expropriation within a region.

Some specifics would get very scarce very quickly - say strawberries in winter in the UK - that's only possible due to completely irrational economics. I would expect that most continents are likely more or less self sufficient for the basics though - or could be in a reasonably short space of time (i.e. quickly turning attention away from cash crops to food).

Quote:

my point is that ultimately the people in any region will decide what they want and if they decide that they don't want to give up on what they see as integral to their lives, then all bets are off and its a failed project. I've no doubt that each region's standard of living could be equalised, but I still think a huge tension would exist between regions

Well once again it's not a project that people all sign up for and quit if they don't like, it's a major crisis accompanied by a whole range of sweeping changes. Scenarios like major upheavals starting in China, India, Vietnam - which then pretty much puts an end to them as centres for production, which results in shortages in the West etc., those are interesting but once again I think it's food, housing and utilities which are biggest issues - and they happen to be some of the worst issues in those places, and are solvable with very generic and easy to reproduce technology and materials in many cases (but currently aren't because it's not profitable). In terms of Western consumption habits, again I'd say the 'forced' consumption of daily commutes, supermarket sandwiches etc. can be reduced massively without anyone remotely thinking their quality of life got reduced ("Oh fuck I'm really going to miss than 2 hour drive down the A12", er no). Which then allows those resources to be used for more interesting things - like do you really need a computer at work /and/ one at home (or more than that in some cases) - how does that improve your standard of living? What amount of resources are consumed like this I don't know though.

Quote:

I agree - I would also say however why stop there. If we agree a centralisation of food preparation and consumption on say a street level is more efficient than every home on the street doing it themselves, we can also keep going to say a centralisation at a ward level is more efficient than on a street level, borough is more efficient than ward etc.. etc... And I agree with this. Given the scarcity of resources involved in the process (food and energy) a more efficient usage would have to involve centralisation and economy of scale, to reduce wastage, increase efficiency, make scarce resource go further etc.. I also agree it's not sexy and sitting in giant hanger with say ten thousand people having your tea might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I guess this is an example of a type/standard of living that those in the west will have to adjust to in such a world.

Once you get to that scale, then you have people travelling across town, which takes resources, there are ways to have economies of scale without afternoon tea in a hangar.

Quote:

. Now i disagree with the decentralisation of production (in general) purely on the grounds that you yourself have posited above, i.e efficiency and making scare resources go further requires centralisation

Yes and no. Large centralised manufacturing is only maintainable if you can keep pushing out the same crap year after year, ideally 24 hours/day. Some things are nice to produce on a small scale - food is one for many different reasons, building materials it might well be more energy efficient to do somewhat locally, and while it's a bit hippy, I think you'd see an increase in crafts (whether that's custom PC building or knitting hats).

Quote:

- so in my mind if communism is going to deliver (both in terms of equality and reducing the amount of necessary work) in the face of the problems it would find itself in, then there is not much option but to continue to increase productivity, through continued division of labour, centralisation, economies of scale etc...

For very unpleasant work yes - if you can mechanise it that's great. But things which people already do because they enjoy, I think can be done in 'less efficient' ways, but simply wouldn't be counted as work - i.e. I don't think there's any need for centralised software production, all the best software is written by people sitting and hacking at home (using centralised servers and hardware to collaborate though).

(Reply to #24)

#28

RedHughs

Offline

Joined: 25-11-06

Jun 17 2010 20:01

I like the way Mike outlines the various options available.

I'd add that one could have very large-scale, very automated systems for producing general purpose tools, machinery and parts. Then have much smaller scale production processes for creating finished good in a fashion that was pleasant and socially engaging. Each person could make their own bike using carbon fiber tubes produced on a large scale, etc.

Mike wrote:

my point was indeed that in the case of many things, the means and the end are the same thing in terms of improved quality of life (as distinct from standard of living), including ecological impact, overall work required to produce it etc. etc

Excellent point.

I would even say that once one reaches the point in social processes where the means and the ends coincide then you've gotten to a new system of prevailing social relations. While I tend to expect communism to quickly go to something like a ten-hour "work" week, circumstances make it so there is instead a twelve hour "work" day where activity is organized communistically, then you have a good portion of the new social relations.

And in general, If communism is a different kind of social relations, one would expect that it involves a different system of needs than capitalism. It's not a matter of the same needs being satisfied differently. Capitalism conceptualizes and satisfies needs in terms of distinct commodities. Communism would satisfy through the overall existence of a human community: we could satisfy need for food, for socializing, and for exercise by communal gardening. Obviously, not everything could work with perfect tidiness but that's the breaks.

#29

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 18 2010 14:57

RedHughs wrote:

The whole "could it work?" question is worth talking about...Even if one of the differentiating points of communists is avoiding blue prints and even if the imagining of future world opens one to accusations of utopianism.

I think sometime the whole 'avoiding blueprints' is used to avoid actually confronting the reality/actuality of the situation faced and to hide behind utopionsim (not necessarily anyone on this thread that is doing that but the left in general has a tendency to do it)

Quote:

It's a fine objection indeed to say that all us folks talking about a "minimal toil society" just fast forward to "after the revolution".
So what happens between now and then? Well, it's hard to be certain but the most likely thing would essentially a massive civil conflict with the challenges of leaderless organizing, the debates which end with battles of various sorts, the deaths, and so-on continual beyond our ability to full imagine such occurrences.

I agree about the massive civil/inter/intra regional conflict - raging potentially for generations and sucking up resources all over the shop. Not sure why this would involve leaderless organising though, leaders/hierarchies in war, or peace, are not in themself an evil. But I agree it is probably beyond our ability to conceptualise/imagine what that phase would bring in terms of scary stuff, other than it would be scary, very scary

Quote:

One might be wildly optimistic and imagine that some sort of Paris '68 or Italian Hot Autumn expand beyond all bounds quickly and overwhelm capital's usual defenses. However, I think that it would be more like a combination of mass revolt and massive financial/environmental/etc crisis. and moreover that the process wouldn't happen all at once but would involve a series of "spasms". About the only thing I'd rule out is "slow, patient organizing" - nothing slow is going to matter much in the present world of ultra-quick change.

without 'slow, patient organizing' there will never be the foundation for there to be a 'during' or 'after' the 'revolution' - so it will still have a place to play, and given the likely long drawn out nature of any process (both the dealing with attempts to overthrow it, and the actual implementing of it) without the sense of direction/purpose that something like slow patient organizing gives then I wouldn't hold out much hope for the final product so to speak - rome not in a day etc...

Quote:

The thing about the difficult birth pains we can imagine for this new world is that it will have to also involve the creation of the many characteristics of communist society in the process of destroying capitalist society (and all you with a different vision of the end, you'll need also need explain how your middle will get you to the end).In this case, what seems plausible is that tight and flexible affinity groups and friends will form along with a collective spirit of combining affinity groups to take large-scale actions.

indeed, as to whether those large scale actions would be progressive or otherwise, who knows.

Quote:

If this social relation manages to succeed and end capitalist social relations, the people involved will necessarily be decisively changed in their abilities, experiences and preferences from today.

true, however given the state of things today in the here and now, people abilities, experiences and especially preferences would have to change as a prerequisite for any kind of change in social relations, so this will be just as much a cause than a consequence (leaving 'slow, patient, organizing as a key thing for effecting that change in the first place)

Quote:

I mean, the oisleep quote above seems to imagine the choice between communism and capitalism as akin choices in a ballot initiative. There will never be such a thing. There will merely be a process where revolution begins and process where revolution expands.
A change in social relations necessarily implies a change in what people value. The average, passive proletarian today would never chose communism whatever appealing or unappealing gloss one might give it and since he or she won't be given such a choice, who care? The masses are not waiting at the factory gates to hear oisleep tell them what income level the communists are offering. A process of collective mobilization and empowerment would create the social relations that our passive proletarian isn't going to passively chose in one lump. I'm sorry if that sounds horribly authoritarian but it will have to be the "authoritarianness" of history itself since no authoritarian party is going to achieve this.

Yes, our modern citizens under capital would just live in miserable, welfare-state boredom if the state merely issued them each $9k/year. A collectively organized group where mutual enjoyment is the primary outlet could certainly live very well with resources to what $9/year provides. That is what is entailed in fundamentally new social relations - and material betterment depends strongly on the prevailing social relations.

see previous post (although i do kind of agree with you about the authoratarian bit)

Quote:

I'm not at all sure that this kind of revolution can succeed. The simple destruction which capital rather clearly promises is quite possible. But I haven't heard any other world transformation scenarios that seem at all plausible.

As i said to mike at the beginning of the thread, i share the same desire and necessity for something like this, i just don't share the same optimism/faith that others invest in it. capital will definately destruct at some point, but probably not under the self-selected circumstances of the working class's choosing. in my opinion (and based on the near/medium term outlook) what follows it is likely to be more a more regressive mode of organising society than previously. i hope i'm wrong though.

#30

oisleep

Offline

Joined: 20-04-05

Jun 18 2010 15:09

RedHughs wrote:

No further replies to my previous post? Well, it's only been day, still I'm antsy and this seems like a fairly critical question - the "during the revolution" question obvious precedes the "after the revolution" question.
But scanning the initial post I just noticed a further claim:

oisleep wrote:

things like this never get addressed by utopians beyond dreamy like statements that the workers in each industry will just know, or that this information will be magically transmitted by osmosis or something - the fact is in a modern society something like the mechanism & mechanics of the market would be required - albeit stripped of its ideological defaults

I've written on this here before in a fashion that I don't believe is at all "dreamy". Indeed I think the linked post completely destroys the "market is the most efficient model for distributing goods" ideology. But even if this post doesn't destroy the position, I don't believe it qualifies as dreamy and it received not reply.

perhaps this is a topic for another thread - it's a big topic in itself

over the years i've often raised the possibility that certain mechanisms currently used by the market could and most likely would play a useful role in information signalling in a different kind of society - just like we're not going to chuck out all advances in technology, productivity & efficiency that have been brought about by (or under) capitalism (which isn't to say that these things aren't completely neutral, but the baby doesn't need to be thrown out with the bathwater etc..), the same principal should apply here as well in terms of what can be used.

Any time i've raised it however I usually get the usual lefty howling saying oh no! yet they are all strangely silent (or hopelessly optimistic/utopian) on how things like information signalling, 'consumer' requirements/needs/wants etc.. will be transmitted, agregegated, sourced,synthesised etc... - instead we get the usual 'the workers' will decide or just somehow know exactly what is required.

not got time to read the post you linked to or respond on it at the moment though (so apologies if it addresses anything i've moaned about above)

(Reply to #23)

#31

Rob Ray

Offline

Joined: 6-11-03

Jun 18 2010 15:16

Quote:

in my opinion (and based on the near/medium term outlook) what follows it is likely to be more a more regressive mode of organising society than previously. i hope i'm wrong though.

I'd probably agree with this as an assessment of the likely outcome of capitalism's self-destruction. The question in my mind would be how to effectively construct the strongest possible base structures to ride out and soften the comedown and afterwards to be in a position to push the rebuilding of society in a positive direction.

That I think closely ties in with the need to fight for greater working class power and autonomy today from a libertarian perspective - pushing for a revolutionary outlook not because we think it'll lead to revolution/social evolution/utopia but because it's the best hope we have of building some sort of safety net for when things go completely fubar.

During the revolution

Featured

Featured threads

Posting guidelines

Log in for more features

blog

news

library

history

libcom.org